Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 1/27/2016 - REVISED
-
Monsanto Challenges Prop 65 'Labour Code' Listing Mechanism
Jan 27, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Agrochemical firm, Monsanto, has brought a lawsuit against California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) on the grounds that the “Labour Code” listing mechanism... -
Lawmakers Want EPA to Notify Communities About Lead in Water
Jan 27, 2016 | E&E - Greenwire
By Tiffany Stecker
Michigan lawmakers said today they would unveil a bill to clarify U.S. EPA's authority in notifying the public of the risk of lead contamination in drinking water. -
EPA OIG Finds Problems with CSB Technology Security
Jan 27, 2016 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board's information security system needs additional safeguards to protect it from intrusion, U.S. EPA's Office of Inspector General said in a new report. -
State Sues Utility as Agency Tightens Storage Regs
Jan 27, 2016 | E&E - Greenwire
California regulators yesterday sued a natural gas utility that is working to stop a monthslong methane leak as state agencies issued new rules to prevent future leaks. -
CSB Renews Call To Include Fertilizer In EPA RMP Program
Jan 27, 2016 | InsideEPA
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB) in a new report on the fatal 2013 ammonium nitrate explosion in West, TX, is reiterating calls for EPA to add fertilizer-grade ammonium nitrate (FGAN)... -
Railroad Group Chief Hamberger Talks Technology Innovation, Safety Investments
Jan 27, 2016 | E&E TV
How is the rail industry working to improve the safety of the transport of flammable materials, including crude oil? During today's OnPoint, Ed Hamberger, CEO of the Association of American Railroads... -
Rail Safety Soars, But Requires Steady Investment, Balanced Regs
Jan 27, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Edward R. Hamberger
The sweeping reduction in freight rail accidents and employee injuries over the last several decades – down 45 and 47 percent since 2000, respectively – is the result of a dedicated cadre of safety experts... -
Calif. Planners Come Out Against Crude-by-Rail Terminal
Jan 27, 2016 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Local officials have recommended denying a proposed crude-by-rail terminal in Southern California, citing "significant and unavoidable" hazards from tank car traffic. -
States Sidestep Convention in Bid for Supreme Court Action
Jan 27, 2016 | E&E - Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
States opposed to the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan made good on a recent threat to take their battle to the Supreme Court. -
Supreme Court Urged to Halt Rule or Risk Irrelevance
Jan 27, 2016 | E&E - Energywire
By Robin Bravender
Foes of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan are warning the Supreme Court that failing to halt the rule now could effectively hand the Obama administration a victory before legal challenges are settled. -
Industry Coalition Faults EPA's Treatment Of 'Background' Ozone In NAAQS
Jan 27, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
A coalition of groups representing various industries are faulting what they say is EPA's inadequate consideration of naturally occurring “background” ozone levels that might hinder states' ability to attain the agency's... -
Senate Begins Work on Energy Overhaul
Jan 27, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The Senate began considering a rewrite of federal energy policies on Wednesday, with both Democratic and Republican leadership pledging to move the overhaul bill forward this week. -
Obama Admin Turns from Negotiations to 'Nitty Gritty' on Climate
Jan 27, 2016 | E&E - Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
With the Paris climate summit in the rearview mirror, top members of the Obama administration say their diplomatic attention is now turning toward positioning the United States and other countries to meet their carbon-cutting goals. -
Failing to Protect Air Quality is Bad for the Economy
Jan 27, 2016 | Houston Chronicle
By Chris Tomlinson
Indian fighter jets roared through the sky just 500 feet overhead, but the smog over New Delhi was so thick that spectators could only make out silhouettes in the haze. -
It’s Not Just Flint: Poor Communities Across the Country Live with ‘Extreme’ Polluters
Jan 27, 2016 | Washington Post
By Chris Mooney
As national attention focuses on Flint, Mich. — where lead-contaminated water flowed for over a year to a relatively poor, minority community — new research suggests that across the U.S., communities like these...
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
-
Monsanto Challenges Prop 65 'Labour Code' Listing Mechanism
Jan 27, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Agrochemical firm, Monsanto, has brought a lawsuit against California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) on the grounds that the “Labour Code” listing mechanism, for adding substances to Proposition 65, is unconstitutional.
The Labour Code mechanism stipulates that materials receiving certain classifications by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (Iarc) “shall be included” on the Prop 65 list of substances known to the state to cause cancer (CW 28 July 2015).
Under this mechanism, Oehha “cannot consider scientific arguments concerning the weight or quality of the evidence considered by Iarc when it identified these chemicals, and will not respond to such comments if they are submitted.”
According to Monsanto's complaint, listing a substance based solely on an Iarc designation violates the US and Californian constitutions, “because the state would be ceding the basis of its regulatory authority to an unelected and non-transparent foreign body that is not under the oversight or control of any federal or state government entity.”
The constitutional provisions violated, according to the complaint, are:unlawful delegation of legislative authority;due process;the “guarantee clause”, which ensures citizens are represented by a republican form of government; andthe right to free speech, as a listing would require the manufacturer to “affix a false and/or misleading statement to its products”.
Iarc's preamble states that its monographs are intended to identify cancer hazard, and that “these evaluations represent only one part of the body of information on which public health decisions may be based ...Therefore, no recommendation is given with regard to regulation or legislation.”
Judicial precedent
According to the complaint, the 2011 'California Chamber of Commerce versus Brown ruling' upheld Oehha's authority to list chemicals due to an Iarc designation, on an ongoing basis.
However, “the parties in that case did not raise, and the court of appeal did not consider, constitutional concerns related to the delegation of authority to an unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable, foreign body,” it says.
A 2013 decision in 'Styrene Information and Research Council versus the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment' found that Oehha could not list a substance via the Labour Code mechanism based solely on an Iarc 2B (“possibly” carcinogenic to humans) designation where there is “less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and animals”.
The ruling required Oehha to reevaluate four listed substances and six substances under consideration for listing, due to 2B designations. It did not, however, limit the agency's authority to list substances classified as possible carcinogens where sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity exists.
Oehha declined to comment on the lawsuit or the potential implications its outcome could have on the listing status of other substances.
Glyphostate listing remains unsettled
In September, Oehha published its notice of intent to list glyphosate – the main ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup line of herbicidal products – as a substance known to the state to cause cancer. This proposed listing, under the Labour Code, followed glyphosate's designation by Iarc as a group 2A substance (“probably” carcinogenic to humans), earlier in the year.
The agency received more than 9,300 comments in response to its notice of intent to list glyphosate and three other pesticides. An Oehha spokesperson reported that it is “currently reviewing the comments and preparing responses before making a final listing determination.”
-
Lawmakers Want EPA to Notify Communities About Lead in Water
Jan 27, 2016 | E&E - Greenwire
By Tiffany Stecker
Michigan lawmakers said today they would unveil a bill to clarify U.S. EPA's authority in notifying the public of the risk of lead contamination in drinking water.
Michigan Democratic Sens. Debbie Stabenow and Gary Peters and Rep. Dan Kildee (D), whose district includes Flint, said the legislation would enable EPA to alert communities and health departments in the absence of a state agency's notification. Currently, state and local entities are responsible for notification.
"It is clear the State of Michigan did not fulfill their responsibility to prevent lead from leaching into Flint's drinking water system or to make the public aware of the danger in their drinking water," said Peters in a statement. "There are a number of steps that need to be taken to both mitigate the long-term effects of lead exposure on Flint residents and ensure this type of situation never happens again, and this legislation will make it clear the EPA can take action if a state is dragging their feet and endangering the health of its residents."
The legislation is the lawmakers' response to the lead contamination crisis in Flint, where state officials didn't notify the public until months after independent scientists found high lead levels in the water and in the blood of local children. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality failed to implement corrosion controls after the city switched its source of drinking water from Lake Huron to the Flint River. EPA Region 5 also wrote a report on the contamination in early 2015 but didn't alert residents.
-
EPA OIG Finds Problems with CSB Technology Security
Jan 27, 2016 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board's information security system needs additional safeguards to protect it from intrusion, U.S. EPA's Office of Inspector General said in a new report.
EPA's OIG -- which has oversight of CSB, an independent agency -- published its first look at CSB's information security system, required under a 2014 law called the Federal Information Security Modernization Act.
Even though the report found CSB met most of the law's security metrics, several gaps in security oversight remained.
The report flagged as a potential risk CSB not requiring workers to use personal identification verification cards to access the agency's systems -- something in place at most other federal agencies.
Auditors also found CSB did not have formal policies or procedures to train staff with responsibility over "significant" information to properly handle the material.
In addition, CSB needs to take inventory of all systems operated by contractors on the agency's behalf, the report said.
The document is a "baseline" of CSB's status on information technology security and will be used to measure its progress on the years ahead, said the OIG.
CSB Chairwoman Vanessa Sutherland responded to the report by saying her agency was planning to correct the issues.
CSB plans to implement personal identification verification cards but "is still evaluating the risks" of doing so, including for investigators on-site at a chemical incident, Sutherland wrote.
Previous audits have flagged some problems with how the small agency handles sensitive information. Last year, the OIG said CSB's Denver regional office lacked key security safeguards for data storage (Greenwire, Nov. 5, 2015).
Investigators also found CSB information technology practices left data and electronic devices vulnerable to theft or network intrusions (Greenwire, Feb. 3, 2015). The agency has addressed some of the previous issues, the OIG said.
-
State Sues Utility as Agency Tightens Storage Regs
Jan 27, 2016 | E&E - Greenwire
California regulators yesterday sued a natural gas utility that is working to stop a monthslong methane leak as state agencies issued new rules to prevent future leaks.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District said in its lawsuit that utility Southern California Gas Co. had created a public nuisance, and "as a result of their negligence, people were injured," said the district's general counsel, Kurt Wiese.
The state is seeking penalties of more than $25 million for the leak, or $250,000 per day, if a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge finds that the company knowingly violated state law, failed to act quickly and caused great bodily injury to the public.
Southern California Gas spokeswoman Kristine Lloyd said the company does not comment on pending litigation (Robert Jablon, AP/Houston Chronicle, Jan. 26).
Regulators at the California Department of Conservation also moved to boost oversight of the state's 322 underground gas storage facilities.
Under new rules, companies will be required to inspect gas storage wellheads each day, regularly test safety valves and set maximum pressure limits at wells.
Environmental groups praised the changes but said they do not go far enough.
"While this is a step in the right direction, there are a lot of additional issues the agency needs to tackle in order to say it has pursued all appropriate measures to keep Aliso Canyon from happening again," said Scott Anderson, a senior policy director at the Environmental Defense Fund, such as requiring facility operators to install automatic shutoff systems at wells (Edward Ortiz, Sacramento Bee, Jan. 26).
-
CSB Renews Call To Include Fertilizer In EPA RMP Program
Jan 27, 2016 | InsideEPA
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB) in a new report on the fatal 2013 ammonium nitrate explosion in West, TX, is reiterating calls for EPA to add fertilizer-grade ammonium nitrate (FGAN) to its industrial facility risk management plan (RMP) program, saying there is risk of future disasters because of how FGAN is currently stored.
The April 17, 2013, explosion at the West Fertilizer Company (WFC) killed 15 people and injured 200 others, prompting President Obama in August of that year to issue Executive Order 13650 on strengthening the safety and security of the nation's industrial facilities by improving coordination, and revising policies, rules and standards.
In response to the order, EPA is expected to propose revisions in March to its RMP accident prevention program, which requires companies to take steps to minimize the risk of accidental chemical releases from their facilities. EPA has suggested it is weighing expanding RMP to cover new chemicals, but sources say the agency is unlikely to add new substances such as FGAN to the program as part of the proposal.
CSB is planning to hold a Jan. 28 public meeting in Waco, TX, where it will formally unveil its report on the WFC accident -- currently available online -- that calls for including FGAN under RMP.
“If EPA had included FGAN under the Risk Management Program rule, the WFC would have been required to apply for its storage of FGAN and perhaps could have reduced the risk of catastrophic accidents like the one that occurred,” CSB says. “Because FGAN can detonate under certain conditions, CSB recommends that FGAN be included for coverage under the Risk Management Program rule,” the report says.
In the report, CSB argues that FGAN meets the criteria for listing under RMP, noting the substance presents an explosive risk, and that it is commonly used and stored near population centers, presenting a high likelihood for an accidental release that could threaten human health beyond a facility's fence-line.
CSB also backed advocates' assertions that EPA could use authority under section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act, known as the General Duty Clause, to require facilities to use inherently safer technologies (IST), usually alternative chemicals or process changes that may prevent or reduce the consequences of an accident or attack.
Although advocates in July 2012 petitioned EPA to require facilities to use IST where feasible, advocates say EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy suggested in a meeting late last year that the agency's March proposal will not include an IST requirement.
In the report, CSB points to EPA assertions that IST regulation under the General Duty Clause would be unwieldy, to further argue that the agency should add FGAN to RMP.
“[W]ithout more from the [General Duty Clause,] it is the recommendation of CSB that FGAN be included on the Risk Management Program list, especially in light of the fatal incident in West, Texas.”
-
Railroad Group Chief Hamberger Talks Technology Innovation, Safety Investments
Jan 27, 2016 | E&E TV
How is the rail industry working to improve the safety of the transport of flammable materials, including crude oil? During today's OnPoint, Ed Hamberger, CEO of the Association of American Railroads, discusses the details of his organization's first State of the Industry Report.
Monica Trauzzi: Hello, welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Ed Hamberger, CEO of the Association of American Railroads. Thank you for joining me.
Ed Hamberger: Glad to be here, Monica, thanks.
Monica Trauzzi: Ed, your organization this week is releasing its first-ever State of the Industry Report, which is quite surprising that it's a first-of-its-kind report. Why is this such an important moment for your industry to be educating stakeholders and lawmakers on the state of play?
Ed Hamberger: Well, thank you for having me, and what we are trying to do is build upon a report that we've been doing annually. Every January we do an outlook, for the last several years, about what we think the industry will be doing this year, what traffic patterns might be looking like. But we decided that we needed to get into more detail and more depth on some of the various sectors of our industry. For example, the one that we're releasing tomorrow is called Safety and Innovation. So what we're trying to highlight are some of the new technologies that are being developed to address those areas of concern and safety.
Monica Trauzzi: And obviously industry safety has been getting a lot of attention nationally. Crude by rail is a major focus for our viewers here at E&E.
Ed Hamberger: Yes, of course.
Monica Trauzzi: What is your industry doing currently to improve safety in the transport of flammable materials and to avoid incidents like the ones that we've seen in 2015?
Ed Hamberger: Well, really it's a three-legged stool. I know that you've had my good friend Jack Gerard on several times. We have been working together with the API and its members on areas of training, areas of course last year with the tank car regulation. The API and AAR submitted joint comments calling for a more robust tank car that would last longer if there was an accident. And of course the third leg of that stool is prevention. And that is making sure that we do everything we can so that an accident doesn't occur in the first place.
Monica Trauzzi: So rail safety violations were at an all-time high in 2015 according to the Federal Railroad Administration. Has enforcement been more aggressive, or is this a case of the industry not doing what it needs to do?
Ed Hamberger: Well, I don't know that it's either. I personally believe that the metric that makes the most sense is what is the accident rate doing, what is the injury rate of our employees doing, and it is constantly going down. 2014 was the safest year on record since 2013, which had been the safest year on record since 2012.
Monica Trauzzi: We're also transporting less in recent years.
Ed Hamberger: Well, it's a rate. So it's the accident rate per million train miles. So it is apples to apples. We think that 2015 based on preliminary data will be safer still. It's what we are doing as an industry. We cooperate, and this report tomorrow has a guest interview with John Tunna, who is the head of research and technology at the Federal Railroad Administration, and we have a very good partnership with the FRA in trying to do some research on new technologies to address areas like broken rails and broken wheels so that we can identify those rails or wheels that might be prone to break before they break and replace them.
Monica Trauzzi: So on the whole, how much is your industry investing in safety measures?
Ed Hamberger: Well, safety per se is hard to break out because a well-maintained railroad is a safe railroad. In 1980 when 25 percent of the industry was in bankruptcy and something called deferred maintenance was the rule of the day, we were not nearly as safe as we are now. A well-maintained railroad is a safer railroad, and we're spending in the neighborhood of $25 billion a year. Last year it was $29 billion, but since 1980, $600 billion on new technologies, better infrastructure, better locomotives and, key, good training for our employees.
Monica Trauzzi: So technology, as you mentioned, it's a big part of this. What are some of these new advanced technologies that you are working on currently and working to employ in the system?
Ed Hamberger: Well, one that I'm very excited about is being tested right now at the transportation technology center in Pueblo, Colorado, which we run a DAR under contract with the FRA. It's something called a phased array, and what it is is a multi-dimensional X-ray. And what we talk about in our report tomorrow is what if the body is 140,000 miles of steel, and that's what our body of work is, it's 140,000 miles of rail that has to be X-rayed, and this new technology is able to come at it from all the angles, not just from the top down, so that we're able to discover microscopic cracks and take corrective action.
Monica Trauzzi: And it's financially viable?
Ed Hamberger: We're going to find out. The first thing is, is it going to work, the technology, and if it works, I'm sure we'll put it out there.
Monica Trauzzi: And any sense of how far off it could be?
Ed Hamberger: I believe that the final testing should be done this year and we're hoping to get it out in the field next year, 2017.
Monica Trauzzi: In terms of legislation, at the end of last year the president signed a $305 billion transportation funding bill into law -- does that go far enough to advance safety, and where do you see the biggest challenges for your industry?
Ed Hamberger: Well, it did have a number of good safety issues in there. It made the tank car rule that came out of PHMSA even stronger, with our support and lobby in favor of that. What that bill did more though of course is address highway and transit safety, as I'm hopeful that your viewers all know, we are privately owned, privately maintained, and do not get subsidized by the federal government. But what's important is our fastest-growing segment of our business, and in fact now the largest segment of our business, is intermodal, where we work in cooperation with the trucking industry to have the long haul done by the rail and the pickup and delivery at either end by trucks.
Monica Trauzzi: So what are your plans for this report? Are you going to be shopping it around on the Hill? Who are you looking to educate? What's your market?
Ed Hamberger: Well, when I first got this job one of the things that we complained about is that we had the greatest story never told, and we tried to remedy that. What we want people to know is that we are dedicated to safety. There are some who believe that we did not run as fast as we could to implement, for example, positive train control. Not true. We spent over $6 billion through 2015, thousands of people dedicated to it, it's a complex technology, it will be installed completely by 2018 and operational shortly thereafter. So we just want the communities in which we operate, policymakers, to know that we are focused on safety.
Monica Trauzzi: All right, we'll end it there. Thank you for coming on the show, I appreciate your time.
Ed Hamberger: Thank you, my pleasure.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching, we'll see you back here tomorrow.
-
Rail Safety Soars, But Requires Steady Investment, Balanced Regs
Jan 27, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Edward R. Hamberger
The sweeping reduction in freight rail accidents and employee injuries over the last several decades – down 45 and 47 percent since 2000, respectively – is the result of a dedicated cadre of safety experts across the industry who conduct rigorous research, examine problems in new ways and apply technological advances that ultimately make a safe system of transportation even safer.
But this enviable track record also owes as much to a system of balanced regulations that have allowed railroads to earn sufficient revenue to make substantial investments into the rail network for safety improvements.
The Association of American Railroads today released its first ever “State of the Industry Report.” In it, we make clear that our industry has no higher priority than safety, and highlight the important developments and expertise driving research and innovation. The compelling stories underscore the connection between balanced regulations and industry innovation.
From a sophisticated system in its final stages of testing that uses multidimensional ultrasonic technology to locate defects in tracks before they cause problems, to the testing of drones for inspection of tracks and bridges as well as measuring air quality, the industry increasingly resembles Silicon Valley rather than iconic black and white railroad images of days gone by.
These advances and many others are the result of massive industry investment, which federal data show has a direct correlation to enhanced safety. Steady investment – some $25 billion annually over the last five years and a total of $600 billion since 1980 – is rooted in an era of inspired federal leadership, when Congress and the executive branch worked together to strip away excessive economic regulations.
As an industry, we are positioned for further innovation, but only if we can ensure that the same types of sensible government policy remain in place. For example, one ill-conceived proposal under consideration by federal regulators would force railroads to turn over some of their traffic to their competitors if certain arbitrary formulas are met.
Railroads have risked billions of dollars building, maintaining and optimizing their networks – and forcing them to open their systems to competitors is fundamentally unfair and would create operational nightmares. The efficiency of the national rail network could be compromised by forcing railroads to switch traffic where there is insufficient capacity to do so. Because railroads are networks, local service problems in terminals can quickly cause far-ranging effects. If this proposal becomes the law of the land, most shippers will be disadvantaged as the costs and disruptions of forced access ripple through the system. A few politically connected shippers may benefit in the short term, but most others will not.
The railroad industry is proud of its safety track record told through the State of the Industry Report. But we aim for more. Much more can be achieved – and millions of Americans and U.S. business will continue to benefit – by ensuring a system of balanced regulations that allow railroads to earn and innovate.
Hamberger is president and CEO of the Association of American Railroads.
-
Calif. Planners Come Out Against Crude-by-Rail Terminal
Jan 27, 2016 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Local officials have recommended denying a proposed crude-by-rail terminal in Southern California, citing "significant and unavoidable" hazards from tank car traffic.
The San Luis Obispo County Planning Commission found seven major drawbacks with a rail expansion at Phillips 66 Co.'s Santa Maria refinery, including higher cancer rates from pollution and the threat of a fiery oil train derailment.
The project would see an extra five crude-carrying trains pass through the region each week, with each hauling about 52,000 barrels of oil.
Even if Union Pacific -- the railroad serving the Santa Maria facility -- stayed ahead of the latest crude-by-rail safety standards, the risk to the public "would still be significant in the event of a release of crude oil that resulted in a fire or explosion," the planning commission said.
Environmentalist groups hailed the staff report as a victory in a broader movement against crude-by-rail infrastructure throughout the United States and Canada (EnergyWire, March 20, 2015).
Terminals that unload oil trains have come under intense scrutiny since Phillips 66 first proposed the Santa Maria expansion in 2013.
An oil train derailment and explosion in July of that year killed 47 people in Quebec, catching the attention of safety advocates and environmentalists.
While federal law shields the rail industry from state- or county-level oversight, refineries hoping to build oil train unloading sites must typically win local approval.
That level of support has proved elusive for oil-by-rail shippers in states such as California, Oregon and Washington, where green groups have mounted an aggressive campaign against new rail infrastructure. Organizations including ForestEthics, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club have not eased pressure on refiners along the Pacific Coast, despite new safety regulations and recent declines in overall crude-by-rail traffic.
Heidi Harmon, director of the 350.org chapter in San Luis Obispo County, said she expects hundreds of protesters to gather at public hearings on the Phillips 66 oil train terminal on Feb. 4 and 5.
She said she expects the local board of supervisors to nix the project based on the planning commission's findings.
"Politically, these kinds of staff recommendations make it easier for our supervisors -- and perhaps supervisors and decisionmakers in other places -- to do the right thing and deny these projects," Harmon said.
Phillips 66 spokesman Dennis Nuss declined to speculate on how county leaders would ultimately vote on the Santa Maria proposal.
But he said that "we understand that there are concerns about the project, and we look forward to addressing questions raised in the final [environmental impact review] during next week's planning commission hearing."
Phillips 66 has pointed out in the past that the rail spur would bring in heavy crude from Canada, which is less flammable than oil from North Dakota's Bakken Shale play. The company has also pledged to use tank cars that exceed current safety standards from the Department of Transportation.
Harmon said she's not sure how Phillips 66 would react to a "no" vote from the planning commission, given the recent slump in crude prices that has chipped away at the economic rationale for bringing crude in by rail.
"I will be curious to see -- if and when the planning commission votes against this project -- if Phillips 66 will take it to the final level and sue the county of San Luis Obispo, if it's worth it for them to pursue it to that extent," she said.
-
States Sidestep Convention in Bid for Supreme Court Action
Jan 27, 2016 | E&E - Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
States opposed to the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan made good on a recent threat to take their battle to the Supreme Court.
A coalition of 25 states and four state agencies yesterday urged Chief Justice John Roberts to issue an emergency stay blocking implementation of the divisive climate rule while the states and a throng of industry opponents challenge its legality.
The Clean Power Plan, which aims to slash greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector, has been under legal siege since before its release last summer. Critics say the rule goes beyond U.S. EPA's authority and imposes impossibly steep costs on states and industry. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit last week denied a request to freeze the rule (EnergyWire, Jan. 22). In an extraordinary move, the states are now asking Roberts to reverse that decision.
"While we know a stay request to the Supreme Court isn't typical at this stage of the proceedings, we must pursue this option to mitigate further damage from this rule," West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R) said in a statement.
In the request, the states argue that while the broader litigation is ongoing, states are sinking massive resources into drafting compliance plans to meet impending deadlines for a rule that they're confident will be invalidated.
"Absent a stay, the Power Plan will -- throughout the lifespan of this litigation -- force massive, irreversible changes in terms of state policies and resources, power plant shutdowns, and investments in wind and solar power," the filing says.
Emergency stay applications are addressed to individual justices, each assigned to manage certain circuits. D.C. Circuit applications go to the chief justice, who weighs certain criteria -- notably, whether at least four justices would likely agree to review the merits of the case -- before granting or denying a request. Roberts may also confer with the other justices on the case or ask EPA and its allies to respond.
Dorsey & Whitney LLP attorney James Rubin noted that the states' move is likely an attempt to push the Supreme Court to consider the merits of their Clean Power Plan challenge early. The full case is expected to land before the justices after the D.C. Circuit issues a decision later this year.
"Petitioners are essentially seeking to skip over the DC Circuit and bring their case to the Supreme Court, where they believe they have a better chance of success on the merits," he said in an email. "Though styled as a stay motion, they are looking to secure a procedural ruling based on issues directly related to the merits."
EPA did not respond to a request for comment yesterday, but supporters of the agency's climate rule criticized the states' application as a political statement rather than an earnest legal effort. New York University School of Law's Richard Revesz called the challenge "extraordinarily and unthinkably unlikely to prevail."
Natural Resources Defense Council attorney David Doniger said the states were relying on the same arguments the circuit court rejected.
"The states are trotting out the same arguments that haven't persuaded the D.C. Circuit panel," he said. "A Supreme Court stay at this stage of a case that is in the appeals court would be even more unusual than a stay from the appeals court itself."
Joining West Virginia in the request are Texas, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin, Wyoming, the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, the Mississippi Public Service Commission, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality and the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality.
-
Supreme Court Urged to Halt Rule or Risk Irrelevance
Jan 27, 2016 | E&E - Energywire
By Robin Bravender
Foes of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan are warning the Supreme Court that failing to halt the rule now could effectively hand the Obama administration a victory before legal challenges are settled.
A coalition of 25 states has petitioned Chief Justice John Roberts to block the EPA rule to cut greenhouse gases from power plants, in spite of a lower court's order last week that refused to freeze the rule.
The plea to the high court is widely seen as a long shot and is the latest in a series of unusual steps challengers have taken to oppose the rule, which is central to the administration's environmental agenda but which critics paint as a "power grab."
"It's an extraordinary petition," said Justin Savage, a former Justice Department environmental attorney now at Hogan Lovells.
But "the rule itself is extraordinary," Savage added. "This is the environmental rule that could have the largest impact on how electricity is delivered to customers throughout the country."
If the justices don't act now, the states told the court, a later decision to knock down the rule may not mean much if states and utilities have already been forced to comply.
EPA's challengers point to a Supreme Court decision last year in the case Michigan v. EPA, in which the high court found that EPA's rule to regulate mercury pollution from power plants was illegal.
That decision "starkly illustrates the need for a stay in this case," state challengers told Roberts.
"The day after this Court ruled in Michigan that EPA had violated the Clean Air Act ... EPA boasted in an official blog post that the Court's decision was effectively a nullity," they said. "Because the rule had not been stayed during the years of litigation, EPA assured its supporters that 'the majority of power plants are already in compliance or well on their way to compliance.'"
The Supreme Court sent the mercury rule back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. That court recently agreed to keep it in place while EPA tweaks the regulation in light of the high court's ruling.
But while the high court did topple the mercury rule, finding that the agency hadn't properly considered costs, that opinion was seen as narrow. The agency is widely expected to keep the rule as it is after issuing a forthcoming finding that the benefits of its air toxics standards justified the costs of the rule.
Backers of the Clean Power Plan say it's hard for challengers to show they'll be hurt immediately, given that they won't be required to slash power plant emissions until 2022. But states and industries argue that they'll need to plan for the rule much sooner. States must submit final plans by this September or submit initial plans with requests for extensions until 2018.
The state application filed yesterday was sent to Roberts because he oversees requests for emergency actions related to D.C. Circuit proceedings.
Such applications can also involve efforts to get a stay of execution or a restraining order from the court, but they're unusual in cases involving agency regulations.
In order to get a stay, applicants must generally show that there's a "reasonable probability" that four justices will agree to review the merits of the case, that there's a "fair prospect" that a majority of the court will find that the decision below was erroneous and that a denial of the stay would result in irreparable harm, according to a Supreme Court guidance document. The court may also balance the relative harms to the parties on both sides of the case as well as the public interest.
Such applications are normally handled without hearings or oral arguments, according to the court. Roberts could act alone on the application or refer it to the full court for consideration.
Additional requests to the Supreme Court may also be filed by other EPA opponents. A broad coalition of utilities, industries and other groups have filed a combined 39 lawsuits from a total of 157 petitioners asking the D.C. Circuit to review the rule.
Backers of the EPA rule say they're confident the court will act swiftly to deny the states' petition.
"It's extraordinary to get a stay from the D.C. Circuit," said Natural Resources Defense Council attorney David Doniger. "It's extra, extra extraordinary to get one from the Supreme Court."
Meanwhile, as challengers wait for word from the Supreme Court, the lawsuits are moving along in the lower court.
Parties on both sides filed proposed schedules with the appeals court today regarding word limits and schedules for briefings on the case.
The D.C. Circuit announced last week that it will hold oral arguments on the case on June 2.
-
Industry Coalition Faults EPA's Treatment Of 'Background' Ozone In NAAQS
Jan 27, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
A coalition of groups representing various industries are faulting what they say is EPA's inadequate consideration of naturally occurring “background” ozone levels that might hinder states' ability to attain the agency's tightened ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), among other criticisms outlined in a new legal filing.
In a Jan. 22 statement of issues filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the coalition says EPA’s position that high background ozone levels will not hinder attainment of the new NAAQS is mistaken, and this renders the standard unlawful. The groups are among a host of litigants either attacking or defending EPA in consolidated litigation over the revised standard, known as Murray Energy v. EPA.
EPA on Oct. 1 tightened the NAAQS down to 70 parts per billion (ppb) compared to the less-stringent limit of 75 ppb established in 2008. Environmentalists argue that data on ozone's adverse impacts to public health warrant an even stricter limit, but industry groups and some states say there was no justification to tighten the standard.
Critics of the stricter limit argue that background ozone -- which regulators cannot control -- could make it impossible for some areas to attain the 70 ppb standard even if they take all possible steps to mandate pollution cuts from industrial and other sources of ozone-forming emissions. Areas out of attainment with NAAQS must impose expensive pollution controls on industries, which EPA critics say can harm economies in those areas.
EPA in a recent white paper acknowledged concerns about background ozone, but also suggested that background ozone levels are not high enough to prevent any area from meeting the NAAQS. The agency will discuss the white paper at a workshop slated for Feb. 24-25 in Phoenix, AZ.
Background ozone is one of the arguments in the industry coalition's statement of issues that it plans to raise in the suit. The statement was filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute, the Utility Air Regulatory Group and the Portland Cement Association, among other groups.
The Chamber and allied groups say they intend to probe whether the NAAQS is unlawful “because EPA failed to take adequate account of the attainability of those standards, as required, given background levels of ozone (i.e., levels that are not attributable to anthropogenic U.S. sources) and the impact of uncontrollable background ozone levels on the ability of states to attain or develop implementation plans for the revised NAAQS.”
Ozone NAAQS
In the final rule, the agency offered some regulatory exceptions under existing agency authorities that would allow states to exclude air monitoring data gathered during periods of high background ozone from demonstrations of compliance. This would allow areas to avoid “nonattainment” designations that trigger mandates to install costly pollution controls. One such exemption is available under the “exceptional events” rule, under which data gathered during “exceptional” occurrences such as dust storms and wildfires may be excluded.
But the coalition says it will examine whether “EPA’s reliance on alternative regulatory mechanisms in an attempt to address nonattainment of the revised NAAQS due to background ozone levels fails to cure the unlawfulness of the revised NAAQS, particularly when those mechanisms have not been shown to be effective and would not provide adequate relief for areas that cannot attain the standards due to background ozone levels.”
The groups further claim that EPA “failed to take into account relevant contextual factors, including the adverse social, economic, and energy impacts of those more stringent standards.”
The Chamber and allied groups also filed an unopposed motion Jan. 22 to intervene in Sierra Club, et al. v. EPA, et al, the lawsuit brought by environmentalists against the NAAQS, announcing that they will defend EPA against environmentalists’ arguments that the NAAQS should be even stricter.
Meanwhile, the state of Louisiana Jan. 22 moved to intervene in support of states that are challenging the NAAQS as too tough in State of Arizona, et al. v. EPA, et al. All these suits will likely be consolidated.
In a Jan. 22 statement, PCA says “Ozone levels continue to drop, and today most areas meet or exceed the requirements set by EPA in 2008. Although this should be considered a great success, EPA is resetting the game by lowering ozone limits even further. This will likely make it impossible for the most difficult areas to comply.”
Motions on how to proceed in Murray Energy and consolidated cases are now due Feb. 12.
-
Senate Begins Work on Energy Overhaul
Jan 27, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The Senate began considering a rewrite of federal energy policies on Wednesday, with both Democratic and Republican leadership pledging to move the overhaul bill forward this week.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) hailed the energy bill — a product of work between Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) — as “a good way forward” on energy policy.
“It will help Americans produce more energy. It will help Americans pay less for energy. It will help Americans save energy,” he said on Wednesday.
“Not only will this bipartisan legislation help bring our energy policies in line with the demands of today, it will also position us to benefit from the opportunities of tomorrow. So let’s work together and pass it.”
The legislation changes a slate of federal energy policies, including provisions to speed up the export of liquefied natural gas, indefinitely expand a conservation fund, update the electricity grid and reform and update other energy policies.
Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) praised the bill on the floor Wednesday for the conservation provision and its expansion of energy efficiency programs and investments into clean energy and vehicles.
“As written, the Murkowski-Cantwell energy bill could win bipartisan approval on the Senate floor and can do it right now,” Reid said.
The energy bill is the product of months of work between Republicans and Democrats on the Senate’s energy panel, which approved it on an 18-4 vote last summer. The legislation, Murkowski said on Wednesday, contains provisions from 50 different bills proposed by senators on both sides of the aisle.
“This is a good bill, it is a timely bill and it is a bipartisan bill and it deserves overwhelming support from this chamber,” Murkowski, the chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said.
“I am hopeful that the collaborative effort that got this bill to the floor here today will be reflected in the debate that goes before us,” she added.
The bill will be open for amendments on the floor, leadership said, a prospect that both sides warned shouldn’t be used to hurt the underlying bill’s appeal to both parties.
Cantwell, the ranking member on the energy panel, said members should look to propose measures that “improve the bill but not sink the bill with poison pill amendments that will either get it vetoed or stop it from getting across the finish line.”
-
Obama Admin Turns from Negotiations to 'Nitty Gritty' on Climate
Jan 27, 2016 | E&E - Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
With the Paris climate summit in the rearview mirror, top members of the Obama administration say their diplomatic attention is now turning toward positioning the United States and other countries to meet their carbon-cutting goals.
Melanie Nakagawa, the State Department's new deputy assistant secretary for energy transformation, said she sees U.S. strategic assistance as a natural extension of the administration's efforts to seal the deal among nearly 200 countries. As part of the Paris agreement, countries large and small made greenhouse gas emissions pledges known as intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs), which stretch between 2020 and 2025 or 2030.
"Last year, the U.S. was encouraging countries to put ambitious INDCs on the table as part of reaching a successful agreement in Paris," Nakagawa said. "In light of our leadership in helping bring countries to the table with ambitious commitments and in reaching a global agreement, the next step is to build confidence that we can put the Paris agreement into action by demonstrating how countries are getting on the path to meeting these commitments."
Nations have their work cut out for them. Many already have targets for the year 2020, and the bulk of the Paris goals will have to be revisited in the coming two years as the world searches for even steeper cuts that will allow it to contain warming to levels scientists say are safe.
The United States played a major role in urging other countries to make aggressive targets. Administration officials say it now stands ready to help other countries follow through by offering strategic assistance to help countries structure their national policies and regulatory frameworks to attract public investment or to hold down emissions even as their economies continue to grow.
Nakagawa led the U.S. delegation at a pair of meetings in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, last week that were the first global gatherings to focus on implementing the newly minted Paris deal. The annual meeting of the International Renewable Energy Agency's Assembly and the World Future Energy Summit drew staff from the State and Energy departments and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado, who said their mission was to offer expertise and assistance to countries that want to tap clean energy to meet their post-2020 pledges.Working for tangible results, not a 'sexy headline'
The roster of U.S. officials visiting the United Arab Emirates' capital was less star-studded than the delegation that went to Paris last month, led by Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry and attended by several Cabinet officials. Nakagawa attended the conference as an adviser to Kerry, who oversaw the second-week negotiations for the United States personally.
But now the tide has turned toward implementing the agreement. While marquee names are still involved -- there has been a strategy meeting at the White House already to chart a way forward for 2016, according to one administration official -- this new chapter depends heavily on policy experts at agencies like the State and Energy departments who can start to fill in some of the details about how the world can reach its goals.
For Nakagawa's office, that means offering policy expertise or engaging in dialogues as part of the State Department's broader diplomatic work to help countries meet their own energy or climate objectives. Those might include doing more to attract private-sector capital to improve the power grid or deploy renewable energy, or ways to adjust their regulations to encourage efficiency. All of these actions can deliver benefits beyond saving carbon dioxide, including improving energy security, she said.
Nakagawa gave the example of St. Kitts and Nevis, which is dependent on imported energy, like other island states, for the lion's share of its power. The State Department's Bureau of Energy Resources worked for two years under the auspices of the Caribbean Energy Security Initiative to help the Caribbean nation secure a 25-year power purchase agreement to make use of its geothermal energy capacity. The agreement reached last November will not only reduce emissions but also provide needed domestic energy supply, and the State Department held out it as a "model" for what could occur to help other islands wean themselves from fossil fuel-based power.
"This work is the kind of work that helps countries get on the right glide path to meeting their NDCs," she said.
The "nitty gritty" work of fostering policy environments in countries that will allow green energy to flourish "may not be the sexy headline, but it's what actually transforms the economy," Nakagawa said.San Francisco to host global clean energy summit
While the State Department weaves climate mitigation into its diplomatic relationships, DOE searches for ways to deploy efficiency policies across the globe. These efforts, too, often fly below the radar -- at least when compared to some of the higher-profile initiatives and announcements the White House launched ahead of Paris.
David Turk, DOE's deputy assistant secretary for international climate and technology, and his team are tasked with turning those much-touted actions into reality.
Turk, Nakagawa and others attended an informal gathering on the sidelines of the Abu Dhabi meeting last week where members of Mission Innovation -- a 20-nation pact announced in Paris to double clean energy research and development funding -- mulled over the next steps. The breakfast focused both on the formal Mission Innovation program and on side discussions related to research and development.
Turk said he also met with countries that are members of the Clean Energy Ministerial, an international green energy and energy efficiency forum with much of the same membership as Mission Innovation, including China and India. This June's meeting in San Francisco will consider steps that countries -- including major developing emitters -- can take to avoid increasing their energy and greenhouse gas intensity as their populations gain some of the trappings of middle-income life.
One idea is to focus on ways to improve air conditioner efficiency internationally -- a sector that is on track to explode in the coming years as consumers in developing countries gain access to climate control, he said.
Moniz said last month that San Francisco was chosen as a venue because the region, including Silicon Valley, is "known as a global hub of the clean energy industry and is home to some of the most innovative technology companies that are playing a crucial role in advancing clean energy globally."
California has also embraced tougher-than-federal efficiency and emissions standards for decades, and Gov. Jerry Brown (D) will host a subnational governments ministerial in the area that will coincide with the CEM meeting. China has already announced it will host the 2017 gathering.
Turk said the ministerial is an opportunity to build on the "very strong foundation" provided by Paris. The agreement leaves questions unanswered about implementation and also requires future steps, he noted. That's because the combined result of all the Paris commitments would be a world where warming will increase to about 2.7 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. Scientists say that anything above the 2-degree threshold would be unsafe.Some nations nervous about 2016
Turk said steeper cuts would require new technologies.
"Political leadership is critical, but we also need a robust technology research and development effort to change the reality on the ground about what clean energy technologies are available at scale and at what cost," he said. "In other words, changing the reality on the ground will open up even more possibilities throughout the world."
The administration's focus on implementing policies it spent the last few years debuting is partly about Paris implementation and partly about wrapping up loose ends before Obama leaves office next year.
Former Obama White House official David Sandalow said the president has made it clear that "he wants to use his remaining time in office to move forward on climate even more."
He brushed off any suggestion that these initiatives might fall by the wayside when Obama leaves office. While a Republican president could withdraw the United States from the Paris agreement, doing so would be unwise, Sandalow said.
"Despite the rhetoric on the campaign trail, it would damage U.S. interests significantly if the United States were to withdraw from the Paris agreement," he said. "Governing is different from campaigning."
But Erik Brandsma, director-general of the Swedish Energy Agency, said there is some nervousness outside the United States that the result of this November's elections could undermine Paris implementation. Key players in the international process are already searching for contingency options now, he said. And they may try to make progress quickly, while Obama is still in office, on long-sought goals like initiatives to roll back fossil fuel subsidies internationally, he said.
"If they see the opportunity to get that crystallized into a concrete action in 2016, then I think they will take that chance and not wait until the elections," he said.
But Saleemul Huq, director of the International Institute for Environment and Development, said that while the administration's interest in helping poor countries reach their Paris goals is welcome, helping vulnerable countries prepare for warming-related destruction is more urgent.
"As vulnerable countries, their prime requirement is for support for adaptation," he said. "The U.S. needs to enhance their funding support for adaptation to the vulnerable countries."
-
Failing to Protect Air Quality is Bad for the Economy
Jan 27, 2016 | Houston Chronicle
By Chris Tomlinson
Indian fighter jets roared through the sky just 500 feet overhead, but the smog over New Delhi was so thick that spectators could only make out silhouettes in the haze.
Another squadron, rehearsing for Republic Day ceremonies, followed close behind. This time, the lead jet spiraled into a vertical climb, disappearing before the maneuver was complete.
Rather than building drama to the aerobatics, the fighters' smoke trails only added to the acrid air imposed on residents every winter - each day's damage the equivalent of smoking a pack of cigarettes. New Delhi's air quality is the planet's poorest, worse than Beijing's and frequently rated as a health hazard.
The smog is a side effect of the fastest-growing major economy in the world, a title India claimed in 2015. While I was contemplating the trade-off between air quality and economic progress, a federal court dealt Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton a setback in their lawsuit to block implementation of the EPA's Clean Power Plan, which they allege will hurt our state's economy.
Indians have learned the hard way that sacrificing the environment for economic growth is a false choice, and a mistake not easily rectified.
Industry defenders have claimed that almost every pollution regulation would hurt people's livelihoods going back to when President Richard Nixon signed the Clean Air Act in 1970. The U.S. has eliminated much of the visible pollution despite industry opposition, but much more needs to be done to reduce ozone, mercury and particulate matter.OPINIONViewpoint: How Cruz loses friends and influences peopleWhat if recent turmoil is a sign of seismic shifts?Nick Anderson's best cartoons of 2015Where's the indignation for what African Americans do toNavarrette: After San Bernardino, America shrugs
Abbott has spent most of the last decade making a fetish out of suing the EPA for requiring reductions in toxic emissions, and Paxton has recently taken up the baton. Luckily for us, they lose most of the time. Otherwise, Houston might look like Delhi.
The Clean Power Plan is intended to reduce emissions of all sorts, but particularly carbon dioxide, which contributes greatly to climate change. Texas emits more carbon dioxide and air pollutants than any other state, mostly because greater Houston hosts the nation's largest petrochemical complex, two of the four largest petroleum refineries in the country and more than 400 chemical manufacturing facilities.
The 6 million people who live in the region contribute to a major ozone problem by driving more than 140 million miles each day. As a result, the American Lung Association ranks Houston as the sixth most polluted city in America.
Houston's frequently clear skies belie the fact that the region barely meets federal air quality standards. But it's an improvement. Thanks to regulations that industry lobbyists fought at every turn, Houston has cut hazardous air pollutants by 80 percent. The economic growth that has followed refutes arguments that cleaner air would cost the city's economy.
Despite these facts, the chemical industry-backed BCCA Appeal Group is at the Texas Supreme Court, accusing the city of overstepping its bounds by demanding that plants pollute less.
India's leaders made the wrong decisions when faced with a similar choice.
Manufacturers, both domestic and foreign-owned, complained for years that India's electricity was too expensive and unreliable. The government decided to solve the problem by building more coal-fired power plants and ignored environmentalists calling for pollution controls.
When smog first became a problem, the government launched programs to replace polluting two-stroke engines with cleaner four-stroke engines. But demand for transportation was so great that most of the old vehicles remain on the streets.
Cheap, polluting energy boosted the economy temporarily but triggered a vicious cycle. A stronger economy meant more people could afford cars and motorcycles, and therefore they created more pollution. The foul air also encouraged people to seal their homes and install air conditioners with filtration systems, which increased demand for electricity and generated more pollution.
The countryside is no better. Between Jaipur to Delhi, hundreds of stalls sell tens of thousands of cow patties for the poor to burn for heat and cooking. Environmental groups have tried to shut down dung dealers for decades, but these small businesses wield local influence.
Indians are coming to regret their laissez-faire approach because smog now hangs over thousands of square miles of northern India every winter. In a city of 16 million, the pollution kills 650,000 people a year, according to a recent study.
The pollution now inhibits economic growth with foreign companies no longer relocating to major Indian cities. Many of them consider Delhi a hardship assignment where employees are not allowed to bring their families. Indian parents don't like trading economic development for their children's health and are beginning to protest.
The lesson is that Houstonians shouldn't be so quick to dismiss scientists when they tell us we need to do more to protect our health. And we need to examine more closely claims that such efforts will hurt the economy, because failing to act could have more severe consequences.
-
It’s Not Just Flint: Poor Communities Across the Country Live with ‘Extreme’ Polluters
Jan 27, 2016 | Washington Post
By Chris Mooney
As national attention focuses on Flint, Mich. — where lead-contaminated water flowed for over a year to a relatively poor, minority community — new research suggests that across the U.S., communities like these are more likely to be exposed to some of the most intense pollution.
In a new paper just out in the open-access journal Environmental Research Letters, sociologist Mary Collins of the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry and two colleagues from the University of Maryland in Annapolis and College Park examined what they term “hyper-polluters”: Industrial facilities that, based on EPA data, generate disproportionately large amounts of air pollution. Then, they cross-referenced the location of these facilities with socio-demographic data from the 2000 census.
The result? “We find striking evidence that extreme emitters are likely impacting EJ [environmental justice] communities even more significantly than typical EJ scholarship might predict,” the study said.
The study adds to a body of evidence showing that the U.S. continues to struggle when it comes to “environmental justice,” a concept advanced by advocates and researchers to describe the reality that poor and minority communities tend to have disproportionate exposures to environmental hazards.
The industrial emissions examined in the new study were reported by close to 16,000 industrial facilities in the continental U.S. as part of the EPA’s toxics release inventory program. The facilities were across a variety of sectors, ranging from mining to manufacturing, according to Collins. They did not include large power plants.
Examining this EPA data, the study found a significant disparity when it comes to how much different facilities pollute. “90% of toxic concentration present in the study area is generated by only 809 (about 5%) of facilities,” the paper reported.
But what was particularly striking was cross-referencing this information with socio-economic data on the people living around the facilities, based on a nationally representative sampling of Census information. The highest polluting facilities were also more likely to be located in proximity to poor and minority neighborhoods.
“It’s certainly not news that minority and low income communities face more than what some would say is their fair share of pollution from industrial sources,” says Collins. “We found that actually, the burden they face from these superpolluters was even more extreme than you would think.”
The work is an advance in the environmental justice field, using big data approaches to underscore a familiar conclusion in a new way, says Andrew Jorgenson, an environmental sociology professor at Boston College who was not involved in the study.
“The substantive argument is something that’s been around a long time, but this is a very sort of sophisticated, methodologically rigorous, and far reaching analysis that provides some generalizable analysis of this occurring across different regions,” Jorgenson says.
“This study is different because it’s looking at the largest polluters, and really focusing in on sort of the most egregious releases of chemical pollution,” says Sacoby Wilson, an environmental health professor at the University of Maryland-College Park who was familiar with the study. “And so what it basically is saying is, you don’t have to look at all the different facilities, if you just look at the superpolluters, the ones that release the most chemical emissions, we see that those facilities are also located in communities of color and poor communities.”
Wilson said that because of this, the new research could help EPA engage in targeted, voluntary programs to help these facilities lessen their emissions, and get a bigger impact than might happen by trying to work industry-wide or nationwide.
The immediate problem in Flint wasn’t about air pollution of the type involved in this study. Rather, it turned on a decision to switch the city’s water supply from Detroit’s to the Flint River to reduce costs. Still, it’s relevant, say Wilson and Jorgenson. “Flint falls into this broad category, a community that is sort of structurally disadvantaged,” Jorgenson says.
“I think what you see in Flint is really going to raise attention around environmental justice issues around the country, and also how you have these other environmental justice disasters that are looming out there,” adds Wilson.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested