Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(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 Magazine
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.” -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Alternatives and Hazards Debated
Sep 30, 2015 | Worcester Business Journal Online
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. -
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". -
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. -
Childhood Cancer: More Evidence Points To Chemical Exposure
Sep 30, 2015 | Environmental 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. -
NYC Plans to Measure Nail Salon Air Quality
Sep 30, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
New York City is introducing a program to monitor the air in nail salons for unsafe chemicals. -
Broad Safety Problems Found at Texas DuPont Plant Where 4 Workers Died
Sep 30, 2015 | The 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. -
Groups Claim EPA Settlement Falls Short Of Vital Action On Facility Safety
Sep 30, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dave Reynolds
Groups pressing for stricter EPA facility safety regulations are criticizing a recent settlement resolving an agency investigation into a fatal 2008 explosion at a pesticide facility, arguing the agreement's provisions are inadequate to prevent future disasters, even if they were included in a revised facility safety rule. -
Enviro Leader Floats Crude Exports Deal
Sep 30, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Daniel Bush
The chief of a top environmental group floated a compromise deal today that would lift the ban on crude oil exports in exchange for conservation measures and support for renewable energy production. -
Senate Clears Spending Bill, Sets Up House Action
Sep 30, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Manuel Quiñones
The Senate approved legislation this morning to keep the federal government funded through Dec. 11, just hours before a potential shutdown. -
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. -
Future of Energy Overhaul Grim as Lawmakers Go Partisan
Sep 30, 2015 | PoliticoPro (Morning Energy)
By Eric Wolff
House lawmakers pulled the plug Tuesday on reaching broad bipartisan agreement on a four-part energy strategy, likely dooming any long-shot chance as well that this Congress will produce the first major update in energy law in at least eight years. -
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. -
New Rule on Oil Refinery Monitoring a Long Time Coming
Sep 30, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
For environmentalists and community groups, the Obama administration's new refinery rule is the culmination of a movement that began more than 15 years ago. -
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. -
NAM Leader Bashes Mayors for Supporting Lower Ozone Limit
Sep 30, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
The head of the nation's manufacturing trade group this week chided 70 mayors who last week signed onto a letter supporting a tighter ozone standard. -
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. -
New Rules Boost Agency's Environmental Justice Efforts
Sep 30, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Tiffany Stecker
It's been a big week for environmental justice at U.S. EPA. -
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. -
California District Aims To Build Support For Plan To Overhaul Clean Air Act
Sep 30, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Curt Barry
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. -
States Face Federal ESPS Plan If They Miss 2016 Deadline, McCabe Warns
Sep 30, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Doug Obey
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. -
Utilities Turn Up the Heat on Missouri AG over EPA Rule
Sep 30, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
Utilities are pressuring Attorney General and Missouri gubernatorial candidate Chris Koster to join the legal fight against U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. -
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. -
N.D. Governor Discusses Two-Track Approach on Power Plan, Shale Oil's Prospects Amid Price Shift
Sep 30, 2015 | E&E - TV
With a 45 percent emissions rate reduction in the final Clean Power Plan, what are North Dakota's plans for complying as it manages a power sector that runs primarily on coal? -
Kerry, World Leaders Raise Expectations in NYC for Ambitious Climate Deal
Sep 30, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Lisa Friedman
Stars are aligning. Waves are converging. Landing zones are in sight. -
'Mr. Clean Water Act' Faces His Biggest Challenge
Sep 30, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jeremy P. Jacobs and Annie Snider
Veteran Justice Department attorney Steve Samuels' license plate made him a celebrity among environmentalists everywhere he drove. -
PHMSA to Provide $5.9 Million for Rail Incident Response Training
Sep 30, 2015 | Progressive Railroading
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) yesterday announced three grants totaling $5.9 million to provide hazmat training for volunteer or remote emergency workers responding to rail incidents. -
U.S. House Introduces Legislation to Extend Rail Safety Deadline
Sep 30, 2015 | Reuters
By David Morgan
U.S. lawmakers, under mounting pressure from the railroad industry, announced bipartisan legislation on Wednesday to extend a Dec. 31 deadline for costly new safety technology for at least another three years. -
Railroads May Get More Time to Install New Remote Braking Systems
Sep 30, 2015 | Tribune Live
By Melissa Daniels
Railroads across the country sounded the alarms throughout September. -
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. -
Bill Would Extend Installation Deadline for Safety System
Sep 30, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Freight and commuter railroads would get another three years to implement the automated safety system known as positive train control under a bipartisan bill introduced today by leaders of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
-
(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.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Ocean Conservancy Releases Report on Plastic Waste in the World’s Oceans
Sep 30, 2015 | Renewable Energy Magazine
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.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Alternatives and Hazards Debated
Sep 30, 2015 | Worcester Business Journal Online
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."
-
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".
-
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.
-
Childhood Cancer: More Evidence Points To Chemical Exposure
Sep 30, 2015 | Environmental 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.
-
NYC Plans to Measure Nail Salon Air Quality
Sep 30, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
New York City is introducing a program to monitor the air in nail salons for unsafe chemicals.
Backed by the Clinton Global Initiative, the program will put 50 lamps with air quality sensors next year in about 35 nail salons across the city.
Research has shown that the chemicals used in many nail products can cause serious health issues, including miscarriages, cancers and breathing problems (Greenwire, May 8).
"They're going to use this prototype as a way to determine what nail salon they should patronize," New York City Public Advocate Letitia James said of the data that will be available to customers from the program. "It's really an environmental justice issue because the vast majority of the workers are immigrants, and oftentimes they're not empowered and not given the proper information."
"It will really allow users to have the information to make health choices about where they choose to get their nails done, and where to push for better air quality and ventilation systems," said Brandon Zaharoff of Pegasus Capital Advisors, which is investing about $23,000 in the pilot program.
Scientists question how effective the program will really be, however, noting that regulations should ban the toxic chemicals altogether, not just gauge them.
"If something is a toxic chemical, you don't need to measure it -- you need to get rid of it," said Cora Roelofs, an assistant professor of public health and community medicine at Tufts University, who published a study in 2011 about chemical exposure in salons. "I wouldn't put effort in what are likely to be unreliable snapshots of the chemicals you pick. And then what are you going to compare it to?" (Benjamin Mueller, New York Times, Sept. 29). -- BTP
-
Broad Safety Problems Found at Texas DuPont Plant Where 4 Workers Died
Sep 30, 2015 | The 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.
The board, which investigates industrial accidents, had previously reported that flawed pipe systems contributed to the release of nearly 24,000 pounds of methyl mercaptan, an ingredient in insecticides. The deadly gas filled a poorly ventilated DuPont building in La Porte, Texas, last November; two workers died immediately while a pair of brothers who went to help were found dead next to each other.
But the new report lays out widespread problems with DuPont's safety approach at the plant. The board will review the draft report and vote on whether to accept its findings and recommendations at a public meeting Wednesday evening in Houston.
"DuPont has long been regarded as a safety leader in the chemical industry, but this investigation has uncovered weaknesses or failures in DuPont's safety planning and procedures," said Vanessa Allen Sutherland, chairwoman of the board.
The company said it is working to address the board's recommendations but "respectfully disagrees" with some aspects of its findings. DuPont wouldn't provide details, citing continuing discussions with the agency.
"We value the CSB's perspective, and we are taking their recommendations seriously," said James O'Connor, manager of the La Porte plant, adding that it will remain shut down "until DuPont has executed a comprehensive and integrated plan to safely resume operations."
Investigators said much of the manufacturing work didn't have to be done in an enclosed space, which made conditions more dangerous for workers. Ventilation fans weren't working, though the size of the chemical release would probably have been overwhelming in any case, the report said.
In addition, the report faulted the plant's detection system for the gas, saying that the system "does not effectively warn workers or protect the public from highly toxic chemical exposure."
This is the CSB's third investigation of fatal accidents at DuPont plants in the past five years. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has also cited DuPont for several violations and proposed fines totaling $372,000. It has placed the company in a "severe violator enforcement program."
-
Groups Claim EPA Settlement Falls Short Of Vital Action On Facility Safety
Sep 30, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dave Reynolds
Groups pressing for stricter EPA facility safety regulations are criticizing a recent settlement resolving an agency investigation into a fatal 2008 explosion at a pesticide facility, arguing the agreement's provisions are inadequate to prevent future disasters, even if they were included in a revised facility safety rule.
EPA Sept. 21 announced a settlement in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, resolving alleged Risk Management Plan (RMP) violations at Bayer CropScience's facility in Institute, WV, preceding an Aug. 28, 2008, explosion that killed two workers and released highly hazardous substances in the atmosphere.
The consent decree, which is open for public comment for 30 days, requires that Bayer revise standard operating procedures, improve worker training and take precautions, including process analysis and emergency response drills.
Sources differ on whether the Region 3 enforcement action may preview EPA's planned overhaul of its RMP accident prevention program, though a source with the Center for Effective Government (CEG) says the consent decree's requirements fall short of what is needed to ensure facilities are safe.
"This would be a first step, but it's certainly not sufficient in terms of preventative approaches for reducing the risk of accidents from these facilities," the source says. "It doesn't replace the need for requiring that facilities examine their processes to assess whether there are safer chemicals that could be used," and then requiring use of those alternatives.
CEG is part of a coalition of environmental, labor and public interest groups that in 2012 petitioned EPA to use authority under section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act to require facilities to use inherently safer technologies (IST), usually alternative chemicals or process changes advocates say reduce the likelihood or consequences of a disaster.
EPA officials have said they are weighing IST as part of planned revisions to its RMP rule in response to President Obama's Aug. 1, 2013, executive order on strengthening the safety and security of industrial plants. The order issued in the wake of a fatal explosion at a fertilizer facility in West, TX, calls for improving communication and coordination, and modernizing policies, rules and standards.
Last year, EPA took comment on a July 2014 request for information (RFI) on strengthening the RMP program. The RFI suggests potentially sweeping changes to the rule, ranging from covering new chemicals and requiring new process safety analysis or review of past near-accidents, to scrapping the program in favor of a new approach.
RMP Revisions
Although EPA in the Unified Agenda announced it would propose RMP revisions by September, observers say the agency appears unlikely to make its deadline, with one source saying EPA will not finalize a rule before Obama leaves.
Advocates have long been pressing EPA to speed its overhaul of RMP to ensure any changes are final before President Obama leaves office and not derailed by a future administration. In recent weeks, the Public Interest Research Group has enlisted help from dozens of local officials in calling for EPA to quickly require IST in a final rule.
A source with the group says more than 60 local officials, including mayors, county officials, school board members and fire chiefs have sent letters urging EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy to require facilities use IST where feasible.
One of those, San Francisco Board of Supervisors member John Avalos, in a Sept. 10 letter, says local officials are working to protect communities and need federal help. "To prevent more unnecessary incidents and make these chemical plants less attractive terrorist targets, we need a strong EPA rule requiring facilities to use the safest cost-effective chemicals and technology," the letter says.
As advocates reiterate calls for IST, Region 3 is taking comment on the Sept. 21 settlement with Bayer, which the CEG source could provide insight into EPA's proposed RMP update. RMP currently requires facilities to report holdings of threshold levels of certain chemicals and to reduce the risk of their accidental release.
In a complaint, issued along with the Sept. 21 consent decree, EPA alleges RMP violations, including that Bayer failed to properly train employees, develop adequate procedures, ensure the mechanical integrity of systems, or adequately prepare for an emergency.
The explosion at Bayer's Institute facility resulted from a runaway chemical reaction in a waste tank containing the pesticide methomyl. In the complaint, Region 3 alleges Bayer employees failed to take certain samples and didn't review results from other testing that could have indicated higher than normal chemical concentrations.
The Chemical Safety Board (CSB) in a Jan. 20, 2011, report, says the disaster could have been far worse had debris from the explosion pierced an above ground storage tank, containing 13,000 pounds of methyl isocyanate (MIC), a chemical that killed 5,000 people in 1984 following an industrial facility leak in Bhopal India.
Advocates often cite the Bhopal disaster in their calls for IST. Bayer has since phased out use of MIC.
Proposed Settlement
Under the $5.6 million settlement, Bayer will spend more than $4 million on improving emergency preparedness in and around the facility and pay a $975,000 fine. The company does not admit liability for the incident.
The consent decree imposes safety and reporting requirements including ensuring consistent operating procedures at Bayer facilities, conducting process hazard analysis and emergency response exercises at the Institute facility, and maintaining industry certifications for activities at the facility.
The CEG source and an industry source say the consent decree's requirements for conducting emergency response exercises and for improved self-assessments could appear in a future regulatory proposal, but other sources disagree.
A former CSB official says EPA enforcement and rulemaking processes follow different tracks, and that the consent decrees impose requirements tailored to the facility that is the subject of the enforcement action.
"People who pursue a consent decree are often regional administrators and the Department of Justice," the former CSB source says. "It doesn't tell us what is going to happen" with the headquarters' rule.
The CEG source argues that while the consent decree's requirements for revising standard operating procedures, and improving training and emergency preparedness may well appear in a final rule, they are not sufficient.
The industry source says aspects of the consent decree, such as its focus on updating and documenting procedures, and maintaining certifications are likely site specific. But other requirements, like for enhanced self-assessments and emergency preparedness drills could appear in EPA's RMP proposal.
But while advocates are urging EPA to move promptly toward a final rule, the industry source says EPA is likely months away from even proposing the revisions for public comment.
Although EPA recently started preliminary conversations with business representatives that will advise a planned Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) of an RMP update, the source says, the review takes two months and is unlikely to begin until mid-October.
After that, EPA will have to revise its proposal and submit it to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review, which usually takes 90 days, though possibly fewer in some circumstances. Although one industry official has told Inside EPA the agency could conduct the SBAR after proposing the revisions, this industry source says that would violate the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
"They're not going to get this thing finalized in this administration," the source says. "It's too late for that."
-
Enviro Leader Floats Crude Exports Deal
Sep 30, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Daniel Bush
The chief of a top environmental group floated a compromise deal today that would lift the ban on crude oil exports in exchange for conservation measures and support for renewable energy production.
National Wildlife Federation CEO and President Collin O'Mara said his group would be more open to a House bill that would end the decades-old ban if lawmakers attached a wish list of environmental priorities, including language reauthorizing the Land and Water Conservation Fund and a provision extending renewable energy tax credits.
"With momentum appearing to build on both sides of the aisle for repealing export restrictions, Congress should insist that it be coupled with conservation measures to mitigate the impact of expanded oil development on wildlife and natural resources," O'Mara wrote in an op-ed published in The Wall Street Journal yesterday.
Specifically, O'Mara called for more funding to restore wildlife habitat, arguing it would give industry "greater regulatory certainty by reducing future listings under the Endangered Species Act."
House and Senate lawmakers should also reauthorize the LWCF, a program created in 1965 that is set to expire today if Congress doesn't act, O'Mara said.
O'Mara also waded into the debate over renewable energy tax credits, saying that extending incentives for clean energy would help lower carbon emissions.
"While [NWF] has deep concerns about lifting the ban on oil exports, the conservation measures outlined here would help secure the future of America's wildlife and our outdoor heritage," O'Mara wrote.
His op-ed comes as House lawmakers are set to move forward on a stand-alone bill that would lift the crude export ban.
-
Senate Clears Spending Bill, Sets Up House Action
Sep 30, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Manuel Quiñones
The Senate approved legislation this morning to keep the federal government funded through Dec. 11, just hours before a potential shutdown.
The Senate voted 78-20 in favor of the continuing resolution despite pleas from conservative Republicans to defund the nonprofit Planned Parenthood over abortion concerns.
Beyond keeping the government open, the bill would provide emergency wildfire suppression funds. The House is scheduled to follow the Senate with a vote later this afternoon.
Beyond the current action, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said he will continue pushing for Congress to pass a series of yearlong appropriations bills. Next up, he said, is legislation to fund military construction and veterans' issues for fiscal 2016.
Democrats have been stalling spending bills from moving forward in the Senate, demanding instead talks toward a bipartisan budget agreement. McConnell hopes the military and veterans bill is too politically sensitive to block.
McConnell said this morning, "It's not right for [Democrats] to again force America into another short-term funding situation like this."
Both McConnell and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) have promised to engage in talks over spending levels for the next two years.
Reid said, "We should have started this process months ago. Better late than never. Hallelujah. Here we're ready to negotiate."
-
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 40amendments 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.
Reporter Geof Koss contributed.
-
Future of Energy Overhaul Grim as Lawmakers Go Partisan
Sep 30, 2015 | PoliticoPro (Morning Energy)
By Eric Wolff
FUTURE OF ENERGY OVERHAUL GRIM AS LAWMAKERS GO PARTISAN: House lawmakers pulled the plug Tuesday on reaching broad bipartisan agreement on a four-part energy strategy, likely dooming any long-shot chance as well that this Congress will produce the first major update in energy law in at least eight years.
Story Continued Below
We had a deal! Chairman Fred Upton and Energy and Commerce ranking member Frank Pallone initially had a bargain that the two sides would agree on all changes to the bill. But in the end, Democrats wanted stronger language addressing climate change and Republicans may not have felt compelled to push hard on even a modest bipartisan agreement ahead of next year’s elections. “Now, were faced with a contentious markup that could have been a bill with a very bipartisan product,” Pallone said yesterday in his opening statement at a committee meeting. Panel Republicans, including Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield, retorted that Democrats were not being honest brokers. “I think we all had great hopes and expectations,” the Kentucky Republican said. “And to be truthful about it, the fact that we were not able to reach an agreement says a lot about this institution and where we found ourselves for whatever reason.”
I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further: In giving up on their efforts to sign up Democrats, the new version of the bill Republicans put out contains 113 more pages (it’s now 208 pages) that Democrats couldn’t quite stomach. Yet, it doesn’t include flashy items like the Keystone XL pipeline or shutting down the EPA’s rules for power plant emissions. All in all, there are more than a dozen sections not previously included in the bill and many of them are, while controversial in their niche, ones that only a wonk could love. Many had originally been included in the Republican discussion drafts and excised by Democrats, but have now been resurrected, such as requiring FERC to conduct a “reliability analysis” on any proposed or final federal regulation that may affect power plants, and the repeal of a program to phase out federal buildings’ use of fossil fuels. Issues like shortening the amount of time the Energy Department has to decide on certain LNG applications have been slipped in. And the chapters on energy efficiency saw big changes and additions, particularly on building codes. How DOE churns out efficiency standards got attention too, including new language requiring that assumptions and models be based on material available to the public — a point of contention industry has had with the agency.
We like this deal! The American Petroleum Institute, America's Natural Gas Alliance and the Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute sent letters to the committee yesterday offering full-throated support for the new bill. ANGA and API in particularsupported the provisions on LNG terminal approvals.
WHITFIELD RETIREMENT TRIGGERS CHAIRMANSHIP SHUFFLE: Rep. Ed Whitfield announced yesterday he would not seek re-election, ending a two-decade career in the House. His departure, which he told Pro's Darius Dixon, has nothing to do with an ethics investigation, leaves a vacancy at the top of the Energy & Commerce Subcommittee for Energy and Power, not to mention taking out a leading contender for the leadership of the full committee. When it comes to the E&P chairmanship, Darius says that Rep. Pete Olson, currently vice chairman of the subcommittee, has voiced interest in that post. Meanwhile, Rep. John Shimkus, who has seniority after Whitfield, plans to make his case for being atop the full committee in the next Congress. Rep. Greg Walden is also seen as a contender for the job, though he remains tight-lipped on whether he'll run.
WILL ABSENCES MAKE VOTERS GROW FONDER OF BUSH ENERGY PLAN? Jeb Bush released his energy policy vision yesterday, detailing what has become the regular checklist from the GOP field: back Keystone XL, lift the crude oil export ban, kill EPA regulations. But as Pro's Darren Goode reports, it left some gaps that he may need to fill in the coming months. "His big energy rollout didn't mention the term 'climate change.' And while he promises to stop President Barack Obama's climate regulations 'in their tracks,' he didn't repeat his previous concerns that the climate is changing 'and humans are contributing to it,' or that Republicans who deny global warming risk being viewed as 'anti-science.'" He also invited states to judge for themselves whether to allow oil drilling off their coasts, and he didn't bring up his past position opposing offshore drilling while he was Florida governor.
WELCOME TO WEDNESDAY! I'm your host, Eric Wolff. Send your tips, quips, and comments to ewolff@politico.com, or follow us on Twitter@ericwolff,@Morning_Energy, and @POLITICOPro.
** A message from the National Association of Manufacturers: President Obama recently noted that we’ve solved ozone problems that challenged areas across the United States three decades ago and he’s right. Ozone levels have dropped 33% since 1980. So why is the EPA considering a new ozone standard that could be the costliest in U.S. history? Keep the current standard. http://www.nam.org/ozone **
EPA'S BUSY WEEK PART 1: EFFLUENT LIMITATION GUIDELINES DUE: Just a day after finalizing limits on refinery emissions, EPA will publish effluent limitation guidelines today. The rule, which is linked to the agency's 2014 coal ash rule, would require controls on fossil fuel and nuclear power plant emissions of wastewater toxics such as arsenic, lead, mercury and selenium. Utilities are watching this rule to see if it will require them to close any coal ash ponds or impose new inspection requirements.
EPA'S BUSY WEEK PART 2: OZONE REGS DUE THURSDAY, LOBBYING REACHES A FEVER PITCH: The EPA has to publish a final smog standard by the end of the day tomorrow, and neither side is taking its foot off the gas when it comes to lobbying on the rule. The rule now sits with OMB which has been reported to be considering a standard of 70 parts per billion or 68 ppb, both reductions from the current standard of 75 ppb. On Friday, the Sierra Club released a letter from 70 mayors supporting a "the strongest possible standards," which, based on what the EPA proposed, would be 60 ppb. Today Jay Timmons, president and CEO of the National Association of Manufacturers sent a letter to all 70 mayors imploring them to back their position: "I sincerely hope you will take strong action to protect the manufacturers in your city before it is too late."
Inhofe jumps in: Sen. Jim Inhofe issued a statement yesterday questioning EPA's low count of which counties would be out of compliance with a 70 ppb standard in 2025. The agency has said only nine non-California counties would be out of compliance by that date.
PHMSA COULD GET EXTREME MAKEOVER: Sen. Richard Blumenthal is mulling legislation to reform the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, an aide told ME. “The agency is in need of mass overhaul and any legislative fix or [re-authorization] needs to ensure the agency operates more proactively, more transparently and with less deference to the industry,” the aide said following a Senate Commerce subcommittee hearing earlier Tuesday on pipeline safety. PHMSA has come under fire for failing to fulfill a bevy of congressional safety mandates and, in the eyes of some critics, for not doing enough to prevent pipeline accidents. Pro Energy’s Elana Schor and Andrew Restuccia dug deep into the agency’s problems earlier this year:http://politi.co/1iAutmf
GOVERNORS GO TO WASHINGTON: The House Natural Resources Committee will hear from four western governors today onthe interplay of state and federal government when it comes to resource management. In his prepared remarks, Chairman Rob Bishop says he is concerned that federal regulation is impinging on state authority. "Concerns of this administration’s federal regulatory overreach over states are not limited to the western half of the country — it is a growing blight that affects the entire nation," his remarks say. The hearing will feature Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard, Utah Gov. Gary Herbert, and Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead. Ranking Member Raul Grijalva plans to ask the governors whether they have the budget to take over management of all federal lands in their states.
Is there a hearing hijacking in store? Grijalva has a different agenda for the hearing: Persuade or cajole Bishop into moving a bill that would reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a decades-old program that purchased land contained within national parks or other preserved spaces. The program is set to expire at the end of the day today.
The National Governors Association sent a letter yesterday to Bishop, Grijalva, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, and Sen. Maria Cantwell asking Congress to reauthorize the program. "Any lapse would create budgetary uncertainties for states that rely on LWCF to support recreation and conservation initiatives." The letter makes multiple suggestions for a new, updated program, including establishing long-term funding. Mead, who will be at the hearing, signed the letter as chairman of the association's natural resources committee.
WOTUS, WOTUS EVERYWHERE, BUT NOT A DROP TO DRINK: The Army Corps of Engineers is set to explain its role in crafting the Obama Administration's Clean Water Rule following concerns from lawmakers that the EPA ignored the input and issues raised by the Corps, which jointly oversees permitting under the rule. The hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee follows the release of documents this summer in which Corps officials openly disagreed with the agency on provisions of the measure. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has said that those issues have been addressed, and, of course, the head of the Corps, Assistant Secretary of the Army Jo Ellen Darcy, signed off on the measure, though it's unclear whether all of the requested changes have been made. But given the ongoing litigation over the rule, it’s also unclear how much Darcy will say. Brush up on the issue here: http://politico.pro/1PCGPo3. The hearing will start at 10 a.m. Details here: http://1.usa.gov/1QDCeSY
SHUTDOWN WATCH: ME's cranky old government shutdown-o-meter still reads 1, meaning almost no chance of a shutdown. ME even checked to make the dial wasn't stuck or anything, and it all seems to be in good working order. It's probably picking up the signal from the Senate's passage of a continuing resolution earlier in the week, and from the clever way Majority Leader Mitch McConnell quarantined Shutdown Maven Sen. Ted Cruz, as POLITICO's Burgess Everett reports.
IT TAKES TALENT — FORMER SENATOR LAUNCHES PRO-RFS GROUP: The field of groups backing the Renewable Fuel Standard is growing once more. Former Sen. Jim Talent (R-Mo.) today will launch Americans for Energy Security and Innovation, a 501(c)(4) dedicated to supporting the RFS. Talent noted his support a decade ago for the law that created the RFS program. "I believe that biofuels are the most feasible replacement for oil as automobile fuel, and that we need a strong RFS so that private investors can develop the biofuels industry with adequate assurance that their potential market won’t be destroyed by manipulations from the foreign oil cartel," he said in a statement. AESI is keeping mum on who precisely pays the bills, saying only that it “is supported by job creators and producers who have made investments based upon the Renewable Fuel Standard."
EPA PENNY WISE, POUND FOOLISH ON CODE ACCESS: NPR reports that researchers looking to access code in automobiles are awaiting a ruling from the U.S. copyright office on a special exemption. "In a July letter to the U.S. Copyright Office, the EPA argued that allowing owners to access the software could result in tampering in a way that could increase emissions. Ironically, that's what VW itself did."
SAGE GROUSE PLAGUES NDAA EVEN STILL: Conferees working on the NDAA dropped a provision that would prevent the Department of the Interior from listing the Greater Sage Grouse under the Endangered Species Act. But the decision has so incensed Rep. Rob Bishop, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, that he refused to sign the report.
LEHNER JUMPS FROM NRDC TO EARTHJUSTICE: The Natural Resources Defense Council's executive director, Peter Lehner, is jumping over to head Earthjustice's sustainable food and agriculture program. Lehner, who has been with the NRDC since 2007 and started out in Earthjustice's Washington office, and formerly headed the New York attorney general's Environmental Protection Bureau.
READING GLASSES ON: GREENS CRITIQUE CHEAP FEDERAL LEASES: Green groups have been making a meal of federal land leases to fossil fuel producers in recent months, arguing that low-cost leases leads to more production which leads to more greenhouse gases. Yesterday, as ME readers know, the Rainforest Action Network summarized which companies hold most public leases. Today Friends of the Earth will pile on with a report called, "A Flaring Shame, North Dakota and the hidden fracking subsidy," examining the loss of royalties from flaring. The report asserts that the BLM allowed flaring of 107 billion cubic feet of natural gas in North Dakota between 2007 and 2013, "producing carbon dioxide equivalent to the annual emissions of over 1.3 million cars and wasting an estimated $524 million worth of resources. The lost revenue to federal taxpayers and tribes comes to a minimum of $65.5 million."
STEYER OPENS NEW FRONT IN CAMPAIGNING: THE DEBATE MODERATOR: Campaigns have often groused in retrospect over how a debate was managed — c.f. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker after the last debate. But yesterday billionaire-cum-climate activist Tom Steyer decided to get ahead of the game and pressure Anderson Cooper, moderator for the first Democratic presidential debate, on the topics worthy of discussion: "During the first Democratic presidential primary debate, I urge you to push the candidates to articulate, defend and refine their plans—ensuring that they will be prepared on day one to address climate change."
DEBRIEF INTERVIEW: DOING BUSINESS WITH IRAN. If Iran meets its nuclear goals, sanctions will start lifting and the Middle East's largest economy will rejoin the world. Global corporations are already champing at the bit to get involved. But how does the U.S. navigate relations with a nation that still sponsors terrorism? Darren Samuelsohn sits down with Chris Backemeyer, head of the sanctions policy office at the State Department, to walk through what comes next. His crucial message for American business: Don’t hold your breath. Find out more on this week’s Debrief video from The Agenda: http://politi.co/1MTCBHj
-
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.
-
New Rule on Oil Refinery Monitoring a Long Time Coming
Sep 30, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
For environmentalists and community groups, the Obama administration's new refinery rule is the culmination of a movement that began more than 15 years ago.
In the final rule released yesterday, U.S. EPA will begin requiring oil refiners to surround their properties with air monitors that give benzene readings every two weeks.
Since the 1990s, community groups in industrial areas -- particularly in California, Texas and Louisiana -- have been pushing for fence-line monitoring of air pollution stemming from refineries. They've had limited success; many have resorted to conducting their own monitoring.
To be sure, environmentalists and community advocates say they are disappointed with some aspects of EPA's final rule, including the lack of a requirement for real-time monitoring and the benzene threshold that triggers corrective action.
But, said Adrian Shelley, executive director of Air Alliance Houston, "there's no doubt that we are celebrating. A lot of us have been working on this for many, many years."
The movement for fence-line monitoring of air pollution at refineries began with the 1994 release of the chemical Catacarb from a refinery in Rodeo, Calif., according to Gwen Ottinger, a professor of science and technology studies at Drexel University who is working on a project on the history of refinery community advocacy.
The Rodeo release lasted 16 days and brought together local groups that called for heightened monitoring.
"Fence-line monitoring would have prevented that if it had been real-time monitoring," Ottinger said. "After that, that community and others started to really advocate for fence-line monitoring."
Community groups began conducting their own monitoring. Anne Rolfes, for example, founded the Louisiana Bucket Brigade in 1999 to train local citizens to take air samples with inexpensive monitors that draw air samples into buckets.
The group has advocated for a nationwide requirement for fence-line monitoring at refineries.
"There have been roadblock after roadblock thrown up about why it can't happen," Rolfes said, "and yet there have been times after we have made a big, big fuss, when we give them the results of our samples, that they will start their own sampling."
A handful of refineries across the country have put in place monitoring systems at their fence lines, mostly prompted by community action and lawsuits, Ottinger said.
"You can point to instances around the country," she said, "but the idea that every refinery would have the obligation to provide people next door with information about what's in the air is just unprecedented."
Shelley of Air Alliance Houston said that efforts to add fence-line monitoring provisions in Texas have fallen flat because of a law that state air pollution regulations can't be more stringent than federal rules.
"The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality takes the position that it legally cannot put a term in a state permit that goes in excess of the federal floor," he said.
EPA's refinery rule arose out of a lawsuit filed by Earthjustice and the Environmental Integrity Project on behalf of community groups, including the Louisiana Bucket Brigade and Air Alliance Houston. The groups charged that EPA had missed a Clean Air Act deadline to review its hazardous air pollution standards for oil refineries.
The final rule requires petroleum refineries to install up to two dozen canisterlike monitors surrounding their properties.
"The primary benefit of the rule is, for the first time, communities will know how much benzene is falling from refineries to their communities' air," said Earthjustice attorney Emma Cheuse.
EPA added flexibilities in the final rule to appease oil refiners, including simplified flare requirements. According to the American Petroleum Institute, the final rule will cost refiners up to $1 billion -- expensive, but a far cry from the oil industry's initial estimate of a $20 billion cost for the proposed rule.
EPA, on the other hand, says that the final requirements will cost refiners $283 million in capital costs and $63 million annually.
While the oil industry yesterday applauded the changes in the final rule, the sector says that the requirements are unnecessary in the first place because refineries have already reduced their air pollution.
"Companies have already spent billions of dollars to reduce emissions by installing flare gas recovery and flare minimization systems to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," said Bob Greco, API's downstream director, "and air quality continues to improve as a result of these voluntary programs and existing regulations."
EPA officials yesterday said the fence-line monitoring provisions were specifically prompted by discussions with community groups (E&ENews PM, Sept. 29).
These groups say they'd like to see EPA eventually require real-time readings of air pollution. Real-time monitoring technology exists but doesn't capture benzene levels at the low concentrations that EPA is targeting in its final rule.
"We want something that will allow us to set off alarms and send text messages," Shelley said.
Community groups say they plan to use the data gathered through the rule to conduct their own independent analyses. They also plan to continue advocating for more stringent requirements and are leaving all options on the table, including future litigation.
"This is sort of a foot in the door. We now have a precedent for monitoring at refinery fence lines," Drexel University's Ottinger said. "Now, I think activists groups are unlikely to leave it at that. They'll keep advocating for better and more sophisticated monitoring."
-
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.”
-
NAM Leader Bashes Mayors for Supporting Lower Ozone Limit
Sep 30, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
The head of the nation's manufacturing trade group this week chided 70 mayors who last week signed onto a letter supporting a tighter ozone standard.
In a letter to each of the mayors, National Association of Manufacturers President and CEO Jay Timmons said that the level they supported "would result in devastating economic consequences."
The mayors' letter last week, which was circulated by the Sierra Club, expressed support for a new standard at 60 parts per billion -- the low end of the range recommended by U.S. EPA's scientific advisers and the level called for by public health advocates (Greenwire, Sept. 22).
"If your city happens to fall out of compliance with the new standard," Timmons wrote, "the challenges for manufacturers become even greater -- and so do the challenges for your local government and citizens."
EPA is required to sign a new ozone standard by tomorrow under a court-ordered deadline. In November, the agency proposed to lower the standard from 75 ppb -- the limit set in 2008 during the George W. Bush administration -- to between 65 and 70 ppb. According to sources, EPA is poised to finalize a 70 ppb standard.
In their letter, the mayors from 24 states urged EPA to follow advice from the medical science community, which has recommended a 60 ppb standard based on studies that have linked higher levels to adverse health effects.
The manufacturing group has waged an aggressive campaign against a tighter standard. In his response to the mayors, Timmons enclosed a copy of a report that NAM commissioned last year that found a 60 ppb standard would cost the economy $270 billion a year.
"Manufacturers wanted to be sure you had all the facts about the 60 ppb standard and its negative impact on economic development and quality of life in your locality," Timmons wrote.
Outside experts and environmentalists have questioned the NAM study (Greenwire, Sept. 15). EPA's own analysis shows that a tighter standard would cost much less.
The Center for Regulatory Solutions, a group opposed to a tighter ozone standard, has also raised issues with the mayors' letter, noting that some of the signatories have previously called on EPA to retain the existing 75 ppb standard.
-
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).
-
New Rules Boost Agency's Environmental Justice Efforts
Sep 30, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Tiffany Stecker
It's been a big week for environmental justice at U.S. EPA.
The agency recently finalized two rules intended to protect the poorest sectors of the population from toxic substances. EPA began the week by announcing an overhaul of pesticide regulations to protect farmworkers -- many of whom are undocumented and do not speak English -- to include the first age restrictions on pesticide applicators and an annual requirement for safety training.
The agency followed up yesterday with a long-awaited refinery rule, which sets tough standards on petroleum refineries to cut toxic air emissions. The rule requires refineries to monitor emissions on site and publicly disclose those levels for the first time, creating, in EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy's words, "a kind of neighborhood watch for refinery pollution" (see related story).
Along with climate change, environmental justice -- the alleviation of pollution in poor and underserved communities -- was one of McCarthy's top priorities when she came on as EPA chief in 2013, following in the footsteps of her predecessor, Lisa Jackson.
"Environmental justice is at the heart of EPA's mission to protect public health - especially for vulnerable communities dealing with risks associated with pesticide exposure," McCarthy wrote in a blog postahead of the agricultural Worker Protection Standard revisions (E&ENews PM, Sept. 28).
Matthew Tejada, director of EPA's Office of Environmental Justice, wrote his own blog post to highlight how the refinery rule will improve overall health of residents living around the facilities. The approximately 6.1 million people living within 3 miles of a petroleum refinery are disproportionately likely to be poor and members of a minority group, according to EPA (EnergyWire, Sept. 30).
"The emission reductions from this final rule will lower the cancer risk from refineries for 1.4 million people. That's not just good for the communities that live in and around refineries -- it's outstanding," he wrote.
But despite EPA's vocal loyalty to environmental justice, some critics have knocked the agency for not addressing claims from poor and minority areas. EPA's Office of Inspector General recently found that the agency was three years late in issuing guidance for considering environmental justice in rulemaking. An investigation from the Center for Public Integrity found EPA's Office of Civil Rights has dismissed 95 percent of complaints of environmental discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Other cases, like the complaint filed by the community living around Flint, Mich.'s wood-fired Genesee Power Station, have languished for years (Greenwire, Feb. 19).
But farmworker advocacy groups, which have called on EPA to update its standards over the past two decades, acknowledged that the updated worker protection standard represented a greater focus on environmental justice.
"The EPA has been very engaged with the farmworker community organizations to correct the deficiencies in the Worker Protection Standard," said Virginia Ruiz, director of occupational and environmental health for Farmworker Justice.
"The new final rules are a first important step, but we want to see EPA engaged just as strongly in the implementation and the education and enforcement to make sure they are meaningful," Ruiz added.
The addition of a farmworker representative on EPA's National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) was a significant step, said Jeannie Economos, pesticide safety and environmental health project coordinator at the Farmworker Association of Florida.
"This isn't just a regulation, this isn't just something on paper, it affects the next generation," Economos said.
For Vernice Miller-Travis, a longtime environmental justice advocate and member of NEJAC, the recent actions represent a long departure from how the agency used to view civil rights.
"Is it everything? No. Is it a significant improvement from what it was? Absolutely," she said. "I feel that our representation is more valued at this moment than it has been heretofore."
-
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.
Reporter Elizabeth Harball contributed.
-
California District Aims To Build Support For Plan To Overhaul Clean Air Act
Sep 30, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Curt Barry
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.
-
States Face Federal ESPS Plan If They Miss 2016 Deadline, McCabe Warns
Sep 30, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Doug Obey
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.”
-
Utilities Turn Up the Heat on Missouri AG over EPA Rule
Sep 30, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
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). -- MB
-
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'sPower Plan Hub.
-
N.D. Governor Discusses Two-Track Approach on Power Plan, Shale Oil's Prospects Amid Price Shift
Sep 30, 2015 | E&E - TV
With a 45 percent emissions rate reduction in the final Clean Power Plan, what are North Dakota's plans for complying as it manages a power sector that runs primarily on coal? During today's OnPoint, North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple (R) discusses his state's compliance and litigation plans for the Clean Power Plan. He also talks about the challenges facing his state's shale oil industry following the rapid decline of oil prices.Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Gov. Jack Dalrymple, Republican of North Dakota. Governor, thank you for joining me.
Gov. Jack Dalrymple: Thank you, Monica. Glad to be here.
Monica Trauzzi: Governor, North Dakota has experienced a dramatic shift on energy this decade. Let's talk a bit about what the current landscape is looking like in your state with low oil prices at play and no signal from the international market that we could see a rebound in prices.
Gov. Jack Dalrymple: Well, I'm getting that question pretty frequently these days. North Dakota, as you know, has experienced a true oil boom in the Bakken Shale formation. We've gone from off the map to the No. 2 producer in the United States second only to Texas.
Producing about 1.2 million barrels of crude a day now and everyone is asking, "What's going to happen at lower prices?" So far, we've seen a significant reduction in rig count. Probably about half the rig count that we had last fall. We're down to about 68 rigs, but interestingly enough, our production has really not dropped yet. The rigs are going into the very best prospects that are out there. The production per well is extremely high so the production levels are staying about the same.
Monica Trauzzi: But the fact is we have more supply than demand. That is the critical issue here. You really encouraged aggressive expansion and growth of the industry within your state. Do you ever consider yourself responsible for encouraging all of that growth and now finding ourselves in the United States in a position where there is more supply than demand?
Gov. Jack Dalrymple: Well, not really. We think we are producing a huge amount of oil at 1.2 million barrels a day, but the world market is 100 million barrels a day. Even in North Dakota with our great success up there, we're not all by ourselves rocking the boat in the world's supply and demand.
But shale oil has been a factor worldwide. We're not the only place to find productivity in shale oil. That definitely has an effect. I think OPEC has looked at that and said this is more significant than we originally thought. It's going to be part of the world supply and demand scene and we're going to have to operate at a lower price level.
Monica Trauzzi: When did you begin hearing concerns in your state capital about a shale oil bust?
Gov. Jack Dalrymple: Well, we don't consider it a bust. The Bakken formation is unusual. The productivity is so high that, as I said, the production is staying steady even at these prices. We feel that nationwide or globally we will be very competitive on a cost-per-barrel basis.
Other areas of the country not so much. Oil sands certainly are not going to be competitive at these prices. So changes are taking place and our rig count is down, but by no means is it a bust.
Monica Trauzzi: So what do you see is the future of your state's economy as it relates to energy production?
Gov. Jack Dalrymple: I think our state economy is going to continue to do well because we have diversified our economy tremendously in North Dakota over the last 15 years. We're very strong in agriculture, very strong in technology, advanced manufacturing is a big deal in North Dakota, and all of those industries are doing well.
So we don't feel that we're overreliant on oil and gas. Actually less than 5 percent of our state general fund revenue comes from oil and gas taxes. So we don't need oil and gas revenue to run our state government, and that's a testament I think to the cautious attitude that our legislators have taken in this.
Monica Trauzzi: To run your state government, but there could potentially be a lot of people out of work.
Gov. Jack Dalrymple: Well, you have layoffs taking place. There's no question about it, especially the oil field services companies have laid people off, but we had going in the lowest unemployment rate in the United States. We had 25,000 unfilled jobs at one time. We're down to about 20,000 now.
Many people coming out of the oil field are finding other jobs in North Dakota. So to some extent we're catching up to the demand for employment that's been there for quite some time.
Monica Trauzzi: You've decided to not run for re-election in 2016. How much of that decision was due to the dramatic downswing that the shale oil industry has encountered?
Gov. Jack Dalrymple: Oh, none whatsoever. We're doing great in North Dakota. If I am not running it is 100 percent personal decision.
Monica Trauzzi: Let's talk about the Clean Power Plan. I know you're in town speaking with EPA about that. Following the release of the Obama administration's final Clean Power Plan, I had energy analyst Kevin Book on this show. He said that the natural gas bridge had been cut much shorter with that final rule.
Do you think the Obama administration has shifted away from its long-standing support of natural gas?
Gov. Jack Dalrymple: Oh, I don't know. All I know is that the Clean Power Plan has a set of rules proposed that really overreach we believe the authority of EPA. We feel that the rulemaking process itself was severely flawed and for that reason we are planning, preparing a lawsuit against EPA.
I don't know exactly what the master plan is. Many people have said so far the only thing they can really decipher is a war on coal coming out of this administration, but down the road, if it isn't going to be coal it's going to have to be something else. It appeared that natural gas was the next choice, but already there are some people saying that that's the next place that people will start hearing about CO2 reductions.
Monica Trauzzi: So you are planning a lawsuit, but you're also working on having conversations towards creating a compliance mechanism.
Gov. Jack Dalrymple: That's true. We're taking a dual track in that sense. We feel that the rules process was flawed and was not properly conducted, but at the same time, our power companies want us to begin work on a state plan. It takes a long time. We are committed to carbon reduction in North Dakota, but it has to be realistic. The original rule for North Dakota proposed an 11 percent reduction. On the last day when the rules were finalized that turned into a 45 percent reduction; about a four-times increase from the original proposal.
So we need to find out how in the world they expect us to deal with that because as of now our power companies are saying it is simply not doable.
Monica Trauzzi: Well, and because you function on majority coal. So how are you looking at potential compliance options and how will you manage that majority coal power generation?
Gov. Jack Dalrymple: Well, that's the big question. The development of a state implementation plan would put us on a course to eventually reduce CO2 emissions substantially, but it does take time. Part of it is better technology. Part of it is sequestration of carbon, but at the moment those technologies do not exist. So you need time to develop like means to reduce carbon.
The other part of it that's a problem is we're supposed to receive credits for investments we've made in renewable energy, but the final rule said anything that you've spent up until now gives you no credit whatsoever.
Monica Trauzzi: But your state also has a huge wind energy potential. You can grow that industry. How are you looking at the clean energy incentive program, which you just referenced, in order to potentially build on what you've already done on wind energy and continue that growth?
Gov. Jack Dalrymple: There is potential for much more wind energy being developed in North Dakota, but in order for that to work North Dakota would have to receive credit for developing that wind energy, not the state that we sell the electricity to.
At the same time, it's only going to really cover a fraction of the amount of reduction that we're being asked to do. You cannot build enough wind farms to replace the amount of electricity that we're talking about.
Monica Trauzzi: An emissions trading mechanism with other states could make things easier, right?
Gov. Jack Dalrymple: Well in theory, it appears that there's a kind of cap-and-trade-type model at play here where one state could sell credits by shutting down plants to another state that wants to continue to operate. In theory that could be where we eventually wind up, but no one has any idea what the cost of those credits might be. All of that cost has to be passed on to the consumer. That means higher power costs for everybody without any question.
Monica Trauzzi: But this is an option that your state is considering participating in.
Gov. Jack Dalrymple: Well, our power companies have no idea whether credits are going to be available or what the price will be.
Monica Trauzzi: In my conversations with various stakeholders on the Clean Power Plan, it's clear that there are more questions than answers at this point. What are your main questions for EPA?
Gov. Jack Dalrymple: Well, our first question in a meeting that we have coming up tomorrow will be how did you arrive at 45 percent when the original was proposed as an 11 percent reduction. That was the basis of all the comments that were received from thousands of different entities.
When all was said and done, suddenly it's 45 percent. What's the rationale? What thinking went into that? What changed that it would go from 11 to 45? We need to understand that.
Monica Trauzzi: Well, we'll end it right there. Thank you for coming on the show. I appreciate your time.
Gov. Jack Dalrymple: You bet, Monica. Good to be with you.
Monica Trauzzi: Thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
-
Kerry, World Leaders Raise Expectations in NYC for Ambitious Climate Deal
Sep 30, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Lisa Friedman
Stars are aligning. Waves are converging. Landing zones are in sight.
Pick your metaphor -- they've all been used this week. But the theme of dozens of heads of state, ministers and diplomats who converged in New York this week is the same: A new international climate change accord is almost certainly going to emerge in Paris in December.
Secretary of State John Kerry. Photo courtesy of Wikipedia.
"We come here absolutely determined, all of us, to reach an ambitious, effective climate agreement in Paris. And it is right around the corner, folks," said U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry at a ministerial-level meeting of the Major Economies Forum yesterday.
And while he cautioned that an agreement is "far from a fait accompli," Kerry noted that a cascade of events over the past week, from Pope Francis' words to Congress and the United Nations on climate change to another key agreement between the United States and China to new carbon-cutting plans from dozens of countries, "are building critical momentum" ahead of Paris.
"I think everybody here understands that we share a moral responsibility to future generations. It's as simple as that. I can't think how many times I've heard politicians in our elections in our country stand up and talk about kids and future generations. If there's any issue that ever applied in reality to future generations, it is this one," Kerry said.Finance remains sticking point
So far, more than 80 countries have submitted emissions plans to the United Nations that will form the spine of the Paris agreement. Dozens of other issues remain on the table, from how countries will show that they are serious about providing finance to help poor nations adapt to climate change to whether the most vulnerable countries will see help for the impacts happening now.
But from Peru to India, officials this week said they feel more confident than ever that countries are working together toward solutions.
"You know when two waves cross each other and double up?" asked Marshall Islands foreign minister -- and former surfer -- Tony de Brum.
"It's exciting to get that when you surf, to move faster than you normally move and with much more force. I think that's what we have here: a convergence of two really good surf waves," he said.
U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern, at a Climate Week NYC event earlier this week, appeared to agree.
"The stars are more aligned now for a historic universal agreement than they have ever been," he said.
The most difficult issue on the horizon, many officials said, is finance. Wealthy countries at a 2009 climate summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, promised to deliver $100 billion in climate finance by 2020, with some portion of that money going through a U.N.-launched but independent Green Climate Fund. Countries remain far from that goal, though, and developing country leaders said repeatedly this week that they need to see a "credible path" toward achieving it for Paris to succeed.
France and the United Kingdom helped the effort by boosting their climate finance this week, but a State Department official toldClimateWire that the United States has no plans to increase the $3 billion over four years it has pledged to the Green Climate Fund. Indeed, the administration is struggling to even deliver the first tranche of that money over a deeply opposed Republican Congress.
"By the way, we paid out probably over $100 billion globally on the issue of damages [of climate change] ... and here we are struggling to find $100 billion for long-term investment in terms of dealing with this and preventing it from happening in the first place," Kerry said yesterday, alluding to the struggle.
Not everyone is optimistic. Winnie Byanyima, executive director of Oxfam International, said she's worried not only about the money but about that money getting to the world's most vulnerable people. She called for half of all climate finance to be devoted to helping communities adapt to floods, storms, droughts and other impacts.
"There has been some progress on emissions targets, yet we don't see money for adaptation yet," she said. "If they don't deliver an agreement that tackles the problems that poor people face ... if they only address the issue of mitigation, then we are off to a bad start," she said.Different signals from Copenhagen
Yet those crafting the deal remain almost unanimous in their optimism. Peruvian environment minister Manuel Pulgar-Vidal said his level of confidence in a Paris deal is "at the top."
And Indian environment minister Prakash Javadekar told ClimateWirewhat he told the leaders whom U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon gathered for a climate change working lunch on Sunday: "Seventy-five days from now, there will be a Paris agreement. I am very sure."
Alden Meyer, director of policy and strategy for the Union of Concerned Scientists and a longtime observer of the U.N. negotiations, said the past week of climate frenzy has undoubtedly created the expectation that an agreement will be signed, sealed and delivered in Paris.
He contrasted the period to this time ahead of the 2009 Copenhagen climate summit, when the Danish president was declaring that the conference would deliver only a political agreement and not the full legal deal much of the world was hoping for.
"That was a clear attempt to ratchet down expectations," Meyer said. Leaders today, he said, appear "more and more confident that it's going to be a pretty significant agreement" in Paris.
Countries, Meyer said, are still not on the same page on a number of issues, but the past week has shown clearly that they are moving toward a common goal.
"The plane is not on the ground yet, but you've started to see the lights on the runway for some of the landing zones. You can start to see likely compromises," he said.
-
'Mr. Clean Water Act' Faces His Biggest Challenge
Sep 30, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jeremy P. Jacobs and Annie Snider
Veteran Justice Department attorney Steve Samuels' license plate made him a celebrity among environmentalists everywhere he drove.
"CWA 404."
The District of Columbia plate refers to Clean Water Act Section 404, the law's primary wetlands provision. In his 30 years at DOJ, Samuels has become the government's most recognizable expert on the law -- though he concedes no layperson ever asked about his license plate.
Now Samuels faces his greatest challenge: defending the Obama administration's controversial Waters of the U.S. rule, or WOTUS, which defines which wetlands, marshes, bogs, ponds and streams qualify for Clean Water Act protections. The rule took effect at the end of August, and 31 states, countless industry groups and even a few environmental nonprofits are now challenging it in courts across the country.
The result has been a legal game of what Samuels calls "whack-a-mole" as he and his team have sought to quash lawsuits from North Dakota to Georgia to Texas. And the biggest fight lies ahead in years of litigation that will almost certainly reach the Supreme Court.
For Samuels, who has been described as a "lawyer's lawyer," "tenacious" and "Mr. Clean Water Act," the rule and lawsuits are a culmination of his life's work. Now 63, he put off retirement to defend the policy.
Steve Samuels, a veteran DOJ attorney playing a lead role in defending the Obama administration's new Clean Water Act rule, loves the law's wetlands provision -- Section 404 -- so much, he advertised it on his license plate for years. Photo by Annie Snider.
"Nobody within the Department of Justice and probably few in town, including at EPA, know the Clean Water Act better than Steve Samuels," said Thomas Lorenzen, a former DOJ environmental attorney now at the firm Crowell & Moring. "I think he has a somewhat proprietary feeling about these rules -- including Waters of the U.S. This is really a capstone to his career."
Samuels grew up in Paragould, Ark., in one of the town's only Jewish families. His father owned a scrapyard, and his parents emphasized education, boarding Samuels and his three brothers at the prestigious Phillips Academy in Andover, Mass.
For his undergraduate degree, he headed to Tulane University, where he developed a strong idealist streak. He managed George McGovern's presidential campaign in 1972 at the university and was selected as an alternate delegate at the Democratic National Convention that year in Miami.
At the convention, Samuels soon found himself embroiled in controversy. Though he personally backed McGovern, he was instructed to cast all his votes for Arkansas Rep. Wilbur Mills, the powerful Ways and Means chairman who mounted an insurgent challenge to McGovern at the convention. A "favorite son" candidate, Mills was counting on support from all the Arkansas delegates.
After casting a midnight vote on a procedural issue that was in McGovern's favor, the then-20-year-old Samuels was summoned to his congressman's hotel room the next morning. There, Rep. Bill Alexander (D) "started turning the screws," Samuels recalled.
"I found that very off-putting," he said. "I thought, 'I am going to go to law school, and I am going to run. I am going to beat Bill Alexander.'"
Those aspirations disintegrated at Stanford Law School.
"It doesn't turn you into a complete cynic, but it definitely sends you in that direction," he said of law school. "I didn't lose all my idealism."
Still committed to the idea of public service, Samuels set his sights on a government job after law school
He landed in the legal arm of the Federal Energy Administration, the Department of Energy's precursor. After several years there, he followed his boss into private practice for five years -- a move he would later regret.
It was "pretty much a black hole," he recalled. "I was counting the time until I could leave."'Peak of environmental law'
Samuels joined DOJ's environmental division on Dec. 8, 1985.
He remembers the date because it was four days after the Supreme Court decided United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes -- a major win for an expansive view of environmental law and the last time the high court voted unanimously on a wetlands issue.
In that case, the court ruled that the Army Corps of Engineers reasonably interpreted the scope of the Clean Water Act to apply to wetlands adjacent to traditionally navigable waters.
"It was really the peak of environmental law under the Clean Water Act," he said. "Frankly, it's been downhill since. That was the top of the mountain. ... Everything that has happened since has been struggling to keep the program going."
Most of the challenges have come from the Section 404 program, the complex permitting process for dredging and filling wetlands. The issue is controversial for several reasons, including that 75 percent of all wetlands are on private property -- spurring legal challenges. The program is also jointly administered by the Army Corps and U.S. EPA, an awkward if not dysfunctional marriage.
But the biggest hurdles for the program were actually thrown up by the Supreme Court. In the 2001 case Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army Corps, the high court struck down the agencies' Migratory Bird Rule, which had allowed federal jurisdiction over scattered ponds, marshes and bogs if they provided habitat for migrating waterfowl.
With that 5-4 decision, Samuels said, "everything changed." All of a sudden, it was unclear what types of water bodies qualified for federal protections.
As industry, environmental groups and regulators tried to make sense of the ruling's effects, Samuels was invited to interpret the ruling for groups across the country. He gave 68 presentations in the wake of the Supreme Court's SWANCC decision.
Whether he wanted it to or not, the ruling made Samuels the face of government Clean Water Act policy. And that profile was bolstered by the Supreme Court's even more confusing decision in 2006's Rapanos v. United States.
In a splintered 4-1-4 decision concerning Michigan wetlands, the court again ruled against the federal agencies' take on jurisdiction. But the justices could not agree on what the standards should be for federal protection.
Justice Anthony Kennedy sided with the conservatives but in his own opinion disagreed with their reasoning, arguing instead that a wetland that isn't adjacent to a navigable body must have a "significant nexus" to larger downstream rivers and lakes.
Rapanos baffled regulators and permit seekers alike about when a stream or wetland was subject to federal permitting. Was it Kennedy's "significant nexus" test? Or the one from Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion for the conservative justices that was generally more restrictive of federal regulation?
Samuels, who is now assistant section chief of DOJ's Environmental Defense Section, helped craft the legal strategy arguing that either was sufficient for the government to establish that a water body qualifies. The question was fought over in nearly 80 lawsuits across the country, with federal appeals courts in different circuits reaching different conclusions.
Under Samuels, DOJ was remarkably successful given the ambiguities of the Rapanos and SWANCC opinions.
"The government won 90 percent or more of the cases that were litigated post-SWANCC," said Pat Parenteau, an environmental law professor at Vermont Law School who has faced Samuels in court. "A lot of the early cases were defendants trying to reopen cases and arguing that they shouldn't have been subject to criminal prosecution, they shouldn't have been subject to penalties."Legal floodgates open
On the ground, the muddled high court decisions led to massive confusion and delays.
After years of requests from industry and environmental groups, the Obama administration undertook a rulemaking aimed at clearing up the regulatory morass.
EPA and the Army's final rule, unveiled in May, hewed closely to Kennedy's "significant nexus" test with the court's usual swing vote in mind. It counted all tributaries in automatically, and set first-ever limits for when a wetland or pond is too far from the river network to qualify for federal protection (Greenwire, June 5).
Farm groups and states sharply criticized the regulations, claiming the government is acting far beyond the authority granted by the Clean Water Act.
And a flood of lawsuits soon followed.
More than a dozen suits were filed in federal district courts across the country. Almost all requested preliminary injunctions seeking to halt the rule before it went into effect Aug. 28. Only one of those was successful; in North Dakota, a federal judge blocked the rule in 13 states (Greenwire, Aug. 28).
The rule has gone forward in the remaining 37 states, though 11 of those 37 have also appealed a district court ruling against an injunction.
The remaining district court cases have been sent to a Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, which will decide as soon as next month which court will hear the consolidated district-level cases.
But because of vague language in the Clean Water Act, it's unclear whether a district court has jurisdiction to hear a challenge to the WOTUS rule in the first place. Some believe the law authorizes those challenges to be filed directly to federal appellate courts.
So, 15 cases have also been filed in those circuit courts nationwide. Those cases are now all sitting at the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, and that court has said it will rule on the jurisdiction question -- meaning, in which court the lawsuits belong -- in the coming months. That won't be the end of the issue, however, because the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta will also decide that issue because of the pending 11-state appeal.
Rulings from those two courts, if they conflict, could pave the way to the Supreme Court on just the jurisdiction question. That's before any court even gets to the merits of the WOTUS rule's constitutionality. (Samuels is certain to play a leading role in the government's strategy no matter what court ends up hearing the case, though if it goes directly to appeals court, he will be supporting the department's appellate arm.)
There are also a host of other procedural questions that need to be resolved, including whether either of those rulings could affect the North Dakota court's injunction.
It's a "nationwide game of whack-a-mole," Samuels said.
"I personally, in 30 years, have never experienced anything like this," he said. "I'm not sure the division has. I'm not sure the Department of Justice has. So many challenges in district courts to the same agency action. And so many challenges in courts of appeals. And so much uncertainty about which court has jurisdiction."
That said, Samuels was not caught by surprise.
"We anticipated this," he said.'I dream about briefs'
Samuels has a five-attorney team that is working around the clock. He calls it the "most gratifying experience" of his career.
That doesn't mean he's got an easy road ahead.
While many of the states' constitutional and procedural challenges were predictable, a surprise development came this summer when a congressional committee disclosed internal Army Corps memos that laid out a searing criticism of the rule.
Specifically, the agency's experts argued that changes made in the final version of the rule could leave as much as 10 percent of previously protected wetlands outside the scope of the Clean Water Act and that an environmental impact statement was thus required under the National Environmental Policy Act -- a procedural step the agencies did not take (Greenwire, July 27).
It's unclear what role those memos will play in the litigation, though the North Dakota federal judge highlighted them in issuing his injunction.
"In all my years of handling Clean Water Act cases, issues and the like, I've never seen such a vehemence -- disagreement -- between the corps and EPA," said Larry Liebesman, a former DOJ attorney who worked with Samuels earlier in his career.
Parenteau, the Vermont Law professor, called the memos a "wrinkle" for Samuels but noted that it's DOJ's job to represent the United States, not the Army Corps or EPA.
"In terms of their posture before the court, they're used to having agencies disagree, and they're used to having to figure out the position of the United States," he said. "So that's nothing new, but the way this came out and the strength of the opposition, that might cause him some sleepless nights."
The work has, indeed, become all-consuming for Samuels, leaving little time for his other hobbies -- the Washington Nationals and traveling.
"I dream about briefs," he said. "I wake up and I have been dreaming about what we're saying."
-
PHMSA to Provide $5.9 Million for Rail Incident Response Training
Sep 30, 2015 | Progressive Railroading
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) yesterday announced three grants totaling $5.9 million to provide hazmat training for volunteer or remote emergency workers responding to rail incidents.
The Assistance for Local Emergency Response Training (ALERT) grants will go to three nonprofit organizations that will provide training for incidents involving shipments of crude oil, ethanol and other flammable liquids by rail, U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) officials said in a press release.
The awardees are the University of Findlay in Findlay, Ohio; the International Association of Fire Chiefs in Fairfax, Va.; and the Center for Rural Development in Somerset, Ky.
The grants represent one of more than a dozen actions that the USDOT has taken in recent months to ensure the safe transportation of flammable liquids by rail, said Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx.
"Safety is our top priority and the ALERT grants will help first responders, especially volunteer firefighters in rural or remote parts of the country, prepare for and respond to incidents involving flammable liquids," Foxx said. "It's critical that first responders have the information and training they need to respond to these types of incidents."
The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2015 enabled PHMSA to use money recovered from prior year Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness (HMEP) grants to fund the latest round of funding.
PHMSA grants are funded by annual user registration fees paid by shippers and carriers of certain hazardous materials in commerce.
During the 2013-14 funding period, HMEP grants paid for the training of more than 91,000 first responders in initial or refresher hazmat response efforts, as well as more than 1,300 new or revised hazmat emergency response plans, USDOT officials said.
"Nearly 25,000 additional firefighters, police and other first responders are expected to benefit from this one-year realignment of hazmat training grants," added PHMSA Administrator Marie Therese Dominguez. -
U.S. House Introduces Legislation to Extend Rail Safety Deadline
Sep 30, 2015 | Reuters
By David Morgan
U.S. lawmakers, under mounting pressure from the railroad industry, announced bipartisan legislation on Wednesday to extend a Dec. 31 deadline for costly new safety technology for at least another three years.
The bill, introduced by Republicans and Democrats on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, could avert a threatened service suspension by major railroads that cannot meet the current deadline, which Congress imposed in 2008, for implementing positive train control, or PTC, technology.
PTC is a complex communications system that can automatically slow or stop a train to avoid derailments and major crashes. Federal safety officials say it would have prevented the May 12 Amtrak derailment that killed eight people and injured more than 200 others.
But railroads, including freight and passenger services, say implementation efforts have been snarled by high costs, bureaucratic delays and technical hurdles.
The legislation would extend this year's deadline to Dec. 31, 2018, and allow the U.S. Transportation Department to grant further extensions of up two additional years to rail operators on a case-by-case basis. An extension has strong backing from both Republicans and Democrats, suggesting the bill could pass easily.
"Extending the deadline is essential to preventing significant disruptions of both passenger and freight rail service across the country," said Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster, a Pennsylvania Republican.
In late summer, the Senate voted to extend the deadline as part of a comprehensive six-year transportation bill that would have increased spending for infrastructure enhancements. But the House has not endorsed that legislation.
U.S. Representative Peter DeFazio of Oregon, the House panel's leading Democrat, said the PTC extension was necessary but expressed disappointment that the change would not be part of a larger bill that could have included other rail safety enhancements.
There was no immediate word on when the House might vote on the new legislation.
Railroads have been pressing lawmakers to act on an extension by the end of October, saying they could otherwise be forced to suspend service or face liabilities for operating outside the law after Jan. 1. A suspension would require rail operators to notify customers well before the current Dec. 31 deadline. (Reporting by David Morgan; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama and Lisa Von Ahn)
-
Railroads May Get More Time to Install New Remote Braking Systems
Sep 30, 2015 | Tribune Live
By Melissa Daniels
Railroads across the country sounded the alarms throughout September. They warned their customers that the nation's rail network will shut down if Congress doesn't act to extend a deadline beyond the end of the year for brand-new brake systems, the kind that might have prevented the fatal Amtrak crash outside Philadelphia.
Now Congress could consider giving railroads another three years.
A new proposal from House Transportation Committee Chairman Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Blair County, and will extend the deadline for positive train control, or PTC, until the end of 2018.
“Completion of the Positive Train Control mandate by the end of the year is not achievable, and extending the deadline is essential to preventing significant disruptions of both passenger and freight rail service across the country,” Shuster said Wednesday.
PTC technology can help slow down trains when taking curves too fast, or stop them altogether. The technology is supposed to help prevent train-on-train collisions and derailments due to speed, among other infractions. The regulation applies to all tracks that carry passenger traffic, or certain kinds of freight considered classified as toxic.
Amtrak Train 188 derailed May 12 as it sped around a curve in Philadelphia, killing eight passengers and injuring more than 200. The train was traveling 106 mph just before it entered a curve with a speed limit of 50 mph, according to federal accident investigators.
Shuster introduced the bill to extend the deadline for implementation of the braking system along with Democratic chair Rep. Peter DeFazio from Oregon, and the chair of the subcommittee on rail, Rep. Jeff Denham of California.
Federal law requires PTC to be installed on about 60,000 miles of tracks nationwide by Dec. 31. But few railroads have made much progress since the mandate became law as part the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, calling the deadline arbitrary given the scope of the $9 billion investment of a brand new technology.
Michael Ward, chairman and CEO of CSX Corporation, wrote to Sen. John Thune, R-South Dakota, to say his company is in an untenable situation.
“On the one hand, we will be unable to comply with the RSIA on January 1, yet continuing operations to satisfy our common carrier obligation would mean CSX would be violating the law,” he said. “The devastating consequences of crippling the U.S. rail network, and the threat of massive FA fines, cannot change the reality the deadline is impossible.”
The need for an extension isn't for lack of trying, as Ward presented all his company's efforts including more than 1,000 employees' attention. CSX has put in more than 2,500 wayside interface units and 465 radio base stations. Signal system replacements are complete along 4,700 miles out of 7,500 miles of track. Still the company expects it would need until 2020 to complete the system, at a cost of at least $1.9 billion.
Twenty out of 29 railroads estimated they could complete PTC systems between 2016 and 2020, and three had no estimate at all, according to the Government Accountability Office in early September.
Shuster's proposal would allow the FRA to authorize up to two one-year extensions for companies with a proven need for a delay.
Developing the system requires precise geo-mapping, in order for the brake systems to be able to detect the location of the train and respond to its speed, weight and length.
PTC isn't an “off-the-shelf” technology, said Ed Greenberg, spokesman for the American Association of Railroads. Companies ran into technical delays, such as radio connectivity issues. The industry urges quick congressional action.
“Without an extension in place by the end of October,” Greenberg said, “many railroads and customers will have no choice but to move forward with decisions that will result in a process of scaling back operations leading up to concluded operations on December 31.”
Railroads, by their own reporting, have spent nearly $6 billion on implementing PTC, according to the American Association of Railroads.
Allen Zarembski, railroad engineering professor at the University of Delaware and a hired consultant to Gov. Tom Wolf, said PTC implementation will create a safer system, though it isn't effective against all types of crashes, such as broken rail.
“There are people out there who think PTC is a cure-all for railroad safety, and it's not even close,” he said. “It has definite safety benefits in several well-defined areas.”
Congress, he said, doesn't have much of a choice except extending the deadline.
“You have some serious potential for shutting down major commuter and intercity operations because of this bill,” Zarembski said. “There's some real serious ramifications.”
But whether Congress will act in the timeframe the railroads would like to see in the midst of shutdown fights and leadership shuffling is no given bet. Shuster and other rail transportation allies say they would like to see action before the deadline arrives. But the chamber did not take up a similar proposal the Senate passed earlier this year.
-
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 wereinvolved 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 issuea 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.”
-
Bill Would Extend Installation Deadline for Safety System
Sep 30, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Freight and commuter railroads would get another three years to implement the automated safety system known as positive train control under a bipartisan bill introduced today by leaders of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
The bill, H.R. 3651, would push back this year's Dec. 31 implementation deadline until the end of 2018; under somewhat different conditions, the Senate has already approved a three-year extension as part of H.R. 22, a reauthorization of road, rail and transit programs passed in July.
Congress set the current deadline in a 2008 law signed soon after a collision between freight and commuter trains killed 25 people in the Los Angeles area. Despite the seven-year window, most railroads can't meet the existing timetable, with some large freight carriers warning they will halt passenger traffic and some chemical shipments on their tracks after December for fear of the potential liability (E&E Daily, Sept. 17).
In a news conference yesterday, Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said many of the industry's concerns appear to be legitimate but reiterated that his agency will enforce the existing deadline "absent some congressional action."
In news releases accompanying today's bill introduction, House T&I leaders described more time for positive train control implementation as essential. They are proceeding with stand-alone legislation after hopes of moving a broader surface transportation authorization measure that would include an extension faltered over money issues.
"Railroads must implement this important but complicated safety technology in a responsible manner, and we need to give them the necessary time to do so," said Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), the committee's chairman.
The panel's top Democrat, Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon, voiced disappointment that the extension is needed, adding that he hoped the committee would soon take up the broader reauthorization measure that would include further safeguards on transportation of hazardous materials.
Also co-sponsoring the bill are Reps. Jeff Denham (R-Calif.) and Michael Capuano (D-Mass.), the chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the T&I Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials.
Positive train control (PTC) is an umbrella term for an approach that uses a central dispatch office and wireless signals to stay in touch with a locomotive's computer and thus serve as an automated safety backup to the engineer. Railroads have cited the cost, regulatory snarls and technological hurdles as reasons for their inability to meet the existing deadline.
The new House bill would also grant the Department of Transportation the authority to phase in PTC implementation, an option the Obama administration prefers in lieu of a blanket rollback of the current deadline. Under certain conditions, individual railroads could qualify for additional extensions up until the end of 2020.
In a statement, Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.), who has been leading the legislative push for an extension, said he is committed to working out a deal.
"Our country's economy cannot afford the significant disruptions that will occur if we don't act soon," Thune said. "Reaching an agreement and passing legislation in the coming weeks is the only way to avert a rail service shutdown."
In a separate statement, Ed Hamberger, the head of the Association of American Railroads, said he looked forward to working with House and Senate leaders "to quickly get the PTC extension across the finish line and to the President's desk for signature."
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Add recipients
Suggested