Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
Backing from Markey, Durbin Gives TSCA Overhaul Filibuster-Proof Support
Oct 2, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darren Goode
A bipartisan plan to overhaul the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act has enough support to overcome a filibuster in the Senate after sponsors agreed to changes to the proposal that picked up two additional backers today. -
Sens. Dick Durbin and Ed Markey Announce Support for the Lautenberg Act
Oct 2, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Today Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Ed Markey (D-MA) announced their support for the Lautenberg Act, Senator Udall’s comprehensive legislation to fix America’s primary chemical safety law, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
Deal Reached for Senate Floor Action on TSCA Overhaul
Oct 2, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
Senators announced today they had reached an agreement on a bill to overhaul how the federal government regulates toxic chemicals, clearing the way for it to reach the floor soon. -
US EPA Issues Snurs for 30 Chemicals
Oct 2, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has imposed significant new use rules on 30 chemicals, which were the subject of pre-manufacture notices. Nine of them are subject to consent order under section 5(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
Pallone Calls for Hearings on Artificial Turf Safety
Oct 2, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
A top House Democrat is calling for hearings on the safety of synthetic turf. -
Four Injured at Houston-Area Chemical Plant Fire
Oct 2, 2015 | Reuters (In The New York TImes)
By Jon Herskovitz
Four workers were injured in a chemical plant explosion and fire outside of Houston on Friday, emergency officials said. -
EPA Defends New Ozone Standard as Green Allies Fume
Oct 2, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
U.S. EPA is defending its choice of setting a new national ozone standard at 70 parts per billion despite blistering criticism by health and environmental groups that it won't protect the public. -
New Federal EPA Smog Standard Angers Both Sides of the Issue
Oct 1, 2015 | The Los Angeles Times
By Tony Barboza
The U.S Environmental Protection Agency adopted a stricter smog limit Thursday that will force states to reduce emissions over the next decade, improving respiratory health for millions of people through pollution controls that will cost industry billions of dollars. -
Southern State Lawmakers Take Tough Line on EPA Rule
Oct 2, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
Even a visit from U.S. EPA air chief Janet McCabe couldn't temper the determination of the Southern States Energy Board (SSEB) to register its strong disapproval of the agency's rule to curtail carbon emissions from the nation's power plants. -
Texas Regulator Says Crafting State Plan 'Waste' of Time
Oct 2, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Edward Klump
Brandy Marty Marquez, who has helped regulate Texas utilities for about two years, said yesterday that she sees no reason for the state to begin exploring ways to comply with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan as the rule undergoes legal challenges. -
State Plots Climate Change Rules for 2030 and Beyond Despite Legislative Setback
Oct 2, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Debra Kahn
California regulators yesterday unveiled new proposals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions through 2030 and beyond, including a strategy for cutting petroleum use in half by 2030. -
(ACC Mentioned) Rail Shutdown Would Cost $30 Billion, Study Finds
Oct 2, 2015 | The Hill - Transportation
By Keith Laing
A shutdown of the nation's railways at the end of the year if Congress does not move a deadline for automating most of the nation's trains would cost the U.S. economy $30 billion, according to a study conducted by the American Chemistry Council. -
(ACC Mentioned) Lawmakers Want to Clear PTC Extension This Month
Oct 1, 2015 | Bloomberg BNA
By Stephanie Beasley
Key Development: Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) said congressional transportation committees are working to reconcile legislation that would extend by three years the Dec. 31 deadline for positive train control implementation and are hopeful the legislation will clear Congress by mid-October. -
(ACC Mentioned) ACC: Looming PTC Deadline Threatens Economic Chaos
Oct 2, 2015 | IHS Chemical Week
By Clay Boswell
The US economy will take a massive hit if Congress does not extend the deadline for implementation of positive train control (PTC), according to a report released Thursday by ACC. A one-month disruption would reduce GDP by $30 billion and cost 700,000 jobs, says the report. -
(ACC Mentioned) Shippers Sue Rails Over Train Control Deadline
Oct 1, 2015 | Argus Media
Some of the nation's largest shipper groups are headed toward a legal showdown with railroads as they work to ensure their products will move even if railroads miss the 31 December federal deadline to install positive train control (PTC) technology. -
New Risks Moving Crude Oil by Rail
Oct 1, 2015 | MarineLink.com
By Dagmar EtkinThursday
The rapidly changing landscape of crude oil exploration and drilling in the US and Canada, together with economic considerations, logistical issues related to pipeline transport, and the availability of new types of crude oils, including Bakken crude and various forms of bitumen, have resulted in a very sudden and dramatic increase in the transport of crude oil by railroad. -
Regulator Floats Overhaul of Inspections
Oct 2, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Federal regulators are moving forward with a proposal to revamp oil pipeline inspections after years of deliberation and a series of major spills.
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
-
Backing from Markey, Durbin Gives TSCA Overhaul Filibuster-Proof Support
Oct 2, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darren Goode
A bipartisan plan to overhaul the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act has enough support to overcome a filibuster in the Senate after sponsors agreed to changes to the proposal that picked up two additional backers today.
Sen. Ed Markey and Minority Whip Dick Durbin announced their support and detailed a set of changes to the bill they negotiated with lead Democratic sponsor Tom Udall.
The deal increases the bill's cap on TSCA fees collected on industry from $18 million to $25 million "to defray 25 percent EPA's chemical safety program costs," according to a statement from the senators. The bill also would be modified to include a four-year compliance deadline for industry to comply with EPA regulations, with an allowance for an 18 month extension if EPA determines companies deserve additional time.
Support from Durbin and Markey, who was one of five Democrats to vote against the bill in committee, brings the list of cosponsors to 60. The bill may be brought to the floor as early as Tuesday, though there are stilldiscussions on lifting a hold from Sen. Richard Burr tied to his unrelated effort to reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
The bill changes, which Republicans have accepted, also makes it easier for states to implement their own toxic controls and play a role enforcing federal regulations. The updates also reduce from seven to five years the deadline for EPA to act on 90 high risk chemicals and add "assurances for mandatory protections for vulnerable populations."
-
Sens. Dick Durbin and Ed Markey Announce Support for the Lautenberg Act
Oct 2, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Today Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Ed Markey (D-MA) announced their support for the Lautenberg Act, Senator Udall’s comprehensive legislation to fix America’s primary chemical safety law, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Elizabeth Thompson, President of EDFAction commented on today’s announcement:
“Today’s announcement from Senators Durbin, Markey and Udall is another major step forward in securing comprehensive legislation to ensure chemical safety. Their hard work has further strengthened a bill that is now poised to earn huge support from both sides of the aisle in the Senate. Since Frank Lautenberg’s death more than two years ago, Sen. Udall has worked tenaciously to shepherd the Lautenberg Act through the legislative process. Sens. Markey and Durbin are the latest Senators to roll up their sleeves and work to both strengthen the bill and keep it moving. Today we are even closer to a new law that can finally protect public health and the environment from harmful chemicals.”
Sens. Durbin and Markey announced their support along with changes to the bill made since the Committee markup in March. The bill that now appears headed for the Senate floor is the result of more than two years of negotiations led on the Democratic side by the chief sponsor Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) as well as Sens. Tom Carper (D-DE), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Cory Booker (D-NJ). These members have worked with the chief Republican sponsor Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) and EPW Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-OK). With the additional support of Sens. Durbin and Markey, it is clear the bill is primed to receive overwhelming support in the Senate. Reports indicate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell may bring the bill to the Senate floor any day.
-
Deal Reached for Senate Floor Action on TSCA Overhaul
Oct 2, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
Senators announced today they had reached an agreement on a bill to overhaul how the federal government regulates toxic chemicals, clearing the way for it to reach the floor soon.
The agreement came as Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) -- once a vocal opponent of earlier versions of S. 697, the "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act" -- and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) agreed to sign on as co-sponsors of the bill.
The bill was introduced by Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.). It now has 60 co-sponsors from 38 states, enough to overcome a filibuster.
In a statement, Markey described the bill as a "much-needed update" to the Toxic Substances Control Act "that will help protect families and communities from dangerous chemicals."
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said earlier this week she had been negotiating with supporters of S. 697 to secure changes (E&ENews PM, Sept. 30). Previously, Boxer had pledged to raise procedural hurdles to prolong the time necessary to advance the bill on the Senate floor. Boxer now plans to vote against the proposal but allow it to advance, a Senate aide said.
Markey and Durbin negotiated with Udall and Vitter for changes that are due to be added in a substitute amendment, the lawmakers said. Though legislative language was not released, changes include increasing the amount of fees required to be paid by chemical companies, shortening deadlines for U.S. EPA to complete chemical assessments and altering a waiver process through which states were required to seek federal permission to enforce stronger laws in the absence of a final EPA action.
"The dam is broken," said Richard Denison, a senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, a key supporter of the bill. "This bill has had very strong support for many weeks now, but it has overwhelming support at this point."
That should enable the bill to reach the floor as soon as next week and pass by a large margin, Denison said.
Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), said there was no determination yet when the bill would be considered.
The changes are said to have addressed some of the key sticking points that have emerged since the legislation passed the Environment and Public Works Committee in April (Greenwire, April 28).
Under the agreement, chemical companies would be required to contribute up to $25 million per year in program fees, up from $18 million per year. A process would also be created to defray 25 percent of the program's operating expenses, though how that process would work was not immediately clear.
In addition, the bill would create a mandatory compliance deadline for regulated companies of four years, with an extension of up to 18 months allowed if EPA finds compliance with final regulations to manage a chemical determined to pose a health risk is not technologically feasible or is too costly. However, unlike under current law, EPA would not be permitted to consider the cost to companies when evaluating the risk of a chemical.
The deadline "ensures that when EPA does act, it's not going to put in motion a process that'll take 10 years to play out," Denison said. "It'll be a finite and fairly ambitious compliance."
The lawmakers also agreed on changes to a previously proposed waiver process. Under the process, states would be able to take action on their own against chemicals thought to be harmful in the absence of final action by EPA, but only if they received a waiver from EPA, which could be challenged in court if it was denied.
"Some of the negotiation was to make those conditions a little less onerous" for states, Denison said, and to clarify what options states have when EPA misses a deadline to complete review of a chemical.
Markey had previously joined with Boxer to warn of the dangers of what he called an industry-driven proposal.
The earlier version of the bill "handcuffs states attorneys general, who are our chemical cops on the beat," Markey said at a hearing earlier this year. "It gives known dangers a pass, and it fails in any way to create a strong federal chemical safety program that will protect public health."
Markey also introduced his own bill with Boxer, S. 725, the "Alan Reinstein and Trevor Schaefer Toxic Chemical Protection Act," earlier this year.
The potential for Senate action soon is encouraging to House leaders, said Jordan Haverly, a spokesman for Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy.
Shimkus "looks forward to Senate action on TSCA so we can begin to reconcile their bill with legislation passed by the House in July," Haverly said. "He's eager to begin this work and remains optimistic that bipartisan TSCA reform can be sent to the White House."
Several environmental groups that previously opposed the Senate legislation did not comment on the changes this morning, saying they were still reviewing the information.
For the legislation to advance on the floor, senators will need to determine to what extent to allow amendments. Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) previously proposed an amendment to the TSCA bill to permit crude oil exports, while more recently some advocates say Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) may attempt to stall the legislation to win permission for a vote on an amendment reauthorizing the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which expired yesterday.
"Members, I think, are looking for any possible vehicle that has an opportunity [for LWCF]," said Alan Rowsome, the director of government relations at the Wilderness Society, "and we'll see what that brings as Congress moves along with its business here in the coming days."
-
US EPA Issues Snurs for 30 Chemicals
Oct 2, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has imposed significant new use rules on 30 chemicals, which were the subject of pre-manufacture notices. Nine of them are subject to consent order under section 5(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
In case of substances under consent orders, the EPA determined that activities “associated with the substances may present unreasonable risk to human health or the environment.” The consent orders require protective measures to limit exposures, or otherwise mitigate the potential unreasonable risk.
The rules go into effect from 1 December 2015. They require persons who intend to manufacture, import or process any of the substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use to notify the agency at least 90 days before starting that activity.
“The required notification will provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit that activity before it occurs,” the agency says in a Federal Register notice.
The deadline for submitting written adverse or critical comments, or notice of intent to submit adverse or critical comments, on any of the Snurs is 2 November. If the EPA receives such comments before the deadline, it will withdraw the relevant Snur.
-
Pallone Calls for Hearings on Artificial Turf Safety
Oct 2, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
A top House Democrat is calling for hearings on the safety of synthetic turf.
New Jersey Rep. Frank Pallone, ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, yesterday urged panel Republicans to hold hearings on whether artificial turf fields expose athletes to harmful chemicals.
"Crumb rubber is known to contain potentially hazardous chemicals, but there is no clear information about how exposure to this product affects our health," Pallone said in a statement. "And yet, we send our young kids off to soccer practice and football practice to play on turf fields lined with this substance."
The lack of information on the safety of synthetic turf means states may have to take the lead in regulating it, much as they have in the past for other toxic chemicals, Pallone said.
Synthetic turf products have been a source of controversy after an "NBC Nightly News" report last year aired the health concerns of ex-high school athletes about synthetic turf fields. But the artificial turf industry has noted that the report did not establish that the products were the cause of any specific illnesses (Greenwire, April 29).
A spokeswoman for the Synthetic Turf Council couldn't be reached for comment.
-
Four Injured at Houston-Area Chemical Plant Fire
Oct 2, 2015 | Reuters (In The New York TImes)
By Jon Herskovitz
Four workers were injured in a chemical plant explosion and fire outside of Houston on Friday, emergency officials said.
Live video footage from the scene by Houston broadcaster KHOU showed numerous rescue vehicles outside the Albemarle chemical plant in Pasadena, where smoke was billowing from a part of the plant still on fire.
The plant, located southeast of Houston, has about 300 workers, the company said on its website.
There was no information immediately available on the condition of the injured. Company officials were not available for comment.
-
EPA Defends New Ozone Standard as Green Allies Fume
Oct 2, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
U.S. EPA is defending its choice of setting a new national ozone standard at 70 parts per billion despite blistering criticism by health and environmental groups that it won't protect the public.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said that, while there's no "bright line" on where a standard should be set, she based the 70 ppb limit on a review of the best available public health science. The limit would protect the public with an adequate margin of safety, as is required by the Clean Air Act, McCarthy asserted.
"I need to do what is requisite: not too high and not too low, and it's very challenging," she said. "There's no bright line, but I used as much thought and reason on how we could actually identify health impacts that we could eliminate."
But public health and clean air advocates have accused EPA of dodging questions about its decision and of ignoring scientific advice to set a standard at 60 ppb. They're almost certain to file a lawsuit challenging the final rule (Greenwire, Sept. 29).
"This appears to be an arbitrary decision in search of a rationale," said Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch.
EPA yesterday finalized the new standard. While it represents a tighter limit than the 75 ppb standard set in 2008 during the George W. Bush administration, it's the upper end of the range that the agency proposed last November.
In rolling out the rule, EPA said that, excluding California, limiting ozone concentrations to 70 ppb will save up to 660 lives, prevent 230,000 asthma attacks in children and prevent 630 asthma-related emergency visits by 2025. In California, the new standard will prevent up to 220 premature deaths, 160,000 asthma attacks in children and 380 asthma-related hospital visits (E&ENews PM, Oct. 1).
Top EPA officials yesterday said they based the standard on definitive scientific findings that 72 ppb is the lowest ozone exposure that causes adverse health effects in healthy, exercising adults. Those health effects include decreased lung function and increased respiratory symptoms.
McCarthy said that, after identifying 72 ppb as harmful exposure, she considered what standard would provide the public with an adequate margin of safety.
"We must protect all people from this level of exposure -- including kids, people with asthma, older Americans, and those who are active and work outside," McCarthy said. "So the standard needed to be lower than 72 ppb."
According to EPA, the science gets more uncertain as exposure levels go down. So the agency settled on 70 ppb as providing the best protection.
"The science is clear at 72 that the effects are harmful, are adverse, as those terms have been defined," EPA acting air chief Janet McCabe told public health groups on a briefing call yesterday. "And the science is less certain at levels below 72 that the effects that one sees in the studies are adverse."
The decision to set a 70 ppb standard comes after the Obama administration considered setting a 65 ppb standard in 2011. But the White House pulled the plug on a revision to the standard that year in the face of the upcoming 2012 election.
McCarthy yesterday defended her decision to differ from her predecessor, Lisa Jackson, who was at the helm of EPA at the time of the scuttled standard and who had made ozone pollution a priority.
"I have a little bit of advantage, so I apologize to Lisa Jackson," McCarthy said. "There's a lot more health data available today than she had available. We have 1,000 more studies in this package for us to look at that wasn't available to her."
McCarthy said that those studies included a "very definitive" study linking ozone exposures of 72 ppb to adverse health effects, as well as several studies that examined the potential impacts of a 60 ppb standard.
"When you look at these studies, as I did when making my decision," she said, "I think it was very clear to me that 70 was the standard where we should land."Enviros see 'sleight of hand'
Public health and environmental groups, however, are accusing the agency of ignoring the recommendation of its own scientific advisers, as well as the advice of the nation's leading medical groups.
"The level chosen of 70 parts per billion (ppb) simply does not reflect what the science shows is necessary to truly protect public health," American Lung Association President and CEO Harold Wimmer said in a statement yesterday.
The agency's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, a panel made up of outside experts who study air pollution, recommended in June 2014 that the agency choose a new standard in the range of 60 to 70 ppb after intense debate over whether 70 ppb would offer enough protection against adverse health effects.
CASAC noted in its official recommendation to the agency that it preferred a new standard near the lower end of the range (E&ENews PM, June 4, 2014).
"Obviously we were disappointed in the 2008 decision from this previous administration where CASAC's advice to the agency was essentially ignored," said Brian Urbaszewski, director of environmental health programs at the Respiratory Health Association. "And looking at the advice that CASAC has given to the agency this time around, it looks to a certain extent that that is still going on."
Top EPA officials say they took the scientific advisory group's advice into account.
"I have to disagree that CASAC is being ignored. CASAC clearly recommended a range of 60 to 70," McCabe said. "They acknowledged that the decision about the adequate margin of safety was a policy decision, that it is the administrator's to make. And that's what she did."
Public health advocates contend that the evidence linking 60 ppb exposures of ozone to negative health effects has grown more certain over the years.
The nation's leading public health organizations had recommended that EPA set a new standard no higher than 60 ppb.
John Walke, the Natural Resources Defense Council's clean air director, wrote in a scathing email that EPA's explanation of how it came to a 70 ppb standard "falls apart in the face of multiple lines of inconvenient arguments."
"EPA acknowledged that they found effects below 70 'but it was less clear whether those effects were adverse'? So EPA would have the public believe the effects of smog below 70 ppb are beneficial?!" he said.
He also charged that EPA gave less weight in its final rule to epidemiological studies that have found negative health effects associated with levels lower than 70 ppb.
Public health and environmental groups say EPA is missing an opportunity to save more people from asthma attacks and premature death.
According to EPA's regulatory impact analysis from last November, a standard of 65 ppb would prevent 960,000 child asthma attacks, or about three times the amount than a 70 ppb standard. A 60 ppb standard would prevent 1.8 million child asthma attacks.
In that analysis, EPA also found that a tighter standard would prevent hundreds more premature deaths than a 70 ppb standard.
EPA's McCarthy said that the nation should strive to lower ozone levels below 70 ppb but that the standard would be fully protective of children and older adults because it would result in ozone levels lower than the standard most of the time.
According to McCarthy, the standard would protect more than 98 percent of children from repeated exposures to ozone as low as 60 ppb.
"I'm confident that we're not only getting the elimination of health effects that we saw at 72," she said, "but also really robust reductions of repeated exposures."
Walke called that reasoning a "sleight of hand."
"EPA's sleight of hand pointing to reduced exposure levels among children in order to obscure or justify acceptance of an unprotective smog standard for those still exposed," he said, "is in some ways the most damning and telling indictment of the Obama administration's unsafe decision."
-
New Federal EPA Smog Standard Angers Both Sides of the Issue
Oct 1, 2015 | The Los Angeles Times
By Tony Barboza
The U.S Environmental Protection Agency adopted a stricter smog limit Thursday that will force states to reduce emissions over the next decade, improving respiratory health for millions of people through pollution controls that will cost industry billions of dollars.
ThEPA Administrator Gina McCarthy issued a new standard strengthening limits on ground-level ozone to 70 parts per billion, down from the 75-ppb standard adopted in 2008 by the Bush administration.
The tighter restrictions will have the greatest impact in California because the state has the nation's worst air quality and has failed to meet previous ozone standards.
The EPA's long-delayed decision disappointed public health advocates and environmentalists, who had endorsed a 60-ppb standard. They said they were likely to challenge the EPA in court for selecting the weakest option under consideration.
“The big polluters won this time, for the most part,” said Frank O'Donnell, president of the advocacy group Clean Air Watch. “This is truly a blemish on the president's environmental legacy.”
The smoggy L.A. Basin as viewed from the Griffith Observatory. (Mark Boster / Los Angeles Times)
Industry groups, which waged a fierce lobbying and advertising campaign against new ozone rules, predicted they would stifle economic growth, with power plants, factories and other businesses bearing the burden of costly new controls.
The National Assn. of Manufacturers called the revised standard “a punch in the gut” to companies across the country. But the association said a “worst-case scenario was avoided” when the Obama administration chose against the lower proposed standard.
Jay Timmons, the association's president, said, “The new ozone standard will inflict pain on companies that build things in America — and destroy job opportunities for American workers.”Does your county violate the EPA's new smog limits?
Public health advocates, environmentalists and President Obama have pointed to decades of improvements in air quality in California and other states as proof that you can curb pollution without dragging down the economy. The EPA said air pollution has declined by 70% since 1970, while gross domestic product has tripled.
Meeting the new smog limit by 2025 will prevent hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks and missed school days for children and hundreds of early deaths from cardiovascular disease and other illnesses, according to the EPA.
The cost savings from those health benefits will outweigh the billions of dollars in annual costs to industry by about 4 to 1, the agency said.
McCarthy's predecessor at the EPA, Lisa Jackson, had recommended tightening the standard to 65 parts per billion during Obama's first term. But the president set aside the proposal four years ago at the start of his reelection campaign amid industry opposition, citing regulatory burdens on the recovering economy. That decision left the Bush-era limit in place.
On Thursday, McCarthy defended the 70-ppb standard, telling reporters that it was based on the law and science, not politics. The Clean Air Act obligated her to adopt an ozone limit “no more or less stringent than necessary to protect at-risk groups,” she said.
McCarthy said the standard reflects the agency's review of thousands of studies, including some that raised uncertainties about the effects of ozone exposure below 70 ppb.
The lowest level that decreased lung function in healthy, exercising adults was 72 parts per billion, she said. The new standard “will essentially eliminate exposures to that level that clinical studies show to be harmful.”
The new smog rules will not go into effect for several years, giving states until 2017 to collect air quality data and determine their status and several more years to devise plans to cut pollution. The EPA projects that all but 14 counties outside California will meet the new limit by 2025.
The EPA will give California until 2037, 12 years longer than the rest of the country, to meet the new standard.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said the EPA's action “is a step in the right direction, but I believe following the science is important, and I am disappointed that a more protective standard was not set.”
Politicians have been wary of tighter standards on ozone because of the economic implications of further reductions in the country's most widespread air pollutant.
Rep. Fred Upton (R-Michigan), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, warned that it could be the “last straw for our fragile economy.” House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield), who is expected to become the new House speaker, said the rule was “all pain for little gain.”
As part of the changes, the federal government will update the nation's color-coded Air Quality Index to reflect the more stringent limits. Health experts have long complained that the index classifies the air in many regions as healthful when it is not.
Ozone forms when pollution from cars and trucks, factories and power plants cook in the heat and sunlight. Ozone levels are influenced by so many different pollution sources that controlling them requires emissions reductions from a wide variety of places, including vehicles, manufacturing facilities and consumer products.
The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set pollution standards at levels that protect public health “with an adequate margin of safety,” including protections for children, the elderly and others who are more sensitive to air pollution. The EPA is prohibited from considering cost when establishing the limits on ozone and other pollutants, but can factor in costs when determining how the states carry out the rules.
Tens of millions of Americans live where ozone levels are too high. The problem is worst in California, where about one-third of residents live in communities with pollution that exceeds federal standards, according to recent estimates by state officials. The smoggiest cities in the country are in Southern California and the Central Valley.
Meeting the standard in California will require steep emissions cuts falling most heavily on the transportation sector, which will need many more electric or zero-emissions cars in addition to cleaner trains, trucks, ships and airplanes.
The new standard will throw several rural counties in California out of compliance, including Amador, Tehama and Tuolumne. They will add to the 16 counties that do not currently meet ozone standards, according to the state Air Resources Board.
Squeezing additional emissions cuts from factories, power plants and vehicles will be difficult because of population growth, development and increases in driving miles, air quality officials say. But state officials plan to fight smog with some of the same regulations they are relying on to address climate change, including cleaner fuel requirements, renewable electricity mandates and emissions standards to require cleaner trucks and more electric vehicles.
The new smog limit cannot be attained in Southern California without tougher emissions standards for ocean vessels, locomotives, airplanes and other pollution sources that only the federal government has the power to regulate, said officials with the South Coast Air Quality Management District, which oversees Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties.
-
Southern State Lawmakers Take Tough Line on EPA Rule
Oct 2, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
Even a visit from U.S. EPA air chief Janet McCabe couldn't temper the determination of the Southern States Energy Board (SSEB) to register its strong disapproval of the agency's rule to curtail carbon emissions from the nation's power plants.
The SSEB, at its annual meeting at the Greenbrier in West Virginia earlier this week, unanimously passed a resolution urging its state attorneys general to file lawsuits "to prevent unlawful obligations from being imposed on states, electricity providers, business and citizens" once EPA publishes the final rule in the Federal Register.
The group also called on governors to consider a variety of other actions, including refusing to submit a compliance plan to EPA.
The SSEB, established in 1960, consists of governors and a member each from the states' House and Senate. Members comprise 16 states -- Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia -- as well as Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
So far, eight of the SSEB states have signed onto legal challenges.
The EPA Clean Power Plan "interferes with the sovereign powers of the states to regulate electricity within their border," the SSEB resolution said.
It was sponsored by the hosting West Virginia delegation. Senate President Bill Cole (R), in a statement, said the resolution is "one more tool we have at our disposal to fully protect the interests of our state and its coal miners" as he decried EPA's "infringing upon the rights of these states to make their own, best energy choices."
The SSEB's Clean Power Plan resolution suggested two other paths that governors might want to consider in addition to refusing to draft a compliance plan. One was to ask for the two-year extension EPA has offered for submitting a final plan, giving states until 2018.
The other was to work with "state environmental agencies to submit an implementation plan that the state deems to be feasible and legally sound regardless of whether the plan conforms to the final rule." One attendee described that as a path to further "legal maneuvers" for states opposed to the EPA plan.
"The SSEB wanted to adopt a policy that allows states to have a variety of tools to respond to the Clean Power Plan in a way that expresses their concerns about the economic implications as well as the reliability concerns they see with the rule," said Heather Breeden, the group's legislative and regulatory counsel. "State responses to the CPP are constantly evolving as they evaluate the final rule," she added.Dual tracks
Len Peters, Kentucky's secretary of energy and environment, represents Gov. Steve Beshear (D) on the SSEB.
"It's evident that there are an increasing number of states that are looking at dual pathways of litigation and preparing a plan so that they are prepared should litigation fail," Peters said in an interview. "It's difficult to argue against the wisdom of that."
Beshear believes "a plan specific to Kentucky prepared by Kentuckians is the best way to proceed should litigation not prevail."
But Beshear's term is about to end, and Kentucky will swear in a new governor on Dec. 8.
To help, Peters said his office is preparing "a transition document -- in no way a transition plan or a suggested plan" -- that lays out a primer on the Clean Power Plan for his successor.
Before McCabe addressed the SSEB, she met with the Kentucky delegation. "To say the least, it was a frank exchange of opinions," Peters said. "We said we were very, very disappointed at the differences between the proposed plan and the final rule."
The final rule requires the state to trim its carbon emissions rate 39 percent by 2030, compared with 18 percent in the proposed rule.
"I find that quite disingenuous," Peters said. "What we commented on was dramatically different than what we would comment on today if we had the opportunity to comment today on the final rule."
In particular, Peters said the burden of a much higher emissions reduction goal and the costs to get there present the challenge of "how we make sure that we do not do damage manufacturing in the country."
Peters said EPA essentially needs what would amount to an "economic safety valve" much as the agency proposed to maintain grid reliability.'Rainbows and sunshine'
After McCabe's presentation, Georgia Rep. Chuck Martin (R) twice went to the microphone to register his displeasure, he said in an interview.
He took "offense" at McCabe's message that the agency had listened to those who commented on the proposed rule and made substantive changes.
"It's all good now -- rainbows and sunshine" was her message, Martin said.
"The rule as proposed was so onerous, of course they had to make some changes," he added. "That does not put states in a position where this is not going to be painful, where it is not going to cost billions, this is not going to cost jobs.
"They want to take the high ground by invoking people's emotions -- that they care and we don't. And I just don't subscribe to that," Martin said.
Georgia has yet to say whether the state will join others in a lawsuit over the EPA rule.
-
Texas Regulator Says Crafting State Plan 'Waste' of Time
Oct 2, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Edward Klump
Brandy Marty Marquez, who has helped regulate Texas utilities for about two years, said yesterday that she sees no reason for the state to begin exploring ways to comply with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan as the rule undergoes legal challenges.
Marquez previously worked in the administration of former Gov. Rick Perry (R) and dealt with federal initiatives such as the Affordable Care Act. With the Clean Power Plan, she said, going down a dual path of planning and litigation doesn't seem productive.
"From my perspective, to create a state plan is a waste of our time and energy," Marquez said here in an interview after speaking at the fall conference of the Gulf Coast Power Association (GCPA).
The Clean Power Plan seeks to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants 32 percent by 2030 compared with 2005 levels. Targets vary by state, with initial compliance envisioned by 2022. Environmental groups have applauded the rule as a step to reduce pollution, while critics have called it a costly plan that oversteps EPA's authority.
Marquez, who is a member of the three-person Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC), said talk of flexibility in EPA's carbon plan should be "in air quotes." She also said she didn't see the federal government's authority to act as the rule suggested.
"I don't believe that there is any such thing as a state plan that the federal government has final approval over," Marquez said. "I think it's just states doing a job for the federal government."
Marquez's lack of interest in exploring a state plan is different from the reaction in nearby Arkansas, which has a meeting on the carbon plan scheduled for next week even as it has announced plans to pursue a legal challenge.
Colette Honorable, a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission who previously was a regulator in Arkansas, said Wednesday that Arkansas took a good approach to planning.
"I recommend the same approach for Texas," Honorable said here in an interview with reporters. She said it wouldn't be a surprise that Texas officials might seek to raise issues on legality and enforceability.
"I would hope also that for the sake of the people that they serve that they would be thoughtful," Honorable said.Seeking to engage and prepare
The FERC commissioner said officials with Texas and its main grid operator had done an "amazing job" over the years and would continue to do so.
"I think the best way to do it, if I might say, is to continue to engage and to prepare and plan," she said.
Honorable added that "lawyers and folks that make decisions will handle the challenge of the rule, and then the planners and the energy experts and engineers and others will carry out this work alongside a number of stakeholders."
When asked about Honorable yesterday, Marquez called her "one of the most fantastic people that I've ever had the opportunity to meet." The Texas commissioner said a dual approach may be fine for Arkansas but that didn't change her thoughts on not pursuing a plan in Texas.
Marquez has said the Clean Power Plan could have "crushing" effects, while also saying she sees Texas as "the greenest state in the nation." She touted nitrogen oxide and ozone reductions, and she noted key roles of natural gas and wind and potentially solar in Texas power. Marquez also mentioned the state's importance to the oil, gas and petrochemical industries.
"The goals that the Clean Power Plan espouses are goals that are being met in Texas already, and they're being done in such a way that is not harmful to ratepayers and not harmful to the economy overall, and that is the biggest detriment of this plan," she said.
In considering potential effects, Marquez said some ratepayers wouldn't be able to handle major increases in power costs.
"We all want cleaner air, cleaner water, cleaner soil," she said. "But those things are luxuries to think about when you can't feed your family or when you can't take your medicine."
The office of Ken Paxton, Texas' Republican attorney general, indicated in August a willingness to pursue litigation if EPA denied a request for a stay.
As for Texas' next steps, Marquez said: "I would say let's let the litigation do its thing."
Marquez noted that her opinion came as just one of three PUC commissioners. Members of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality also are among the parties with a role in any discussion the state might consider.
U.S. data have shown Texas to be the state with the most carbon dioxide emissions. Under EPA's carbon rule, states without an acceptable plan may face a federal implementation plan in the future.Different views on carbon plan
Nationally, market forces and incentives for renewables are causing the United States to decarbonize, and there's a progression in terms of solar, wind and gas, Stephen Byrd, head of research in utilities and clean energy at Morgan Stanley, told the conference here yesterday.
Byrd cited an analysis of the plan and said some additional efforts might be needed to meet 2030 carbon goals.
In the Southeast, coal plants may be shut, with gas and renewables possibly built under a rate base structure, according to Byrd. He said the Northeast may use options such as hydropower from Canada, while in the West, some states may exceed compliance levels. The middle of the country is "a mixed bag," as Byrd said the positions of states vary.
"Through relatively modest cooperation among states, we do think the costs to comply are actually low, without any need for a breakthrough technology or an incredibly heavy hand in terms of forcing one outcome over another," Byrd said.
He said Texas may have some issues, though they may come from other EPA regulations. Byrd said certain coal retirements are possible over the next five years.
A day earlier, on Wednesday, the Clean Power Plan sparked a range of views at the conference here.
John Hall of the Environmental Defense Fund said trends are moving Texas toward compliance, and he said the state should look to maximize benefits and develop a plan given its range of resources.
Michael Nasi, a partner with the law firm Jackson Walker LLP, warned of the potential effects of the carbon plan, including on rates and investments, and he challenged the rule's legality.
Warren Lasher, director of system planning at the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, the state's main grid operator, noted ERCOT's concerns about reliability as expressed following an earlier draft of the Clean Power Plan. He said the council is looking to issue a new analysis on the final rule in mid- to late October.
Yesterday, during a public appearance at the GCPA conference, Marquez called mandates a threat to competition, with the Clean Power Plan putting that on a new scale.
If someone argues that "Texas isn't taking care of its environment, you aren't paying attention," she said.
But Marquez said Texas has done so in a reasonable way that hasn't been detrimental to the economy or residents.
In other words, she said: "Texas is good here."
For more information on Texas and the Clean Power Plan, visit E&E'sPower Plan Hub.
-
State Plots Climate Change Rules for 2030 and Beyond Despite Legislative Setback
Oct 2, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Debra Kahn
California regulators yesterday unveiled new proposals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions through 2030 and beyond, including a strategy for cutting petroleum use in half by 2030.
The goal was among those rejected by state lawmakers last month in the waning days of the legislative session (ClimateWire, Sept. 14). But Gov. Jerry Brown (D), who proposed the goal in January and issued an executive order in April setting an emissions target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, is continuing his push unabated.
The "discussion draft" for mobile sources envisions getting 15 percent of the emissions reductions from existing state programs like the low-carbon fuel standard, the zero-emission vehicle requirement and regional transportation planning rules. Beyond that, reductions would come from increased mandates like 40 percent of new car sales coming from zero-emission vehicles, biofuel use nearly tripling, and electricity- and hydrogen-based fuel increasing by nearly a factor of 40.
It also calls for a joint federal-state standard for combustion engines that is 90 percent cleaner than today's standards in terms of conventional air pollutants, in order to meet existing federal standards for ozone and particulate matter. It does not address yesterday's announcement by U.S. EPA that it would tighten the standard for ground-level ozone (Greenwire, Oct. 1).
Brown spoke at yesterday's multi-agency workshop led by the California Air Resources Board, the agency in charge of writing "scoping plans" under the 2006 law, A.B. 32, that set a target of 1990 emissions levels by 2020. ARB aims to develop the next scoping plan over the next 12 to 18 months, officials said, with a series of technical and regional workshops around the state aimed at tailoring the plan and getting businesses, environmentalists, communities and other stakeholders on board.
The scoping plan "is the concrete process by which we deal with all these complicated issues," Brown said. As such, he said, it's "more important than 95 percent of the news you can read today."
The latest iteration of the plan will focus on achieving 2030 emissions targets despite lawmakers' rejection of a bill that would have enshrined in law the state's greenhouse gas targets for 2030 and 2050 (ClimateWire, Sept. 11).'We can't wait until everybody gets it'
Brown acknowledged the difficulty in cutting petroleum use, but cited Bank of England Chairman Mark Carney's comments earlier this week that 60 to 80 percent of the world's proven petroleum reserves would need to stay in the ground in order to prevent a temperature increase of more than 2 degrees Celsius (ClimateWire, Sept. 30).
"That's probably the most concrete that I have heard from a mainstream, credible person not in the environmental movement that's telling us we can't wait until everybody gets it; we have to start now," he said.
"Whatever way you're functioning as a modern person, you're dependent on fossil fuels," he said. "Anybody who has any understanding of what is implied ... realizes this cannot be done lightly or without a mobilization globally that we have never seen before outside time of war."
Staff from ARB, the California Energy Commission, the California Public Utilities Commission and other state agencies yesterday outlined broad strategies for reducing emissions from a host of sectors, including electricity, building efficiency, forest and farmlands, transportation and short-lived climate pollutants, for which ARB released a draft proposal Wednesday (ClimateWire, Oct. 1).
Brown, who participated in last-minute negotiations over the bills, has been equally focused on the international stage leading up to U.N. climate talks in Paris in December. He cited meetings over the last two weeks with the presidents of China, Hungary, Chile and Norway, as well as the prime minister of India. "I can tell you, people know about California, people are watching, and there's a lot of goodwill that's going to get us to the goal," he said.
A draft scoping plan is due out by the spring, with a final version expected to be voted on by ARB in the fall of 2016. Between now and then, the state will host several workshops, starting with one on the vehicular emissions plan Oct. 16.
Another ARB workshop today will discuss potential amendments to the cap-and-trade program and how the state might comply with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan for existing power plants.
For more information on California and the Clean Power Plan, visit E&E's Power Plan Hub.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Rail Shutdown Would Cost $30 Billion, Study Finds
Oct 2, 2015 | The Hill - Transportation
By Keith Laing
A shutdown of the nation's railways at the end of the year if Congress does not move a deadline for automating most of the nation's trains would cost the U.S. economy $30 billion, according to a study conducted by the American Chemistry Council.
Railroads currently have threatened to shut down service in January 2016 to avoid fines if Congress does not move a Dec. 31 deadline to install an automated navigation system known as Positive Train Control, which regulates the speed and track movements of trains.
The Chemistry Council, which relies heavily on freight service, found in its study that a rail shutdown would cost $30 billion and result in the loss of 700,000 jobs.
“The United States is staring down the tracks of an unprecedented shutdown of freight rail service that could seriously harm our entire economy unless Congress acts quickly to extend the PTC deadline,” the group's president, Cal Dooley, said in a statement.
"A prolonged shutdown would be truly catastrophic, likely resulting in a recession," he continued. "We cannot afford to let this self-inflicted crisis happen; Congress must act now.”
The automated train mandate that was set in the aftermath of a 2008 commuter rail crash in California, but railroads say they need more time to complete the implementation.
Rail companies have argued that they will have no choice but to shut down service at the beginning of next year to avoid fines if Congress does not move the deadline.
A bipartisan measure has been introduced in the House that would push back the deadline for most railroads to install the automated train technology until December 2018. The Senate also included an extension in a highway funding bill that it passed in July, over the objection of rail safety advocates.
Critics have complained the measure is a "blanket extension" that lets railroads off the hook for improving safety for passengers.
"It has been more than 45 years since the National Transportation Safety Board first urged railroads to implement positive train control — an unacceptable delay in implementation of this critical, life-saving technology that has allowed numerous, preventable tragedies," Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said in a statement after the House measure was introduced.
"Extensions should be granted only to railroads that have demonstrated diligent, good faith efforts to meet the mandate," he continued. "Only by holding railroads’ feet to the fire will this critical, life-saving technology finally be implemented.”
Supporters of the extension say it is necessary to prevent an interruption in passenger and freight rail service at the end of the year, however.
"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,” House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) said in a statement trumpeting the extension.
“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," he continued.
The Chemistry Council said "a transportation disruption of this magnitude would have cascading impacts that would threaten the nation’s food, energy and water supplies, as well as nearly every sector of the U.S. economy including manufacturing and construction.
"As the report details, a disruption of rail service lasting only one month will result in a 2.6 percentage reduction to U.S. real GDP growth during the first quarter of 2016, which would put a major chill on just about every leading indicator in the first quarter," the group said.
Transportation department officials in the Obama administration have said they have little choice but to enforce the mandate unless Congress can come to agreement on an extension.
"The reality is without Congress doing something, we've got a deadline coming up and we're going to have to enforce that deadline," Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx told reporters earlier this week.
"Many of the concerns [railroads] raise appear to be legitimate concerns, but as far as we're concerned, the deadline at present is what it is and we have to enforce against it, absent some congressional action," Foxx continued.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Lawmakers Want to Clear PTC Extension This Month
Oct 1, 2015 | Bloomberg BNA
By Stephanie Beasley
Positive Train Control
Key Development: Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) said congressional transportation committees are working to reconcile legislation that would extend by three years the Dec. 31 deadline for positive train control implementation and are hopeful the legislation will clear Congress by mid-October.
Next Steps: Some issues the two committees will need to reconcile include when PTC technology should be activated and whether the Transportation Department should be given authority to grant additional extensions.
Oct. 1 (BNA) -- Congressional transportation committees have begun meeting to reconcile House and Senate legislation to extend the deadline for installing anti-collision technology on trains, Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.) said.
Thune told reporters Oct. 1 that he had met with House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) and ranking member Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) regarding legislation that would postpone for three years a deadline for railroads to install positive train control. The current deadline is Dec. 31, which railroads have said is unrealistic.
Thune said the transportation committees would like to see PTC extension legislation clear Congress by mid-October.
“I hope what's going to happen in the next few days is our staff sit down and figure out if we can find a common ground and find something that we can move over here,” he said. “Hopefully, we'll be able to hot line it because, otherwise, it could take a long time. If we get into a situation where we're ping-ponging this back and forth, that's not going to be a good outcome.”
He said a PTC extension could pass as a standalone bill or as part of a larger long-term renewal of spending for surface transportation programs, if the broader transportation bill moves.
A three-month extension of highway and transit spending expires on Oct. 29. The Senate passed a six-year surface transportation bill that included a three-year PTC extension measure. The House has yet to introduce its version and DeFazio said it would be unlikely for both chambers to reconcile a highway bill before the end of October (See previous story, 10/01/15).
House Bill Will Need to Change to Pass Senate
The House introduced its PTC extension proposal as a standalone bill on Sept. 30. As in the Senate bill, the House legislation would extend the deadline for PTC installation to Dec. 31, 2018.
Thune said the two chambers will need to reconcile differences regarding possible additional extensions and the time line for PTC activation.
While the Senate bill would require rail carriers to install PTC equipment by 2018, the House version would require both installation and activation of the technology. Also unlike the Senate bill, the House proposal would allow the Federal Railroad Administration to provide an additional two years of extensions to railroads that face challenges.
Thune said he was optimistic that the two chambers would be able to come to an agreement quickly.
“What we need, to do this quickly, is: try and transact these things in a way that doesn't create all kinds of obstacles in the Senate,” Thune said. “We conveyed to them that there would be resistance to what the House bill does in the Senate, but I'm hoping that our four staffs can sit down together and work that out so that, when they send us something, it's something that could be accepted here.”
Thune said the House PTC extension is similar to the language that the Senate transportation panel started with, but that the Senate bill was changed in response to criticism from Democrats.
Several Senate Democrats, including Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) and Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), have signed on to legislation (S. 1006) that would limit railroads to one-year extensions for PTC implementation.
Blumenthal Signals Possible Filibuster
Blumenthal said he continues to oppose a so-called “blanket extension,” calling it unacceptable for all railroads, regardless of their PTC implementation progress, to receive an open-ended postponement of the Dec. 31 deadline.
The Connecticut lawmaker further signaled that he would consider objecting to the measure on the Senate floor.
“It depends on the specifics,” he told reporters Oct. 1.
DeFazio also said he was not in favor of rewarding railroads that had not made significant efforts to meet the PTC deadline.
“What I don't want to do is reward people that dragged their feet or will continue to drag their feet, versus people who have made the strongest good-faith effort and investments they can,” he told reporters Sept. 30. “We do not want to create that dynamic where you're rewarding people for not doing due diligence.”
Both the Government Accountability Office and the Federal Railroad Administration have said that the majority of rail carriers would miss the Dec. 31 deadline, and several companies have warned they will shut down service if Congress does not extend the PTC deadline.
Groups such as the American Association of Rail and the American Chemistry Council (ACC) have backed PTC extension legislation. The ACC released a report Oct. 1 showing that just one month of rail service disruption would cost the U.S. economy $30 billion and would result in a loss of 700,000 jobs.
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC: Looming PTC Deadline Threatens Economic Chaos
Oct 2, 2015 | IHS Chemical Week
By Clay Boswell
The US economy will take a massive hit if Congress does not extend the deadline for implementation of positive train control (PTC), according to a report released Thursday by ACC. A one-month disruption would reduce GDP by $30 billion and cost 700,000 jobs, says the report.
“A prolonged shutdown would be truly catastrophic, likely resulting in a recession,” says ACC president and CEO Cal Dooley. “We cannot afford to let this self-inflicted crisis happen. Congress must act now.”
On 30 September, leaders from the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee introduced a bill to extend the deadline, The Positive Train Control Enforcement and Implementation Act of 2015.PTC is a GPS-based system for preventing train collisions and derailments. The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 requires railroads to implement PTC on lines that ship certain hazardous materials and carry passengers by rail by 31 December, but the Association of American Railroads, the Government Accountability Office, and the Federal Railroad Administration have all concluded that the railroads will not be able to make the deadline, says ACC.
“Even allowing the deadline to approach will have severe consequences, as companies need time to adjust transportation plans in the face of a shutdown of freight rail service,” ACC notes.
Most major railroads say that they will shut down large portions of their rail lines unless the deadline is extended, according to ACC. On 29 September, ACC, the Chlorine Institute, and the Fertilizer Institute filed a complaint against the railroads with the US District Court in Washington, DC., arguing that the railroads cannot refuse to carry toxic inhalation chemicals, regardless of the PTC requirement.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Shippers Sue Rails Over Train Control Deadline
Oct 1, 2015 | Argus Media
Some of the nation's largest shipper groups are headed toward a legal showdown with railroads as they work to ensure their products will move even if railroads miss the 31 December federal deadline to install positive train control (PTC) technology.
Railroads have begun to notify shippers that they might be forced to refuse shipments because Congress has not yet extended the deadline it set in 2008 for installation of PTC, a computerized system designed to avoid derailments and accidents. Legislation has passed the Senate and been introduced in the House of Representatives to extend the PTC deadline, but final passage is uncertain.
The American Chemistry Council, the Chlorine Institute and the Fertilizer Institute on 29 September filed a complaint with a US district court over the matter. The complaint asks the US District Court in Washington, DC, to find that railroads cannot lawfully refuse to transport toxic-by-inhalation (TIH) chemicals because of the PTC requirement. The chemicals shippers filed a concurrent petition with the Surface Transportation Board seeking an order to eliminate the uncertainty created by the mandate.
The 2008 law passed by Congress that mandated installation of PTC, called the Rail Safety Improvement Act, does not supersede railroads from having to comply with the common carrier obligation, which requires railroads to provide transportation upon a reasonable request for service, the complaint says.
"Plaintiffs and their member companies will suffer immediate and irreparable harm as a direct and proximate result of defendants' refusal to accept, or to state whether they will accept, TIH materials for transportation on main lines that defendants have not equipped with PTC," the shippers said.
The complaint names all seven Class I railroads as defendants.
The shippers said that chemicals such as chlorine and anhydrous ammonia are vital for water treatment and agriculture. Three to four trucks are required to carry the same volume of chemicals as one railcar, and there is insufficient truck capacity, they said.
Railroads have previously said they do not believe that a request for common carrier service to move TIH chemicals would be "reasonable" because of the federal law that would enact penalties and potentially subject them to additional liability. Embargoes restricting TIH traffic handling could start as early as Thanksgiving to ensure the railraods can clear their systems of all carloads by the 31 December deadline.
The Association of American Railroads (AAR) told Argus today that it would not speculate on a potential court decision.
"The legal action taken by shippers is regrettable, but not surprising considering the situation that has been created by the lack of a PTC deadline extension," the railroad group said. "This situation highlights the difficult position railroads find themselves in as the clock ticks down on getting a PTC extension."
AAR said Congress can ensure that legal action by shippers and the potential nationwide shutdown will be avoided if it passes a PTC extension.
-
New Risks Moving Crude Oil by Rail
Oct 1, 2015 | MarineLink.com
By Dagmar EtkinThursday
The rapidly changing landscape of crude oil exploration and drilling in the US and Canada, together with economic considerations, logistical issues related to pipeline transport, and the availability of new types of crude oils, including Bakken crude and various forms of bitumen, have resulted in a very sudden and dramatic increase in the transport of crude oil by railroad. “Unit trains” containing 100 or more tank cars are transporting crude oil through regions that have not previously experienced this type of rail transport, and there are significant concerns about safety. The July 2013 crude oil train accident in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, Canada, which resulted in 47 fatalities (Transportation Safety Board of Canada, 2014) has caused significant concern about the safety of crude-by-rail (CBR) transportation of very volatile Bakken crude in particular.
These changes have had rippling effects in the US and worldwide. Increased production of oil in North America has decreased the need to import oil by tanker. But at the same time, the increase in rail transport has also brought an increase in tank barge, ATB, and smaller tanker traffic in some regions. In places like Washington State and New York, oil is being transferred from rail to tank vessels in the Columbia and Hudson Rivers, and there are plans to increase this traffic with the construction of new terminal facilities. With some of the oil being transported being diluted bitumen, there is concern about the potential for submerged oil that may result from spills from tank vessels or from rail spills into inland waterways.
These unprecedented changes have left federal and state officials scrambling to institute safety and environmental protection regulations to prevent, prepare, and respond to both oil spills and possible fires and explosions. Besides the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, there have been several other derailments of crude oil trains in the last couple of years in both the US and Canada that are making people think that this is happening “all the time” now. There are even website that will give you a map of the “blast zones” in your own neighborhood. But how real is the danger? What do the numbers tell us?
Real Numbers Analyzed
Transporting oil by rail is not an entirely new phenomenon, but in the past, this was mainly limited to occasional tank cars usually carrying refined fuel cargo as part of mixed manifest trains. Each tank car holds about 700 barrels of oil. But this all started to change about five years ago. In 2010, about 55,000 barrels of crude oil were being transported by rail daily in the US – less than one unit train of 100 cars per day. By 2014, more than one million barrels of crude oil were being transported by rail – or about 14 unit trains daily. Most of this traffic was from North Dakota to refineries in the East (New Jersey, Pennsylvania), with some crude oil going also to refineries in Washington and Louisiana. A lesser amount of oil sands crude was coming from Alberta, Canada, to the same locations.Actually, over the last 35 years or so, the amount of oil being transported that then spilled was decreasing rapidly – in the early 1980s, about one barrel of oil spilled for every 1,000 barrels transported. Over the last decade, there has been a 91% decrease in the spillage rate since the 1980s – so that one barrel spilled for every 12,000 barrels transported. In the last two years, the rate of spillage per oil transported has decreased to one barrel spilled for every 23,000 barrels transported. But, with the dramatic increase in the overall amount of oil transported by rail, the absolute amount of oil spilled each year has increased by 276%. The most likely cause of a major spill from a crude-by-rail (CBR) train is a derailment. Despite the number of news stories on derailments, the frequency (derailments per train mile) for freight trains has actually decreased significantly over the last 40 years, and even in the last decade. This is attributable to safety improvements in rail operations. The number of freight cars that derails in each incident has averaged about eight. (Note: not every car that derails involves spillage – only about 9% of incidents involving hazardous material tank cars results in spillage.)
Bigger Volumes, Bigger Stakes
But, there is a lot more at stake now. In the past, a train derailment that involved spillage of oil might have involved a small amount of oil spilled from a locomotive or a single tank car. Now, with unit trains of 100 to as many as 120 tank cars carrying oil, often volatile Bakken crude, the potential for larger spill volumes has increased, as has the possibility of a fire and/or explosion.There are not enough data on CBR derailments and spills to analyze the probability of different spill volumes, but analyzing 40 years of freight train derailments gives us a sense of the possible spill scenarios. Evaluating these scenarios is important for response planning purposes. The median case involves about five derailed cars with total spillage of less than one tank car – 700 barrels or so. The 99th percentile case (only 1% incidents would be expected to be larger) involves 37 derailed cars with about 2,400 to 4,400 barrels of spilled oil from three to six cars. The worst case scenario with 122 cars derailing has happened only once in 40 years (and that incident didn’t actually involve CBR tank cars). Theoretically, if this many cars would derail and they were all CBR tank cars, the most that would probably spill would be about 15,000 barrels. However, even one or two tank cars of Bakken crude spilled could result in a significant fire, or possibly an explosion.
Mitigating Risk
The most effective means of risk mitigation is preventing incidents from occurring in the first place. This is exactly what the most recent federal regulations are aiming to do. On May 1, 2015, the Department of Transportation (DOT) issued a final rulemaking “Enhanced Tank Car Standards and Operational Controls for High-Hazard Flammable Trains,” that included a number of provisions aimed at reducing risk from “high-hazard flammable trains” (HHFTs). HFFTs are trains that have a continuous block of 20 or more tank cars loaded with a flammable liquid or 35 or more cares loaded with a flammable dispersed through a train (i.e., with other cargo-type cars interspersed).The rule contains a new standard for tank cars – the DOT-117 specification. The timeline for retrofitting of affected tank cars for use in North America for high-hazard flammable freight trains (HHFTs), including CBR trains, to be implemented over the course of the next decade. In addition to provisions for tank car standards, this rulemaking also contains regulations regarding enhanced braking, operating speeds, classification of unrefined petroleum-based products, rail routing risk assessments, and rail routing information access. Positive train control (PTC), an advanced automated train protection systems will be mandated for all railroads by the end of 2015.
In addition to these measures, the National Transportation Safety Board recommended thermal protection systems for tank cars, which would reduce the heat flux to tank car containers when exposed to fire. Another prevention measure that is being implemented is the conditioning of Bakken crude in the North Dakota oil fields to reduce its volatility. This change has already paid off after a CBR derailment incident in West Virginia in which the derailed cars burned but did not explode, which prevented further damage.
While prevention measures are being implemented, the other part of risk mitigation – response – is also being addressed in affected areas. There are clearly more challenges that face states and local communities, as well as railroads, for increasing emergency and spill preparedness. Again, flammability of Bakken and related crude oils is an important consideration, but the locations of CBR rail lines are also important.
In some cases the remoteness and inaccessibility of the tracks impedes response actions; in other cases, the tracks being in the vicinity of highly-populated areas is a major safety concern.
The Author
Dagmar Schmidt Etkin has 30 years of experience in environmental analysis — 14 years investigating issues in population biology and ecological systems, and 16 years specializing in the analysis of oil spills. She has earned a Ph.D. from Harvard University, Organismic & Evolutionary Biology (ecology, statistics, population modeling), 1982, a Masters degree from Harvard University (Biology), and a B.A. from the University of Rochester in 1977.
-
Regulator Floats Overhaul of Inspections
Oct 2, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Federal regulators are moving forward with a proposal to revamp oil pipeline inspections after years of deliberation and a series of major spills.
The Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration is seeking to impose a 72-hour deadline for assessing oil pipelines in the wake of a natural disaster such as a flood or earthquake. The agency has also drafted a requirement for U.S. energy companies to check up on the nation's 191,000 miles of hazardous liquid pipelines at least once every decade, with environmentally sensitive areas to see more frequent inspection.
"Hazardous liquid pipelines crisscross the country and pipeline failures can have profound impacts on local communities and the environment," said Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx in a statement, calling yesterday's notice of proposed rulemaking "an important step forward" for safety.
Officials began working on the regulations in earnest following an Enbridge Inc. pipeline failure in 2010 that leaked almost 1 million gallons of crude into Michigan's Kalamazoo River. But despite posting an initial notice, and subsequent pressure from Congress and the National Transportation Safety Board, PHMSA never pressed on with a proposed rule until now.
The lack of action wasn't for a lack of pipeline accidents. Several high-profile spills and a sharp rise in domestic oil production brought heightened scrutiny on the U.S. pipeline industry after 2010.
In July 2011, flooding along Montana's Yellowstone River tore debris from its banks and caused 1,000 barrels of crude to leak from an underwater pipeline (E&E Daily, July 8, 2011).
Less than two years later, another pipeline operated by Exxon Mobil Corp. burst in Mayflower, Ark., spilling more than 3,000 barrels of crude in a suburban neighborhood (EnergyWire, April 2, 2013).
Yesterday, PHMSA closed its investigation of the Mayflower case and announced it will seek a $2.6 million civil penalty from Exxon for the oil giant's involvement. Exxon spokesman Christian Flathman said in an email that the company had received PHMSA's final order and "is evaluating its options."
Investigators concluded that the rupture in Exxon's Pegasus pipeline through Mayflower was due to "time-intensified defects of originally manufactured pipe."
PHMSA's proposed rulemaking is aimed at boosting efforts to detect flaws before they reach a breaking point. The rule would also make oil companies share more data from gathering lines and "gravity lines," which rely on elevation differences rather than pumping stations to keep hazardous liquids flowing.
PHMSA Administrator Marie Therese Dominguez, who was confirmed to her post in August, said the rule would "significantly change" the way pipeline operators handle risk.
"The new requirements would strengthen the standards that determine how operators repair aging and high-risk infrastructure, increase the quality and frequency of tests that assess the condition of pipelines, and require that all hazardous liquid pipelines have a system to detect leaks," she said in a statement.
Robin Rorick, midstream group director at the American Petroleum Institute, said yesterday that the industry organization shares PHMSA's goal of zero pipeline incidents.
"We need a practical pipeline safety rule for hazardous liquids that will complement industry's strong safety standards," Rorick said, adding that "we look forward to working with PHMSA when it comes to protecting the public."
API said it expects to offer input on the notice of proposed rulemaking, which is open for public comment until Jan. 8, 2016.
Environmentalist groups will also be sharing their thoughts with transportation officials during that time. Lois Epstein, Arctic program director for the Wilderness Society and an engineer by training, said that while the rule made some "incremental" progress, she was dissatisfied with the outcome.
"It's been such a long time coming ... this was [PHMSA's] opportunity to really make a difference in safety, to look at what accidents occurred and what could prevent them -- and they just failed," she said.
Epstein pointed to the proposed rule's requirement for installing leak detection systems on all pipelines without detailing a baseline level of technology.
"There's a whole industry waiting for performance standards to be required so they can sell their products" for advanced oil leak detection, Epstein said, adding that PHMSA's treatment of the issue is "one of my greatest disappointments."
PHMSA suggested in a draft cost/benefit analysis that "highly detailed prescriptive regulation" for spotting leaks "would eliminate the flexibility needed to address the unique circumstances of individual states and operators."
Leak detection caught Congress' attention as far back as 2011, when lawmakers passed several directives for PHMSA to take action on pipeline safety (E&E Daily, Dec. 14, 2011).
Yesterday's proposed rule addresses some of those mandates, earning it measured praise from Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), ranking member on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
"While these safety improvements are long overdue, I am pleased to finally see them come to fruition," he said in a statement.
Still, Pallone said he "remain[s] concerned that the proposal does not contain any standards for leak detection devices."
"Without a strong technical standard and notification requirements, the impact of this requirement on safety and the environment could be far less than it should be," Pallone said.
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