Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 11/9/15
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Plastic Bottle Recycling Hit 3 Billion Pounds in 2014: Report
Nov 9, 2015 | Waste Dive
By Arlene Karidis
The United States recycled more than 3 billion pounds of post-consumer plastic bottles in 2014, representing a 97 million pound increase from 2013, according to a report from the Association of Plastic Recyclers and the American Chemistry Council. -
(ACC Mentioned) Cancer Findings May Result in Labels on Meat in California
Nov 9, 2015 | Daily Democrat
By Curtis Tate
The recent finding by an international panel that eating processed meat increases the risk of cancer could trigger warning labels under California law and a legal battle by meat producers and their trade groups to avoid the requirement. -
Groups Work to Cut Toxics Risk for Workers at Black Salons
Nov 9, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
Researchers and environmental justice advocates are working to eliminate toxic chemicals from black women's hair salons, where they can cause health problems for some women. -
Advocates Fear EPA Will Deny Call For IST Mandate In Facility Safety Rule
Nov 9, 2015 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Environmentalists fear EPA will deny their long-running request to include in a pending revised industrial facility safety rule a mandate for using inherently safer technologies (IST) to reduce risks of disasters at plants, saying agency Administrator Gina McCarthy hinted at the lack of an IST mandate at a recent meeting with advocates. -
Get PTC Done ASAP, Feinberg Advises
Nov 9, 2015 | Progressive Rail Roading
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) will soon unveil its expectations for railroads to meet the newly extended Dec. 31, 2018, deadline for positive train control (PTC) implementation, FRA Administrator Sarah Feinberg told members of the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) last week. -
Pipeline's Defeat Could Translate to Rail Gains
Nov 9, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
President Obama's decision to reject the Keystone XL pipeline Friday could come with a heavy side of tank cars. Canadian energy companies need about a dozen crude-laden trains each day to replace the volume of oil that could have been transported through KXL. -
2 Freight Trains Derail in Wis., Spilling Ethanol, Crude
Nov 9, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
A Canadian Pacific freight train derailed in Wisconsin yesterday, spilling crude oil and forcing 35 homes to be evacuated. -
Feds Investigating Wisconsin Oil Train Crash
Nov 9, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Keith Laing
The Federal Railroad Administration is investigation an oil train crash in Watertown, Wis., officials with agency said on Monday. -
FRA: Second Derailed Wisconsin Train Leaked Bakken Oil
Nov 9, 2015 | Politico Pro - Whiteboards
By Lauren Gardner
A Canadian Pacific train that derailed in Wisconsin over the weekend was carrying Bakken crude oil, and one of the tank cars leaked, FRA said today. -
More Companies Intervene on Behalf of Rule
Nov 9, 2015 | E&E Energywire
As of Thursday, Calpine Corp. and four other energy companies had filed to legally intervene in support of the U.S. EPA emissions cuts, amid a 24-state lawsuit denouncing the Clean Power Plan. -
Most States Suing EPA's Climate Rule are Also Mulling How to Comply
Nov 9, 2015 | E&E Climatewire
By Elizabeth Harball
Legal opposition to U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan roared into action in recent weeks, with Mississippi being the latest of 27 states now challenging the regulation in court. -
Electric Regulators Talk EPA Rule as Suing States Explore Compliance
Nov 9, 2015 | E&E Interactive
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
State electric regulators meet in Austin this week for the first time since the final Clean Power Plan came out in August. -
Landfill Rule Tests Threshold Question Over EPA Power To Update ESPSs
Nov 9, 2015 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
Power plant operators and environmentalists are at odds over whether EPA has threshold legal authority under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act to update its standards for methane and other emissions at existing municipal landfills, a precedent-setting dispute that could also determine whether the agency will eventually be able to update its existing power plant greenhouse gas standards. -
Greenhouse Gases Hit New Milestone, Fueling Worries About Climate Change
Nov 9, 2015 | Washington Post
By Joby Warrick
New scientific data released on Monday confirmed 2015’s place as a milestone year for the Earth’s environment, with both temperatures and greenhouse gases crossing symbolic thresholds with ominous implications for future climate change.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Plastic Bottle Recycling Hit 3 Billion Pounds in 2014: Report
Nov 9, 2015 | Waste Dive
By Arlene Karidis
Dive Brief:
The United States recycled more than 3 billion pounds of post-consumer plastic bottles in 2014, representing a 97 million pound increase from 2013, according to a report from the Association of Plastic Recyclers and the American Chemistry Council. The 2014 figure also marks a recycling rate jump of 31.8%.PET and polyethylene constituted 97.2% of the plastic bottle recycling market, and polypropylene accounted for another 2.6%.The increase is primarily due to single-stream recycling and how many recycling programs now accept all types of plastic bottles, according to ACC’s managing director of plastics markets, Keith Christman. Despite this increased number of bottles collected, the volume in weight is down.
Dive Insight:
As environmentalists and recyclers remind consumers of the benefits of recycling and of the harm caused by plastic waste — particularly to marine life — more people are adopting recycling as a routine practice. But convenience has been as powerful a motivator as education, as seen by higher recycling rates when consumers can combine recyclables in one cart rather than have to separate them. This easier approach has proven to increase household participation and volumes.
Movement of recycling programs to start accepting all types of plastic bottles also has helped bring the numbers up, Christman said.
"We know that from studies that have been done over the years. Having more communities recognize the need to collect all plastic bottles makes it easier for people and increases plastic bottle recycling," he said of the 25-year-running upward trend in recycling rates.
Still, recyclers face challenges with new manufacturing trends. For instance, some products are sold in smaller bottles of more concentrated products, and the bottles are lighter. Therefore, while more containers are collected, the volume in weight is decreasing.
"It makes it harder to have dramatic increases in the pounds of recycling if the amount of material going on to the marketplace is growing more slowly," said Christman.
Nonetheless, "All trends are positive this year, in a very tough market. We’re pleased that we continue to both maintain and see slight growth going forward," APR Executive Director Steve Alexander said to Plastics News.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Cancer Findings May Result in Labels on Meat in California
Nov 9, 2015 | Daily Democrat
By Curtis Tate
The recent finding by an international panel that eating processed meat increases the risk of cancer could trigger warning labels under California law and a legal battle by meat producers and their trade groups to avoid the requirement.
California is one of the country's largest producers and consumers of meat, and the meat industry is likely to fight any effort by the state to label its products under Proposition 65. That law, approved by the state's voters three decades ago, requires warnings about products that contain substances known to cause cancer.
"I expect to see a lot of activity from the meat industry about that process," said Patty Lovera, assistant director of Food and Water Watch, a consumer watchdog group. "They'll beat it down in the court of public opinion."
Industry advocates and legal experts anticipate that the meat producers will try to cast doubt on the findings or downplay their significance and could take California to court over the labeling requirements.Advertisement
"We may have to," said Janet Riley, senior vice president for public affairs at the North American Meat Institute, the industry's trade association. "The level of reaction is not proportional to the level of threat."
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, the agency that enforces Proposition 65, relies heavily on the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer for guidance on what to list and label as carcinogenic. In California, the body's research is considered as authoritative as that of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
The agency has added about 800 chemicals to the list since it was first published in 1987. Once a substance is listed, businesses with 10 or more employees have a year to comply with its labeling requirements.
Based on hundreds of studies, the international panel last month added bacon, sausage, ham, hot dogs and other processed meats to its list of Group I carcinogens, which include tobacco and asbestos. However, the panel emphasized that the classification of processed meats in that category did not mean the danger was equal to that of those substances.
The panel also classified red meat as "probably carcinogenic" based on "limited evidence" showing a relationship between its consumption and colon cancer. Red meat includes beef, pork, veal and lamb.
The panel also cautioned that the cancer risk from meat consumption was relatively low compared with smoking and excessive drinking, and it acknowledged that meat has known health benefits.
Critics of Proposition 65, which passed in 1986, have argued for years that its public benefits are limited because it gives consumers little context or comparison of relative risk. A warning typically only states that the product in question contains chemicals or substances known by the state to cause cancer.
"It doesn't tell them what the risk is," said Karyn Schmidt, senior director for regulatory and technical affairs at the American Chemistry Council, a trade group in Washington. "People don't know how much they can eat."
Groups that support Proposition 65, however, say products should be labeled so consumers can choose whether to accept the risk of exposure to carcinogens and if not, choose other products instead.
"The solution to that problem isn't to label less," said Stephanie Feldstein, population and sustainability director at the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group. "It's to have better products."
California's environmental health office will now consider the World Health Organization's findings. Allan Hirsch, the California agency's chief deputy director, said the next step would be to formally notify the public of its intent to list processed meat and red meat as carcinogens, and a public comment period would follow.
Groups on both sides anticipate that the meat industry will attempt to discredit the science of the panel's research in a bid to head off a listing. But it could be tough to dissuade the state agency from disregarding a report from an international body whose work it considers highly persuasive.
"It would be an uphill battle for the industry to contest this on the science," said Laura MacCleery, regulatory affairs attorney for the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
Meat producers might have better luck arguing that federal law pre-empts Proposition 65. The U.S. Department of Agriculture regulates meat labeling, and courts have struck down state laws when they have come in conflict with federal requirements, though not always.
CANCER DEATHS PER YEAR, WORLDWIDE
34,000 attributed to high consumption of processed meats
50,000 attributed to high consumption of red meat
200,000 attributed to air pollution
600,000 attributed to alcohol consumption
1 million attributed to smokingSource: Global Burden of Disease Project, University of Washington
-
Groups Work to Cut Toxics Risk for Workers at Black Salons
Nov 9, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
Researchers and environmental justice advocates are working to eliminate toxic chemicals from black women's hair salons, where they can cause health problems for some women.
Teni Adewumi, a graduate student at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health and the environmental justice program coordinator at the nonprofit group Black Women for Wellness, said that when surveyed, black salon workers in Inglewood, Calif., reported symptoms like asthma, hair loss, miscarriages and dermatitis.
The symptoms seemed to worsen when the stylists applied products like relaxers and chemical hair straighteners, many told her.
"Even though they had all gone to beauty school, there was just really no training around what these products could do to your body and to your reproductive system," Adewumi said.
Research also often fails to capture the true exposure salon workers face because scientists typically look at the effects of exposure to a single chemical, even though salon workers handle a variety of substances, said Alexandra Scranton, director of science and research at Women's Voices for the Earth.
Most studies used by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to calculate permissible exposure limits used men who worked in factories as the subjects of the research, Scranton said, which means the figures are likely inaccurate for women.
"There's a great need for better training and warnings, and less [saying] 'This is just the cost of the job,'" Scranton said. "It shouldn't be the cost of the job. They shouldn't be paying with their health".
-
Advocates Fear EPA Will Deny Call For IST Mandate In Facility Safety Rule
Nov 9, 2015 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Environmentalists fear EPA will deny their long-running request to include in a pending revised industrial facility safety rule a mandate for using inherently safer technologies (IST) to reduce risks of disasters at plants, saying agency Administrator Gina McCarthy hinted at the lack of an IST mandate at a recent meeting with advocates.
A coalition of IST advocacy groups including Greenpeace and the Blue Green Alliance say that the administrator at the Oct. 13 meeting not only said the upcoming rule might not include IST mandates but that it is also delayed until early next year. Environmentalists have been pressing the administration to swiftly propose and finalize the rule before the end of the Obama administration.
The groups that met with McCarthy then sent an Oct. 21 letter to her raising concerns about the lack of IST requirements in the upcoming rule to revise EPA's Risk Management Plan (RMP) rulemaking. IST generally refers to switching to alternative chemicals or production processes to reduce risks of disasters at facilities.
The groups "were disappointed to hear that the RMP rule may not include new requirements to use inherently safer technologies (IST) where feasible to eliminate or reduce catastrophic hazards," they write. "We hope we can work together on an updated RMP rule that incorporates requirements which take advantage of technological advances in preventing chemical facility disasters that have been made over the last two decades."
The coalition claims McCarthy in the meeting told advocates that she supports RMP revisions that would improve communities' access to industrial facilities' information and enhance emergency preparedness. Advocates also say McCarthy expressed interest in updating the rule to require facilities to assess the feasibility of using IST.
In response to questions from Inside EPA, an agency spokeswoman says, "EPA cannot confirm specific Risk Management Program (RMP) updates since it has not yet completed the development and review process. We need to review approximately 100,000 comments received on the RMP Request for Information and fulfill the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act requirements. EPA estimates publication in early 2016."
Rejection of an IST mandate would effectively deny the Coalition to Prevent Chemical Disasters' July 2012 petition for EPA to use Clean Air Act section 112(r) power to mandate that facilities use IST where feasible. RMP currently requires facilities handling extremely hazardous substances to craft plans to reduce the risk of accidents.
IST Mandate
The coalition of advocacy groups in their follow-up letter argue that withholding an IST mandate from the RMP rulemaking would be counter to President Obama's calls for such a requirement when he was a presidential candidate. The letter also revises advocates' recommendations for the agency's forthcoming revisions to its RMP accident prevention program to include a call for requiring safety assessments, rather than use of IST.
EPA's overhaul of RMP is part of a broad federal effort to implement Obama's Executive Order (EO) 13650, which calls for improving industrial facility safety and security through improved communication and information sharing, as well as modernized policies, rules and standards. Obama issued the EO Aug. 1, 2013, in response to an ammonium nitrate explosion in April of that year at a fertilizer facility in West, TX, that killed 14 people.
Administration officials' public statements in recent years have downplayed the possibility of an IST mandate. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) staff has said DHS' Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) already encourages IST, and that any CFATS revisions would not set an IST mandate.
EPA officials have been less clear on the issue of IST. In November 2013, Larry Stanton, then-director of EPA's Office of Emergency Management within the waste office, said a federal IST mandate would be "monumentally difficult," and other agency officials have said EPA would not require use of specific technologies.
But in a June 2014 report, federal officials said they were considering some form of IST requirement as part of the RMP overhaul. According to the Unified Agenda, the agency had intended to propose revisions to RMP by September.
In addition to pressing EPA for an IST mandate, advocates have urged EPA to speed its update of the RMP program, arguing that if revisions are not final before Obama leaves office any changes could be rolled back.
RMP Revisions
In the letter to McCarthy, advocates say they are pushing for a revised RMP to require all facilities to assess and report on the feasibility of using safer chemicals or processes, and to require that those reviews include worker input.
RMP revisions should also require reporting of all near accidents and process upsets since those could portend a disaster, the letter says.
The groups continue to press for IST requirement, but on a more limited basis. Advocates call for an EPA pilot project that would require IST at certain high-risk facilities, suggesting sectors such as drinking and wastewater treatment, since some facilities in those sectors have already switched to safer chemicals.
"In order to protect communities at the greatest risk of catastrophic chemical facility hazards in the near term, we respectfully urge you to include at minimum a pilot project which would require assessment and, where feasible, implementation of conversion to safer chemicals and processes for a subset of chemical facilities," the letter says.
Advocates also ask EPA to urge manufacturers of ammonium nitrate, the substance involved in the West disaster, to voluntarily ensure a "non-weaponized" form of the substance, which already exists, is available for use in fertilizer.
To protect under-served communities, the advocates' letter urges EPA to immediately launch a national survey of emergency response and medical capabilities to respond to a worst-case disaster.
"The current decades-old RMP rule is woefully inadequate and is in need of significant modification," the groups say. "The RMP rulemaking provides the agency with a clear window of opportunity to address these deficiencies."
-
Get PTC Done ASAP, Feinberg Advises
Nov 9, 2015 | Progressive Rail Roading
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) will soon unveil its expectations for railroads to meet the newly extended Dec. 31, 2018, deadline for positive train control (PTC) implementation, FRA Administrator Sarah Feinberg told members of the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) last week.
Feinberg urged railroads not to make the extension their primary focus, but to focus on "getting PTC up and running as soon as possible," according to a prepared statement of remarks.
"Over the last year, I am sure you have observed that FRA is in a much more aggressive posture on PTC, and everyone should expect for that posture to continue," Feinberg told the committee, which advises the railroad industry on safety policy.
Late last month, Congress gave railroads an extra three years to implement PTC on their networks. Most railroads had informed the FRA and Congress that they would not be able to meet the previous deadline of Dec. 31 of this year.
After the FRA insisted that it would enforce that deadline and begin issuing fines against railroads that were out of compliance, many freight and commuter railroads and Amtrak said they would cease operations in order to avoid the fines.
In the next few weeks, the railroads will hear more specific details on how the FRA intends to work with them on their implementation plans and schedules to meet the new deadline, Feinberg told RSAC members.
"To be clear: As railroads contemplate the new PTC deadline, I would urge them to view that new date — three years from now — as the absolute latest moment for implementation," Feinberg said.
Feinberg also addressed three other topics with the group: Crude oil transportation, bridge safety and blocked rail crossings.
On the crude oil issue, Feinberg said the RSAC's Hazardous Materials Working Group will be reviewing the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's hazmat regulations to determine of adjustments are needed.
Regarding blocked crossings and bridge safety, Feinberg said the FRA is is now receiving more public complaints on those two issues than the agency receives on any other matter, including PTC.
She acknowledged that railroads typically respond appropriately when members of the public raise questions or concerns about bridge safety or blocked crossings. However, there have been some instances in which a railroad has ignored citizens' complaints about bridges and crossings. When that happens, the citizens contact their members of Congress and/or the FRA.
Feinberg recommended that railroads always answer members of the public when contacted with questions or concerns about bridges and blocked crossings.
"If railroads continue to respond with silence when it comes to bridge safety and blocked crossings, my sense is that Congress will ask us to step in more aggressively," she said. -
Pipeline's Defeat Could Translate to Rail Gains
Nov 9, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
President Obama's decision to reject the Keystone XL pipeline Friday could come with a heavy side of tank cars. Canadian energy companies need about a dozen crude-laden trains each day to replace the volume of oil that could have been transported through KXL.
Now that TransCanada Corp.'s Alberta-to-Gulf-Coast pipeline has been denied, however, it's clear that the contest between KXL and railroads in Canada's western oil patch wasn't a zero-sum game.
Rail shippers could see a modest boost from the pipeline's defeat, but analysts say Canada's crude-by-rail business must first overcome unfavorable price spreads, potentially burdensome new regulations and below-$50-per-barrel oil.
"Keystone wasn't going to come online until 2018 anyway, so current dynamics around [rail] terminal capacity, today's pipeline capacity and whether there are enough rail cars, those are conditions that are present now," said Graham Brisben, CEO of PLG Consulting, a freight logistics research and advisory firm. "Keystone XL doesn't really affect what's happening right now in terms of crude takeaway."
Over time, Brisben said the 830,000-barrel-per-day pipeline's rejection could "sustain the opportunity" for rail shippers.
"Crude-by-rail could certainly fill the void -- it's just a matter of whether it's economically attractive to sell those barrels on the Gulf [of Mexico] versus other supply sources," Brisben said. Currently, refiners along the U.S. Gulf Coast can fetch Mexican Maya crude, for instance, at cheaper prices than buying and railing down Alberta's benchmark heavy crude, Western Canadian Select.
Bridget Hunsucker, publications director at energy research firm Genscape Inc., said Friday that Keystone XL's rejection "could be a tailwind for Canadian crude-by-rail developers, who have recently faced challenges associated with the narrowing of key price spreads."
"Though rail transport is relatively expensive compared to pipeline, as Western Canadian crude production grows, rail should become more key to moving heavy crude supplies to market," she said. "This is especially true if available pipeline capacity does not keep pace with output."
That's in keeping with U.S. State Department findings. The agency examined various what-if scenarios for the pipeline as part of its yearslong review of the project. In 2014, the State Department published an environmental impact statement that said rejecting TransCanada's plan wouldn't have a big impact on Canada's oil sands sector, due to the availability of alternative transport options for the crude, including rail.
The State Department stood by its original assessment Friday in laying out its case that KXL wouldn't be in the U.S. national interest. That record of decision said that there is already 775,000 barrels per day of rail-loading capacity for crude from western Canada. In a conference call with reporters, a State Department official added that "I would anticipate that there could be an increase of transport by rail."
The finding came with a major caveat, however.
"The extent to which rail transport will actually occur ... or would prove to be a major form of transport for [Canadian] crude to the United States in the long term, remains uncertain," the State Department said.
In the same analysis, the department went on to conclude that "since [oil sands] production remains uncertain post 2018, the corresponding amount of transportation infrastructure also remains uncertain."
Crude-by-rail shipments moved around 200,000 barrels per day from western Canada to the United States last year, according to estimates from global consulting and research firm IHS Inc. Only a portion of that Canadian oil went all the way to the Gulf Coast, where the southern leg of KXL lets out.
If no alternative pipelines, such as TransCanada's Energy East line or Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain expansion, earn approval, "basically, it's the end of growth in the tar sands," said Lorne Stockman, research director at Oil Change International. "Under the current oil price trajectory, [producers] can't afford the extra cost of rail -- it doesn't give them the kind of returns that they would need to greenlight new projects."
"You can't replace something like the Keystone pipeline with rail -- the economics just do not add up," Stockman said.Railroads react
The U.S. Department of Energy is also unsure about the prospects for crude-by-rail picking up KXL's slack. The recent decline in oil prices has made the issue "more complicated," according to DOE comments filed with the State Department earlier this year.
"With sustained lower oil prices, margins could be squeezed to the point of unprofitability and additional expansion or greenfield [oil sands] projects could potentially be shut in," DOE observed.
By some accounts, railroads including the Canadian National Railway Co. and Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd. are fighting to hang onto their small but lucrative stake in the oil business. Reuters recently reported that Canadian railroads have slashed rates in response to the oil price slump in a bid to secure more volume.
Representatives from CN and CP declined to comment on possible discounts for oil shippers. Regarding KXL, CP spokesman Jeremy Berry said that "should demand to move crude-by-rail increase or decrease over time, CP is well positioned to safely move crude in line with the needs of our customers."
In a recent conference call with investors, CP's president and chief operating officer, Keith Creel, called "some strategic pricing" for crude-by-rail "the right thing to do."
He also alluded to the rivalry between railroads and other modes of energy transport.
"I don't see rail as my competitor when it comes to crude," he said. "Our primary competitor is the pipeline."
-
2 Freight Trains Derail in Wis., Spilling Ethanol, Crude
Nov 9, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
A Canadian Pacific freight train derailed in Wisconsin yesterday, spilling crude oil and forcing 35 homes to be evacuated.
Spokesman Jeremy Berry said one of the cars was punctured in the derailment, but the oil was quickly contained and didn't reach any waterways.
The accident in Watertown, Wis., about 50 miles from Milwaukee, was the second derailment in two days in the state. A 25-car BNSF Railway train spilled thousands of gallons of ethanol into the Mississippi River on Saturday after derailing in Alma, Wis., near the Minnesota border.
"BNSF is continuing to monitor for environmental impacts and to work on scene with the multiple federal and state agencies involved," the company said in a statement.
-
Feds Investigating Wisconsin Oil Train Crash
Nov 9, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Keith Laing
The Federal Railroad Administration is investigation an oil train crash in Watertown, Wis., officials with agency said on Monday.
A 13-car Canadian Pacific train crashed on Sunday, resulting in one tank car spilling Bakken crude oil near the Wisconsin town, according to the agency.
“A Canadian Pacific train has derailed near Watertown, Wisconsin, and Federal Railroad Administration investigators and hazmat specialists are en route," the FRA said in a statement after news of the crash reached Washington. "Some of the tank cars were carrying crude oil.”
"FRA investigators have arrived in Watertown, Wis., where a @CanadianPacific train derailed earlier today," the agency tweeted later on Sunday.
Canadian Pacific said it is cooperating with federal investigators as they try to learn about the cause of the crash.
"CP confirms a derailment in Watertown, WI. Working closely with local authorities on response. Investigation is on-going."
The Wisconsin crash is the latest in a series of accidents that have resulted in the transportation of crude oil by freight rail becoming a contentious issue in Washington. Lawmakers have soughtwidespread reforms since a pair of 2013 accidents in Casselton, N.D., and Quebec, Canada, spilled thousands of gallons of oil and caused explosions.
The FRA has moved on its own to lower the speed limit for oil trains and require more frequent track inspections. The agency has also ordered freight rail companies to remove faulty parts it says have been involved in multiple oil train leaks.
Safety advocates have pushed for the removal of older tank car models, which are known as DOT-111s, that have been blamed for high-profile crashes. They have also urged lawmakers to enforce a mandate for an automated train system known as Positive Train Control that was recently pushed back until 2018.
Railroads and oil companies have argued that the from the Bakken formation in North Dakota, which has been the focus of the Transportation Department's regulatory effort, has gotten a bad rap because it was involved in the earlier crashes.
-
FRA: Second Derailed Wisconsin Train Leaked Bakken Oil
Nov 9, 2015 | Politico Pro - Whiteboards
By Lauren Gardner
A Canadian Pacific train that derailed in Wisconsin over the weekend was carrying Bakken crude oil, and one of the tank cars leaked, FRA said today.
Thirteen tank cars transporting the fuel, which DOT data has shown is more volatile than other crudes, derailed on Sunday. Thirty-five families were evacuated, and local fire officials will reassess whether or not to maintain evacuation at 4 p.m. Central Standard Time, the agency said.
The incident was the second derailment to occur over the weekend in Wisconsin. A BNSF train carrying ethanol derailed Saturday morning near Alma. The affected tracks are expected to reopen by noon today.
-
More Companies Intervene on Behalf of Rule
Nov 9, 2015 | E&E Energywire
As of Thursday, Calpine Corp. and four other energy companies had filed to legally intervene in support of the U.S. EPA emissions cuts, amid a 24-state lawsuit denouncing the Clean Power Plan.
Calpine was the first to announce these intentions, but it's now working with Austin Energy, Pacific Gas and Electric Co., Seattle City Light and National Grid PLC to fight for the Clean Power Plan.
These companies all benefit from the EPA carbon emissions rule because they largely run off clean energy like natural gas, as opposed to coal.
Texas and West Virginia are leading the lawsuit against the EPA rules, with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) arguing that the federal government is illegally overstepping and that the plan will increase consumer electricity costs.
The companies argue that the EPA rule would only speed up current market trends moving away from coal while reducing carbon emissions.
They noted in the joint filing that they should be able to benefit under this new plan because of their foresight and help in reducing emissions.
"Calpine anticipates that its long-term investments in clean generation technology will be rewards through the implementation of the CPP," the filing states. "These rewards would be severely diminished or in some instances lost entirely if the CPP is invalidated".
-
Most States Suing EPA's Climate Rule are Also Mulling How to Comply
Nov 9, 2015 | E&E Climatewire
By Elizabeth Harball
Legal opposition to U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan roared into action in recent weeks, with Mississippi being the latest of 27 states now challenging the regulation in court.
But a review of how all the suing states are approaching the climate rule reveals that even though a state may be litigating the Clean Power Plan, it doesn't mean it's not actively considering how to achieve the required emissions cuts.
Few suing states are not publicly discussing how they might comply with the rule; most in this category have Republican governors with presidential aspirations. And in recent weeks, the "just say no" strategy encouraged by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) seems to have faded away.
"I think many of them are proceeding ahead even if it's only the umbrella of Plan B, and I think that's wise," said Ken Colburn, a principal at the Regulatory Assistance Project, which advises state regulators on the Clean Power Plan.
"Most are having stakeholder meetings, and certainly the discussions between [public utility commissions] and air regulators are well under way now since even before the proposed rule," he added. "I think those developments are proceeding as though they are going to be necessary without any advertising."
For example, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) in July joined five other governors in threateningnot to write a state compliance plan. The document, submitted to EPA, outlines how a state might meet the rule's targets.
"If your administration proceeds to finalize the Clean Power Plan, and the final rule has not demonstrably and significantly improved from the proposed rule, Indiana will not comply," Pence wrote.
But when contacted last week, soon after Indiana joined on to the multi-state lawsuit challenging EPA, a spokeswoman said the governor has not yet decided whether to submit a plan.
"As [Pence] weighs this decision, he is meeting with stakeholders to hear their reasons for and against submitting a plan," the spokeswoman wrote in an email. "He has also directed the relevant state agencies to work with the Governor's Office to develop an understanding of what a plan could look like so that Indiana's options are fully understood."'Looking at all options'
Even EPA's staunchest opponents are saying it would be impractical to ignore the climate rule altogether.
"We are looking at all options," said Bryan Shaw, head of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. "As part of our efforts to suggest that a [court-ordered] stay would be appropriate is recognizing that in order to fully understand this rule, we're having to go forward as if we're going to submit a plan, as if we're not going to submit a plan, as if there's going to be a request for an extension, so we are working to work through all that."
Much of this is because the parties charged with actually achieving the carbon emissions reductions -- air regulators, power companies and grid operators -- want to know their state's strategy might work as soon as possible.
In Michigan, the first state to announce it will be writing a compliance plan while suing EPA, leaders argued that this strategy will ensure that the compliance plan doesn't end up in federal control. This decision was quickly applauded by many of the state's power companies (Greenwire, Sept. 2).
And Oklahoma's secretary of energy and environment recently acknowledged that power generators have begged state leaders to avoid having a federal plan imposed by EPA; he vowed that this will not occur, although he still denied that the state will be submitting a compliance plan (ClimateWire, Oct. 27).
"I think even where you have a small number of governors who came out previously saying they were not going to submit a plan ... there may be reasons that stakeholders in those states are saying, 'We would really like to see the state go through the process of developing a plan; that's going to make it easier for us to comply,'" said Gabriel Pacyniak, climate change mitigation program manager at the Georgetown Climate Center and an adjunct professor at Georgetown Law.N.C., Texas consider 'inside the fence line' gambit
States must submit at least an initial plan with a request for an extension to EPA by next September, and the agency is requiring all states to have finalized compliance plans by September 2018.
Not all the plans may be what EPA has in mind, however.
North Carolina is discussing the possibility of submitting an "inside the fence line" or a "Building Block 1" plan. It would only require emissions reductions at power plants (EnergyWire, Nov. 5).
Shaw of Texas said his state is also attracted to this option, but both he and North Carolina regulators are aware that this would almost guarantee that EPA would impose a federal plan on his state.
"Filing a 'Building Block 1' plan is one that you could argue is a plan that we think is legal, from the standpoint of what EPA should have written in the rule," Shaw said, but he also acknowledged that doing so could have "unintended consequences."
And while the "just say no" strategy appears to have dissolved, in most states with Republican governors who have or had presidential aspirations, there is limited -- if any -- public discussion on a Clean Power Plan compliance strategy.
Under New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), Bob Martin, the state's Department of Environmental Protection commissioner, recently submitted a declaration to EPA saying that crafting a state plan will be "extremely complex, time-consuming and costly." He argued that there is too little time for the state to analyze how it might comply.
When asked if the state is planning to submit an initial plan in September, a DEP spokesman declined to comment.La. defers to the next governor
Echoing Texas, a spokeswoman for Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) reiterated the state's staunch opposition to the Clean Power Plan, adding that the state is "considering all options to mitigate the damage [of] this federal overreach."
The decision on whether or not to submit a state plan to EPA, she added, will be left to the candidate who wins the state's upcoming gubernatorial election. Depending on the outcome, this means Louisiana is another former "just say no" state that may be submitting a compliance plan, after all. John Bel Edwards, a Democrat, is currently leading Sen. David Vitter (R) in the polls.
Robert Nordhaus, a partner at Van Ness Feldman LLP in Washington, D.C., and an expert on federal environmental regulation, said submitting a compliance plan to EPA shouldn't interfere with a state's legal opposition to the Clean Power Plan.
"A state doesn't have to say exactly what it's going to do in the initial submission. I think it could make it clear that they are submitting [a plan] under protest," said Nordhaus, who is not involved with litigation against the Clean Power Plan. "I think that much of the litigation is not going to be directed to 'Well, this is impossible; we could never do it.' Rather, 'Even if we could do it, it's unlawful and beyond EPA's authority.'"
How might state air regulators and public utility commissioners -- leaders with a major stake in how states comply with the Clean Power Plan -- be hindered by the tricky politics surrounding EPA's climate rule? It might not be that burdensome, said Colburn of the Regulatory Assistance Project.
"They all know the realities. They might wish it were otherwise for whatever reason, but they know that if they are in a position where they can be working on a Plan B, that the interests of that will not be served by them saying anything about it," said Colburn. "I don't think that many are frustrated; I think they just recognize it as their current reality -- 'It's changed before; it'll change again' kind of thing."
-
Electric Regulators Talk EPA Rule as Suing States Explore Compliance
Nov 9, 2015 | E&E Interactive
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
State electric regulators meet in Austin this week for the first time since the final Clean Power Plan came out in August.
The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners' annual meeting is expected to draw at least 1,200 electricity world insiders, from state and federal officials to energy company representatives and clean energy advocates.
Each Monday, Power Plays previews upcoming moves on the way to Clean Power Plan compliance and recaps the week's developments.
U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy will give the keynote speech this afternoon, and panels through Wednesday will focus on what role various fuels will play under the rule and how to preserve baseload power and grid reliability while integrating greener electricity, as well as how states can use multistate trading systems to meet their individual goals.
As Elizabeth Harball reports in today's ClimateWire, most of the states challenging the rule in court are still making some progress on exploring options for cutting their carbon emissions.
"We'll be listening carefully (at the NARUC meeting) to whether states are kind of transitioning into compliance mode, trying to really figure out how to craft at least initial plans," said Paul Allen, senior vice president at the consulting firm M.J. Bradley & Associates (EnergyWire, Nov. 6).
Get a preview of Harball's story in Friday's The Cutting Edge. Check out E&E's new Power Plan Hub map and graphic that detail where each state stands.
The National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates will also meet in Austin.
Reporters Emily Holden and Edward Klump will report from the meetings.
Meanwhile, the Edison Electric Institute will host utility executives at a financial conferencenear Fort Lauderdale, Fla., this week, and the Clean Power Plan is sure to be a topic of discussion. Reporter Rod Kuckro will attend.
And EPA kicks off its first public listening sessions on the last unfinalized portion of the Clean Power Plan this week in Pittsburgh.
Agency officials will hear feedback on a proposed federal plan and model trading rules. Three other two-day meetings will follow, in Denver; Washington, D.C.; and Atlanta, over the next two weeks.
EPA will hold a webinar Thursday at 1 p.m. EST on the proposed federal plan and another new section of the rule, the Clean Energy Incentive Program. The CEIP would allocate extra compliance credit to states that build wind and solar energy generation and install energy efficiency measures in low-income communities between 2020 and 2022.
Official comments in the Federal Register are due by Jan. 21.
In case you missed it:Nearly every state has taken a side in court battles over the Clean Power Plan (Greenwire, Nov. 4). Mississippi joined suing states Thursday (EnergyWire, Nov. 6).The CPP is pitting state attorneys general against governors (Greenwire, Nov. 6).A House panel voted to block the Clean Power Plan, but it's unlikely either chamber of Congress would have the votes to override a presidential veto of the measure challenging the rule (E&E News PM, Nov. 3).North Carolina will write a backup plan for cutting carbon emissions in case EPA rejects its initial "inside the fenceline" proposal for being too limited (EnergyWire, Nov. 5).The Midwest Independent System Operator is studying how decisions by states to choose rate- or mass-based compliance strategies could affect the generation mix within its 15-state footprint (EnergyWire, Nov. 5). Another grid operator, the Southwest Power Pool, is pressuring state governments to submit plans, rather than refuse to comply, in order to ensure electric reliability (ClimateWire, Nov. 2).The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is updating guidelines for assessing the safe life span for nuclear reactors, which could affect nuclear's role in Clean Power Plan compliance (EnergyWire, Nov. 6).
-
Landfill Rule Tests Threshold Question Over EPA Power To Update ESPSs
Nov 9, 2015 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
Power plant operators and environmentalists are at odds over whether EPA has threshold legal authority under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act to update its standards for methane and other emissions at existing municipal landfills, a precedent-setting dispute that could also determine whether the agency will eventually be able to update its existing power plant greenhouse gas standards.
In recent comments on the proposed landfill rule update, the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) charges that “the Agency lacks authority under the [Clean Air Act] to revise the emission guidelines to make them more stringent.”
The group says that while Congress provided explicit authority for EPA to strengthen standards for new sources under section 111(b), lawmakers failed to provide similar authority for existing source standards under section 111(d).
As a result, the group says EPA should not assume discretion to update the standards and should “withdraw” its proposed revision. “The absence of a statutory grant of authority in section 111(d) does not create a discretionary ability to seize authority that a statutory grant, such as the one in section 111(b), would give,” UARG says.
But environmental groups are strongly defending EPA's right to update and strengthen existing source standards, citing the “plain language” of the Clean Air Act.
“[T]he plain language of 111(d), the legislative history, and bedrock administrative law principles manifestly support EPA's ability to periodically review and revise 111(d) standards -- just as EPA is required to do for new sources under section 111(b),” the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) writes in its Oct. 26 comments.
The dispute over whether EPA has authority to update standards under 111(d) adds to legal complications that have emerged over the agency's power plant rules, where critics of the rules charge that the agency is barred from regulating power plants under that section because it is already regulating the sector's air toxics emissions under section 112.
While EPA and its supporters have opposed the arguments, the issue is complicated because House and Senate amendments to section 111(d) were never reconciled in conference before the 1990 air act amendments were enacted.
The Senate amendment would explicitly allow EPA's proposed rule by limiting section 111(d)'s "112 exclusion" to pollutants already regulated under that section. The House amendment could be read as prohibiting the rule because it focuses on source categories, not pollutants.
Landfill Proposal
EPA is revising the existing landfill emission guidelines, which were last set in 2000, alongside updated standards for new and modified landfills, which were last set in 1996. The agency is developing the rules in response to a 2011 EDF petition that asked EPA to update standards for new and modified sources.
The subsequent 2012 settlement established a May 2013 deadline for EPA to publish a proposed new source performance standards (NSPS) rule and a May 2014 deadline for the agency to finalize a rule. The latter deadline has been extended four times, most recently to July 14, 2016, in an Aug. 20 filing.
EDF did not petition, however, for an update to EPA's emissions guidelines for existing landfills, though the simultaneous proposals suggest that EPA is on track to finalize rules for both new and modified and existing landfills at the same time, much as it did for the package of power plant rules.
Both the proposed emissions guidelines and the supplement to the NSPS would set an emissions threshold of 34 metric tons of methane, a level at which landfills would be required to begin capturing emissions of landfill gas, which contains methane and other pollutants. The figure is significantly lower than the 40-ton threshold that EPA floated in its 2014 proposed NSPS and the 50-ton current threshold.
Such requirements are needed because landfills account for 18 percent of total U.S. methane emissions, making them the third largest domestic source of human-related GHG emissions, according to the White House.
Despite the proposed rule's stricter emissions threshold, waste industry groups are generally supportive, largely due to a change that would allow site owners to use monitoring results, rather than modeling data, to determine their emissions.
But whether EPA has authority to update the existing source standard is complicated because the Clean Air Act does not provide the agency with explicit authority to revise standards for existing sources under section 111(d), nor does it explicitly prohibit the agency from updating them.
By contrast, section 111(b) of the air act does specifically direct EPA to update standards for new sources, requiring that the EPA administrator “shall, at least every 8 years, review and, if appropriate, revise such standards. . .”
Prior to the 1990 amendments, EPA had only issued four rules under 111(d), governing fluoride emissions from phosphate fertilizer plants, sulfuric acid mist from sulfuric acid production units, total reduced sulfur emissions from kraft pulp mills and fluoride emissions from primary aluminum plants.
Since the 1990 amendments, EPA has issued two 111(d) rules, governing municipal landfills and power plants.
But until it proposed to update the landfill rules, the agency had never tested its power to do so.
EPA's own legal explanation of its authority is limited. In its proposed emission guidelines for existing landfills, EPA notes that it “is not statutorily obligated to conduct a review of the Emission Guidelines, but has the discretionary authority to do so when circumstances indicate that it is appropriate.”
Limited Discretion
But one industry lawyer says that the agency only gets “discretion within the bounds of the authority,” adding that statute includes no authority for EPA to revise the existing source standards.
The source also notes that the agency has never before attempted to revise standards under section 111(d), providing “further credence to the fact that there is no authority” for the agency to do so.
UARG, which represents power sector interests, is likely using the landfill proposal as a legal test for the future of EPA's recently finalized existing source performance standards (ESPS) for power plants, which call for a 32 percent reduction nationwide in carbon emissions from existing plants by 2030.
EPA also promulgated a companion new source rule for power plants under section 111(b), but the issue of whether EPA could update standards for existing sources under section 111(d) would bolster the agency's ability to ratchet up targets for existing power plants after 2030, when the current compliance period ends.
The industry lawyer says it is still too early to tell whether parties will litigate over this issue following the promulgation of final emission guidelines for landfills, but suggested that some power interests could sue because they have a physical connection to landfills. “A lot of power plants are located next to landfills” and capture the methane gas they emit, the source says, noting that “there is a nexus” between the two source categories, something that could give them standing to sue over the rules.
Nonetheless, by floating the question of whether EPA would be able to revise standards promulgated under section 111(d), UARG is already prepping to fight against potentially more stringent ESPS targets post-2030.
“If the [ESPS] survives and the interpretation of 111(d) in [UARG's] comments is correct, you hit 2030 and [power plants] have to maintain that level” of emissions reductions, the industry lawyer says, meaning that EPA would be unable to strengthen the ESPS goals.
The power sector group argues that if Congress had intended for EPA to have the ability to revise standards for existing sources under section 111(d), it would have provided that authority. Quoting from the 1993 caseKeene Corp. v. United States, UARG notes the Supreme Court has held that: “'[W]here Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another . . ., it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.'”
UARG also argues that it makes sense from a policy perspective for EPA to only have the authority to revise its new source standards. “Emission guidelines under section 111(d) are authorized only under very limited circumstances to ensure that existing sources that are not covered by other provisions of the [Clean Air Act] . . . do not go uncontrolled,” UARG's comments read.
As the industry lawyer notes, everything built after the date a 111(b) standard is promulgated is regulated by the new source standard, and thus it makes sense for EPA to have the authority to revise those standards. Then, when you set a 111(b) standard, “you reach back in time and get the existing units into a 111(d) standard,” the source says, adding that there is then “no longer this issue of an unregulated source.”
'Vibrant Over Time'
EDF, however, argues that the “plain language” of section 111(d), as well as courts' interpretation and the legislative history of section 111, provides EPA with the authority to periodically revise its existing source standards, as such an ability is crucial to ensuring the standards of performance reflect the best system of emission reduction (BSER).
An interpretation that prohibited the revision of standards would be “contrary to the statute and subvert the intent of this forward-looking program,” EDF writes. “Rather than remain vibrant over time, as Congress intended, section 111(d) emission guidelines would stagnate and be forever based on industry characteristics and known systems of emission reduction at a single snapshot in time.”
In addition, EDF argues that continuous improvement of standards is “a core element of” the Clean Air Act, and thus revision of standards is part of EPA's “broader duties under the [Clean Air Act] 'to protect and enhance' air quality.”
EDF also notes in its comments that administrative law supports “agency authority to review and amend previously-issued regulations, and the absence of any indication in the statute to the contrary, it is reasonable for EPA to interpret section 111(d) to allow review and revision of Section 111(d) standards.”
Even if, following these arguments, there was still some ambiguity, EDF notes that “EPA's interpretation of its clean air authorities is clearly reasonable and should be entitled to substantial deference by a reviewing court.”
-
Greenhouse Gases Hit New Milestone, Fueling Worries About Climate Change
Nov 9, 2015 | Washington Post
By Joby Warrick
New scientific data released on Monday confirmed 2015’s place as a milestone year for the Earth’s environment, with both temperatures and greenhouse gases crossing symbolic thresholds with ominous implications for future climate change.
The World Meteorological Organization, in an annual accounting of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, reported that average levels of carbon dioxide exceeded 400 parts per million in the early months of 2015, a rise of 43 percent over pre-industrial levels.
And, in a separate report hours later, the Met Office and Climatic Research Unit at Britain’s University of East Anglia reported that the Earth’s average temperature has crossed the symbolically important 1-degree C (1.8 F) mark, with temperatures over the first nine months of the year exceeding historic norms by exactly 1.02 degrees C.
The reports are likely to add to concerns about global warming in a year that climate experts say is almost certain to surpass 2014 as the hottest year in recorded history.
“We are moving into unchartered territory at a frightening speed,” WMO Secretary General Michel Jarraud said of the report’s findings.
The WMO maintains the world’s biggest network of sensors detecting changes in the makeup of the Earth’s atmosphere. For decades it has tracked rising concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, a naturally occurring chemical compound that is vital for plant life and also acts as an insulating blanket, trapping the sun’s heat and making the planet warmer than it would otherwise be.
With the burning of fossil fuels, levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have risen steadily, soaring from about 278 ppm during pre-industrial times to above 390 ppm by the start of the current decade.
Many scientists contend that the carbon dioxide levels should remain well below 400 ppm to avoid long-term disruptions to the Earth’s climate. But since 2012, several of the WMO’s 125 individual monitoring stations have detected readings above that threshold.
The global average climbed to 397.7 ppm in 2014, the WMO report said, and then, in early 2015, it exceeded 400 ppm for the first time since record-keeping began, the organization's data shows.
The level then dipped, as usual, with the arrival of the spring growing season in the Northern Hemisphere, when trees and other plants take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. But WMO officials say the planetary average is expected to remain above 400 parts per million beginning in 2016.
“We will soon be living with globally averaged CO2 levels above 400 parts per million as a permanent reality,” Jarraud said.
The long-term implications for the planet, he said, include “hotter global temperatures and more extreme weather events,” as well as melting ice, rising sea levels and increased acidity in oceans.
“It is an invisible threat, but a very real one,” he said.
The WMO report, an annual compilation of monitoring data from the organization’s Global Atmospheric Watch program, shows carbon dioxide concentrations rising by 0.5 percent from 2013 to 2014, roughly on par with the average annual increase over the past decade. But two other key greenhouse gases — methane and nitrous oxide — appear to be increasing at a fast rate, the report said. Methane increased by 9 parts per billion from 2013 to 2014, compared with an average annual increase of 4.7 ppb, the report said.
The combined radiative “forcing” from all these gases — essentially the warming effect on the planet — has now risen by 36 percent since 1990, the report said. It said consequences will continue to be felt for centuries, since new emissions of carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for that long..
The East Anglia report confirming the 1-degree temperature rise is new evidence of “unequivocal warming” of the Earth, said Peter Stott, head of the climate monitoring and attribution team at the British University. U.S. climate scientists say the planet is on track to break last year’s heat record — a near-certainty in the light of this year’s unusual “El Niño” weather pattern in the Pacific.
“As the world continues to warm in the coming decades, however, we will see more and more years passing the 1 degree marker — eventually it will become the norm,” Stott said.
The release of the reports comes three weeks before the start of international negotiations in Paris on a proposed treaty to reduce global emissions of greenhouse gases.
Diplomats from more than 190 countries are expected to participate in the talks, which are intended to put the planet on a path toward capping and then reducing carbon pollution. The Obama administration has pledged to reduce U.S. emissions by up to 28 percent by the year 2030, compared with the baseline year of 2005.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested