Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 4/21/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) Businesses Booster MTB
Apr 21, 2016 | Politico Pro - Morning Trade
By Matthew Korade
More than 200 trade groups and companies urged Congress to pass the MTB overhaul bill quickly, saying in a letter that U.S. manufacturers have faced annual tariffs of nearly $750 million since the last MTB expired in 2012, “undermining American competitiveness and the ability of these companies to retain and create manufacturing jobs in the United States.” -
Apple Assesses Chemicals in More than 10,000 Components
Apr 21, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Apple has analysed the chemical contents of more than 10,000 product components under its recently launched full material disclosure programme, according to an environmental progress report released by the tech giant. -
REACH Committee Approves DEHP Use in Recycled PVC
Apr 21, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The REACH Committee has approved a controversial proposal by the European Commission, to grant authorisation to three companies to use DEHP in recycled soft PVC-containing articles. -
Commission Workshop Assesses ‘Fitness’ of Non-REACH Legislation
Apr 21, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
A recent workshop study on the regulatory fitness of chemicals legislation (excluding REACH) gathered stakeholder views on a number of key issues, involving CLP and related legislation. -
Echa Round-Up
Apr 21, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Echa has published the Opinions of its Risk Assessment and Socio-economic Analysis committees (Rac and Seac) on authorisation applications for two uses of chromium trioxide. -
Kerry, World Leaders Head to New York to Sign Climate Deal
Apr 21, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
Most of the countries that agreed to last year's landmark Paris climate deal will converge on New York tomorrow to officially endorse it. -
Concerned Scientists' Kimmell Defends Rule as Critical Step to Meeting Paris Commitment
Apr 21, 2016 | E&E TV
By OnPoint
As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit prepares to hear oral arguments in the challenge against U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, how will the science of climate change play into the arguments? During today's OnPoint, Kenneth Kimmell, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, discusses his organization's recently filed brief in the case and talks about the role of the power plan in helping the U.S. meet its Paris emissions target. -
McCarthy Shrugs Off Significance of Climate Rule Freeze
Apr 21, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
U.S. EPA boss Gina McCarthy today bristled at the suggestion that her agency had "lost" when the Supreme Court unexpectedly intervened to halt a major climate change regulation. -
Va. Lawmakers Block Funding for Climate Rule Compliance
Apr 21, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Elizabeth Harball
Virginia's General Assembly yesterday blocked funding for the state environment agency to work on ways of fulfilling a federal mandate to cut greenhouse gas emissions. -
US Senate Passes Wide-Ranging Energy Policy Bill by 85-12 Vote
Apr 21, 2016 | Platts
By Maya Weber
A broad bipartisan US energy policy bill cleared the Senate by an 85-12 vote Wednesday, winning backing from groups across the political spectrum. -
Major Northeast Gas Pipeline Canceled
Apr 21, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Kinder Morgan Inc. is canceling its controversial $3.3 billion project to build a natural gas pipeline from upstate New York through Massachusetts and New Hampshire. -
We Flew Over 8,000 Oil and Gas Wells. Here's What We Found.
Apr 21, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jon Goldstein
Drive by an oil or gas well pad, maybe out West, and it may not look like much. You’ll see a couple of storage tanks, some pipes, maybe a see-sawing pump jack. -
Hess Exports First Bakken Crude
Apr 21, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Houston-based Hess Corp. earlier this month sent 175,000 bbl of Bakken Shale crude to Rotterdam, in the Netherlands, a senior Hess spokesman told news media. -
(ACC Mentioned) Safety Board Deadlocked on Demanding More Disclosure
Apr 21, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board yesterday considered, and then deadlocked on, whether it should keep pressing a top industry group to tell the public more about chemical plant hazards. -
Mexico Chemical Plant Explosion Kills 13, Injures 136
Apr 21, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
An explosion at a Mexican petrochemical plant yesterday killed 13 people and injured dozens more, leading to evacuations and a toxic air release. -
Court Rejects Industry Bid to Reconsider Jurisdiction
Apr 21, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
A federal appeals court today rebuffed a request from industry groups to reconsider a decision over where legal challenges to the Obama administration's Clean Water Rule should play out.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Businesses Booster MTB
Apr 21, 2016 | Politico Pro - Morning Trade
By Matthew Korade
More than 200 trade groups and companies urged Congress to pass the MTB overhaul bill quickly, saying in a letter that U.S. manufacturers have faced annual tariffs of nearly $750 million since the last MTB expired in 2012, “undermining American competitiveness and the ability of these companies to retain and create manufacturing jobs in the United States.”
The American Chemistry Council, American Farm Bureau Federation, Biotechnology Innovation Organization, National Council of Textile Organizations and Outdoor Industry Association were among the signees of the letter, which was organized by the National Association of Manufacturers.
http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-trade/2016/04/tpp-something-clinton-could-support-mtb-marches-forward-trade-secrets-bill-teed-up-213884#ixzz46TiYEyia
-
Apple Assesses Chemicals in More than 10,000 Components
Apr 21, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Apple has analysed the chemical contents of more than 10,000 product components under its recently launched full material disclosure programme, according to an environmental progress report released by the tech giant.
The report summarises the company's progress on environmental responsibility in the 2015 fiscal year. It says it launched the disclosure programme last year in order "to identify all the substances we use in all the parts we use".
It assesses the substances against 18 criteria to determine their effect on human health and the environment. Where it identifies "unacceptable risk", it says it will seek alternatives or ban the substances altogether.
Last month, the company also updated its regulated substances specification (RSS). This describes the chemical specifications that its suppliers must adhere to. The new version includes several changes to the June 2014 version – the first RSS edition to be released to the public.
The new specification now ranks the company’s prioritisation of substances "it intends to phased out", and names benzene, chlorinated organic solvents, and toluene at the top of its list.
Second-tier priorities are:
bisphenol A (BPA);
the 900-odd substances listed under California's Proposition 65 as causing cancer or developmental toxicity;
the 160 or so chemicals on the REACH candidate list of SVHCs; and
the 66 substances on Washington state's list of chemicals of high concern to children (CHCC).
Cobalt, nanomaterials, n-propyl bromide (nPB) and parts and "components that utilise RoHS exemptions" are included in the company’s third phase of substances that may be restricted in the future.
Other significant changes to the RSS include:
new reporting requirements for benzene, toluene, chlorinated solvents, Prop 65-listed chemicals, substances on the Washington CHCC list and substances allowed due to RoHS exemption;
a reduction to the threshold for PCBs in all materials, from 5ppm to "non-detect" (ie below 0.1ppm);
lower thresholds for PAHs; and
added testing requirements for manufacturing process chemicals.
Apple was the target of the 2006 Greenpeace campaign "Green my Apple". This aimed to put consumer pressure on the company to improve its chemicals management. And while Greenpeace heralded the campaign a success, it said that as of its most recent 2012 Guide to Greener Electronics ranking Apple was still lagging behind other tech companies like Dell and HP on chemicals management.
But in the NGO's more recent September 2014 report, Greener Gadgets: Designing the future, Apple was named an "early mover" on its hazardous chemicals efforts.
In 2014, the company began to make public its RSS, and also formed a green chemistry advisory board. This is comprised of toxicologists, researchers and academics, to help identify substances of concern and work to minimise or eliminate them from the supply chain, says Apple.
In its most recent progress report, the company says that is has also expanded its environmental testing laboratories, including building out testing labs at manufacturing facilities in China "to test and validate products throughout the manufacturing process".
In recent years, the company has phased down or removed several substances, including beryllium, mercury, lead, PVCs and phthalates, and brominated flame retardants.
Most recently, it announced that it would no longer use n-hexane and benzene in the assembly process.
A company spokesperson declined to provide further details on the timeline for phasing out priority substances, or for completing the review of all product components.
https://chemicalwatch.com/46793/apple-assesses-chemicals-in-more-than-10000-components
-
REACH Committee Approves DEHP Use in Recycled PVC
Apr 21, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The REACH Committee has approved a controversial proposal by the European Commission, to grant authorisation to three companies to use DEHP in recycled soft PVC-containing articles.
The vast majority of member states backed the draft Decision, which imposes strict conditions on Vinyloop Ferrara, Stena Recycling and Plastic Planet in order for them to reapply for authorisation until 21 February 2019. It also obliges downstream users to make monitoring and biomonitoring information available to Echa, before 31 December 2016.
The European Council for Plasticisers and Intermediates (ECPI) said the draft Decision was based on “Echa expert committees’ recommendation, following a thorough evaluation of scientific and socio-economic data".
It added that the Decision is of “great value” for the PVC supply chain and “represents an important positive precedent towards legislative consistency and predictability”.
Late last year, MEPs called for a ban on recycled plastics containing DEHP, and the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), which was instrumental in getting the Parliament's Resolution drafted, says the draft Decision breaches the REACH Regulation. This, it says, is because:
the risks related to the uses of DEHP are not adequately controlled;
there are suitable alternative substances and technologies; and
the applicants did not demonstrate that the socio-economic benefits of continued use outweigh the risk to human health or the environment.
“We deeply regret this Decision as it establishes a very negative precedent that compromises upcoming decisions and undermines the aims of REACH to ensure that toxic substances are replaced by safer alternatives,” Dolores Romano, EEB senior policy officer, said.
DEHP is fat soluble and easily leaches into the surrounding environment. “It does not just stay in plastic – it leaks out and harms people and the environment,” said ClientEarth lawyer Vito Buonsante. “Many European companies have successfully substituted DEHP for less dangerous substances.”
Mr Buonsante said the Commission based its draft Decision on "a flawed application for authorisation, which lacks many elements to assess the risks and benefits from using the chemical.”
Restriction on BPA
Yesterday’s REACH Committee meeting also discussed the restriction of the use of BPA in thermal paper. Most countries present backed the proposal. Written comments will be submitted until mid-May, with a potential final discussion and vote in July.
The Commission has submitted the proposed restriction to the World Trade Organization. The proposal, which takes the form of a proposed Regulation and adding BPA to REACH Annex XVII, says it would restrict the placing on the market of thermal paper containing BPA, in a concentration equal to or greater than 0.02% by weight.
Its application would be deferred for three years to allow industry sufficient time to comply with the obligations.
"No significant burden on industry, the supply chain or consumers is expected," says the notification, because BPA "has already been largely substituted by other substances".
The proposed date of adoption is the second half of 2016.
https://chemicalwatch.com/46790/reach-committee-approves-dehp-use-in-recycled-pvc
-
Commission Workshop Assesses ‘Fitness’ of Non-REACH Legislation
Apr 21, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
A recent workshop study on the regulatory fitness of chemicals legislation (excluding REACH) gathered stakeholder views on a number of key issues, involving CLP and related legislation.
The workshop, hosted by the European Commission and consultants, contributes to a Commission's "fitness check" which assesses whether the current legislative framework for chemicals is fit for purpose and delivers as intended.
The fitness check examines the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the framework and identifies issues, such as inconsistencies and gaps in legislative structure.
According to the Commission, the main points made by the participants were:
the CLP classification criteria are appropriate, but there is room for refinement/further work on mixture rules, which sometimes may lead to overclassification (especially irritation/corrosivity). There was discussion on special matrices, such as alloys, polymers, glass; the way endocrine disruption, PBT/vPvBs could be integrated into classification criteria; and how nanomaterials should be addressed. There are differences in interpretation of mixture rules in different member states;
timely implementation of GHS was seen as positive, but other global regions are lagging behind, which sometimes causes problems. There were suggestions to slow down the rhythm of GHS updates to create more stability and reduce the burden on SMEs;
participants considered that coherence of hazard assessment, between different legal instruments and agencies, should be improved, in particular, for pesticides and biocides (for example, through harmonised classification dossiers whenever this is relevant for their authorisation);
participants praised the transparency of Echa's Committee for Risk Assessment (Rac) procedures for experts, but saw more difficulties for SMEs to follow the process;
GLP was seen as providing minimum standards and reproducibility of health and environmental testing, but stakeholders considered that other studies should not be disregarded. The promotion of alternative testing to animal tests was seen as a complex matter, which should be advanced but which still presents many challenges;
pictograms were seen as a key element in informing consumers, but participants said labels tend to be overloaded and cause confusion. Many suggested simplifying them, using electronic tools such as QR codes to link to non-essential/additional information. There was strong support for more training and education to explain their meaning;
the views on automatisms of triggering downstream consequences by classification differed, but in principle derogations were seen as an important instrument. Participants felt they should be handled more restrictively in certain areas (for example, toys) than others (biocides and pesticides), depending on the degree of exposure and other socio-economic interests. Seveso III and the cosmetics Regulation were mentioned as areas for further simplification of procedures and clarification on timing; and
because SMEs face difficulties understanding the complexity of chemicals legislation, sector-specific guidance (including in national languages).
Follow-up
Stakeholders were invited to provide contributions to the open public consultation (deadline 27 May). This is through targeted stakeholder questionnaires, and by providing any other contributions to the consultant and Commission services.
The study is planned for publication in Q3 this year. Together with further work, this will feed into a Commission staff working paper scheduled for end of 2017.
https://chemicalwatch.com/46796/commission-workshop-assesses-fitness-of-non-reach-legislation
-
Apr 21, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Rac, Seac Opinions on chromium trioxide authorisation applications
Echa has published the Opinions of its Risk Assessment and Socio-economic Analysis committees (Rac and Seac) on authorisation applications for two uses of chromium trioxide.
German manufacturer Grohe submitted both. One is for its use in the electroplating of different types of substrates. The other is for a pre-treatment step (etching) in the electroplating process.
CLH intentions and Opinions
The agency has added harmonised classification and labelling (CLH) intentions to its registry for:
2-ethylhexyl 10-ethyl-4,4-dioctyl-7-oxo-8-oxa-3,5-dithia-4-stannatetradecanoate. The dossier is expected on 31 December, with Germany proposing no classification; and
barium diboron tetraoxide. The dossier is expected from Sweden on 31 October, with proposed future entry of reprotoxic 1B, H360FD, acute toxicity 4, H332 and H302.
Rac has issued its Opinion on the proposed CLH for isoeugenol. The dossier was submitted by the Netherlands.
Call for comments and evidence
A call for information from stakeholders on the use of lead in shot in wetlands has been announced. This follows a request from the European Commission for Echa to prepare an Annex XV dossier.
The information sought includes:
tonnages;
emissions and exposure;
costs;
uses of lead shots where the substitution maybe challenging; and
issues related to enforceability.
REACH Annex III strategy
Echa has released its strategy on supporting registrants applying the criteria of REACH Annex III. This sets out the criteria for substances registered in quantities between one and ten tonnes and is designed to reduce unnecessary testing on low-volume and low-risk phase-in substances.
If registrants can show that their substance does not fulfil any of the criteria, they can register it with limited information.
Echa expects to publish an inventory of substances likely to fulfil the criteria online in May.
It says companies can also make their case for not meeting Annex III criteria in a new template in Iuclid 6.
https://chemicalwatch.com/46810/echa-round-up
-
Kerry, World Leaders Head to New York to Sign Climate Deal
Apr 21, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
Most of the countries that agreed to last year's landmark Paris climate deal will converge on New York tomorrow to officially endorse it.
Officials from more than 150 nations are expected to be on hand when the agreement opens for signatures at U.N. headquarters in Manhattan. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon asked heads of state early this year to make the journey to sign the deal themselves, and more than 60 heeded his call. Secretary of State John Kerry will sign the deal for the United States because President Obama is traveling in Europe.
Ban has called the projected turnout "truly historic."
"The spirit of Paris is still living on," he said during last week's World Bank and International Monetary Fund meeting in Washington, D.C.
The previous record for most signatures garnered by a U.N. deal on its first day open was 119 -- set in 1984, when the Law of the Sea Treaty opened for signature.
The gathering at U.N. headquarters will run into the early afternoon, with heads of state or foreign ministers adding their John Hancocks to the climate text and making statements to the plenary. Kerry will give a morning statement after which he will sign the agreement, a senior State Department official said yesterday.
The official said the U.S. process for joining the deal would be "standard," noting, "We have committed to completing that as early as possible this year."
Several other countries have also committed to early action. Tomorrow night, six countries are expected already to be parties to the Paris Agreement -- meaning they will have both signed it and delivered documents to the United Nations formally adopting the deal. They are Fiji, the Marshall Islands, Palau, Maldives, Belize and Barbados -- all nations vulnerable to sea-level rise that have ratified early to draw attention to their plight.
Peter Thomson, Fiji's permanent representative to the United Nations, said this week that the mission already has ratification paperwork in hand and is ready to deliver it tomorrow.
"What we'll be after of course is a raising of ambition," he told ClimateWire. "Otherwise, we're in real trouble."
'More than a dozen' early ratifiers
The State Department official said the list of early ratifiers was likely to grow before long.
"We understand from some informal conversations that there are more than a dozen who are prepared to do this, but we don't have confirmation really, precisely," the official said. "Part of what I think of what we'll get on Friday is that understanding."
The agreement takes effect when 55 countries totaling 55 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions have joined, and it seems possible that that could occur later this year.
The United States and China, which are responsible for a combined 38 percent of the world's emissions, announced last month that they would join the deal this year. That's a move Jake Schmidt, international program director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, predicted "will create a cascading impact across the world" as other countries hasten to follow.
"Getting to the 55 percent threshold is much easier with those two countries in," he said. "You couldn't get there without them in."
Canada pledged separately in an agreement with the United States that it would ratify this year, bringing the total to about 20 percent, according to a new Paris Agreement Tracker created by the World Resources Institute.
Island states and other major developing emitters like India, South Africa and Brazil have also called for swift ratification. The addition of those countries would bring the total within reach of 50 percent.
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, speaking at a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, said yesterday that the momentum behind the climate agreement is building and that the United States' commitment bodes well for the prospects of getting others to sign on.
"I think it is going a lot faster than any of us expected," Moniz said. "I think certainly against any reasonable set of expectations, I think it's passed them."
The 2 C challenge
The signing, which coincides with Earth Day, is an opportunity to remind the world of what was achieved in Paris, said Reid Detchon of the U.N. Foundation.
"There was a concern that after the big event in Paris it would slip off the radar screen and sink between the waves," he said.
But a blockbuster turnout in New York serves to "keep the issue highly visible; the need for urgency, the pressure for rapid entry into force and implementation," he said.
The agreement reached by 196 countries in December was the first truly global bid to reverse man-made warming and cope with its effects. The deal called for the world to work together to keep postindustrial warming "well below" 2 degrees Celsius -- with an aspiration target of 1.5 C -- and enshrined more than 180 national pledges of action.
Estimates show that the initial pledges would place the world on track to limit warming to 2.7 C, which is why Paris also calls on countries to put forward new targets -- or to consider revising existing ones -- at five-year intervals.
Some critics worry that the Paris deal doesn't go far enough to protect the most vulnerable nations, which face large-scale damage or population displacement due to sea-level rise and other warming-driven impacts.
And while the agreement calls for net-zero emissions by the second half of this century, many have said since the Paris deal that nearer-term progress would be key. U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres says the world must peak emissions in 2020 to stay on course for 1.5 C.
Moniz said he too believes the Paris commitments are just the beginning of efforts to keep climate change in check.
"I would argue for sure that Paris was really a big first step. ... I do think that, 10 years from now, we're going to need another big step," he said. "The pace of decreasing carbon intensity will need to double from 2020 to 2025, relative to this decade's pace. We do have to pick it up."
Tying the hands of a GOP White House?
A new report released today by Chatham House shows that countries must close the gap when they offer their next tranche of emissions commitments in 2020. If they wait until 2025, the British think tank says, it will be too late.
The same report notes that energy infrastructure built in the next few years will continue to operate well into the second half of the century, and the proliferation of new fossil fuels facilities now would jeopardize the Paris deal's long-term objectives.
Governments and climate advocates are calling for the early entry into force of Paris in part to signal the market that the world is abandoning fossil fuels in favor of lower-carbon alternatives.
"It does give certainty to governments and to the private sector that governments are standing behind what they negotiated last year," said Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists.
While it took seven years for countries to ratify the Kyoto Protocol -- and some, like the United States, never did -- a speedy entering into force for Paris would show that countries now understand the urgency of addressing warming and are anxious to fully implement their commitments, he said.
The possibility that the agreement would take effect before 2020 took many by surprise. Those who follow the process say it's hard to determine who chose to remove language in previous drafts that would have barred early entry, except to say it seems to have had the support of the conference's French presidency (ClimateWire, April 8).
But one of the results is that if Obama leaves office after the deal enters into force, that will make it more difficult for a subsequent administration to withdraw the United States from the deal. Standard U.N. agreement language in the deal means that any country that has joined it must wait a total of four years before a decision to withdraw is final -- but only if it has taken effect.
"The treaty then could be effective, at least if you believe it hasn't been unlawfully adopted, starting this year or early next year, and the next president of the U.S. would be stuck with it for the duration of his term," Marlo Lewis, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said at an event this week aimed at shoring up GOP resistance to Paris.
"But you can't withdraw from a club, and there's no need to withdraw from a club you didn't join in the first place."
Room for bipartisanship?
The Obama administration has said it will treat Paris like an "executive agreement" not requiring Senate approval, but Republicans argue that the United States should not be considered a party unless the Senate votes to ratify it.
Laura Sheehan, spokeswoman for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, said the uncertainty about where the "entry into force" language came from showed the lack of transparency in the U.N. negotiations.
"The fact that many top U.S. officials, diplomats and astute observers of the negotiations have no idea who is responsible for the date modification is representative of the entire process," Sheehan said, adding, "Much like Obamacare, it looks like the accord will need to be signed before we can learn what's actually in it."
While a Republican administration might not be able to withdraw the United States from the Paris deal immediately, it would have little difficulty scuttling many of the policies that underlie the U.S. pledge to cut emissions between 26 and 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.
But activists say tomorrow's record turnout in New York shows that backing away from commitments made in Paris could damage U.S. credibility abroad and hamstring a new administration on a host of unrelated international priorities.
"The reality is that what we're seeing -- and the next administration will see this -- is a very strong global consensus that we have to deal with climate change, and this is a top-tier issue," Schmidt said. "A future president who chooses to not implement the kinds of actions that would deal with this challenge will see the geopolitics of this issue shift around them."
Moniz, for one, said he is confident there is common ground in the climate fight.
"We have an issue with the Congress, obviously," he said. But, he added, "there has been strong bipartisan support for this focus on innovation. Both chambers, both parties."
In addition, the impacts of climate change will grow harder to ignore, and much of the progress so far is baked in.
"Mother nature will keep speaking to all of us," Moniz said. "Public opinion, I believe, is and will continue to move in the direction of understanding that we do need a response."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/04/21/stories/1060035984
-
Concerned Scientists' Kimmell Defends Rule as Critical Step to Meeting Paris Commitment
Apr 21, 2016 | E&E TV
By OnPoint
As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit prepares to hear oral arguments in the challenge against U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, how will the science of climate change play into the arguments? During today's OnPoint, Kenneth Kimmell, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, discusses his organization's recently filed brief in the case and talks about the role of the power plan in helping the U.S. meet its Paris emissions target.
Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello, and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Kenneth Kimmell, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists. Ken, thanks for coming back on the show. Nice to see you.
Kenneth Kimmell: Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here.
Monica Trauzzi: So, Ken, UCS recently filed a brief in the Clean Power Plan case that is currently before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The focus of the brief is, of course, science-based and you talk about deep emissions reduction being needed to limit the risk of climate change. It's widely thought that the power plan is really just an initial step and doesn't get the U.S. to its Paris commitment. So why, then, is the CPP the regulatory tool that is needed at this time?
Kenneth Kimmell: Well, what we say in the brief is it's a necessary tool but it's not a sufficient tool. So we need the Clean Power Plan. We also need a lot of other policies, both to hit the 26 to 28 percent reduction pledge which we've made, but also to be in a position where in a few short years, we're able to offer to the world, as other countries will do, a more ambitious pledge for the year 2030. So the Clean Power Plan is a key element of both of those promises we made, but you're right, it's not enough in and of itself.
Monica Trauzzi: The coalition of challengers has focused on elements of jurisdiction and process in large part in their briefs. How much of a role do you anticipate science will play in the oral arguments, and should the science of climate change sway the panel in any given direction?
Kenneth Kimmell: Well, having been a lawyer myself, having worked for a judge for a year out of law school, here's a bombshell. Judges are human beings and they think very, very hard about the consequences of the decisions they make, and those types of very practical considerations do enter into thinking, and we want them to. We want judges not to act like legal robots but to consider the full range of circumstances. So we felt it was really important to write a brief that said as concisely as we could how dangerous runaway climate change is, how difficult it's going to be to cut our emissions in time to stave off the worst effects, and the role that the Clean Power Plan plays in that cause so that they can really understand that this case really has enormous stakes.
Monica Trauzzi: If the rule is upheld and we see a delay in the implementation timeline of the power plan, how does that affect the U.S.'s ability to meet its Paris commitments?
Kenneth Kimmell: I think a delay won't be fatal at all to those commitments. As long as it's upheld and the states are on the track, I think that's going to be OK. One of the things that we're very encouraged by, of course, is that Congress renewed the tax incentives for wind and solar, and that's going to really help in these early years until 2020 increase the penetration of renewable energy. So I think that if the rule is upheld and just delayed for a year or two, I think we'll be fine.
Monica Trauzzi: Could the natural shift that we see already occurring in the power sector's business model achieve many of the goals that the power plan is seeking to achieve without regulatory action?
Kenneth Kimmell: Well, I do think one of the great things about the Clean Power Plan is it's sort of swimming with the tide instead of against the tide. A lot of these transitions away from coal and towards renewable energy are clearly happening on their own, and that is great, but it's also true, and most of the modeling I've seen have suggested that the Clean Power Plan does add, you know, millions of tons of additional reduction beyond a business' usual case. So the answer is we need the power sector to continue what they're doing, we need to continue to take advantage of the lowering of solar and renewable energy costs, but we also need the Clean Power Plan to help drive that change, particularly when the tax incentives expire in 2020.
Monica Trauzzi: Many states have completely halted action on the power plan pending a decision from the courts. What signal does that send about the U.S.'s resolve in acting on climate?
Kenneth Kimmell: You know, I do think it's unfortunate, but like all things with the Clean Power Plan, the glass is also half full because a number of states, I think about 20, have said notwithstanding the stay, they're going to go forward and plan for renewable energy in their states and enjoy those benefits. But I do think that if the Clean Power Plan were struck down, which I don't think will happen, that will send a signal that we don't want to have. We -- the Paris agreement happened in part because the U.S. and China and other countries came to Paris with some really bold pledges. Meeting those pledges is just as important as making them, and the world's looking to us for leadership, and I think if we can go forward with the Clean Power Plan and show the world that we meant what we said and our commitments are real, that will help make sure other countries do the same thing.
Monica Trauzzi: And factoring into all of this, of course, is politics. Whoever the next president is, they will have a huge role in shaping the future of climate policy here in the U.S. and also dictate whether the U.S. meets its Paris commitments. Is that almost more of a critical aspect to the discussion than litigation on the power plan because there's so much else that needs to be done beyond the power plan?
Kenneth Kimmell: You know, they're both really important. As we said at the beginning of the conversation, in order to meet that goal we've set for ourselves for 2025, we need the Clean Power Plan to be intact, so that we look to the courts to make sure that happens, and we need policies to build off of that, and we do look to the next president to do that and the next Congress, but also states and local governments and businesses as well. So it's not all up to the new president. There's a lot of different actors that have to participate to get us to our goal.
Monica Trauzzi: All right, we'll end it right there. Thank you for coming on the show. Nice to see you again.
Kenneth Kimmell: Thank you. My pleasure.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
http://www.eenews.net/tv/videos/2120/transcript
-
McCarthy Shrugs Off Significance of Climate Rule Freeze
Apr 21, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
U.S. EPA boss Gina McCarthy today bristled at the suggestion that her agency had "lost" when the Supreme Court unexpectedly intervened to halt a major climate change regulation.
"We didn't lose anything yet," McCarthy shot back today in response to a suggestion that her agency had lost a preliminary court battle over the Clean Power Plan, a rule to limit power plants' greenhouse gas emissions. "That was not a merit issue. That was a discussion that basically said -- and the Supreme Court speaks for itself -- it said very little here," she said at an event at George Washington University in Washington, D.C.
The Supreme Court in February agreed to freeze the regulation after critics argued that the high court should step in to block the rule while a contentious lawsuit challenging the plan plays out in a federal appeals court. The justices' 5-4 opinion to halt the rule didn't delve into the merits of the argument, but EPA's critics saw the opinion as a promising sign.
McCarthy, however, interpreted the court as saying that "this is a big deal, and we want a piece of it. They would have gotten a piece of it anyway," she said.
Asked how big of a setback it was, she said, "Well, it adds some months to the court drama, but ... everything EPA does is litigated, and much of what we litigate goes to the Supreme Court."
The EPA chief added that she is "enormously confident that we will meet the merits test up the chain and that this will hold."
And meanwhile, "while it's a slight delay in getting things to happen, we have states that are continuing to do this work," McCarthy said. "We have an energy system that is transforming as we speak. It was always intended to be a long-term investment signal, recognizing that the transition is happening and we want money to continue to be invested in those new solutions. We are not going to lose a ton of reductions while we are losing some time before the court."
Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for June 2 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. That court's decision is widely expected to be appealed to the Supreme Court and ultimately decided by the justices. The outcome may depend on which president fills the vacancy created by the late Justice Antonin Scalia; he was among the five justices who agreed to put the regulation on ice.
EPA recruits
McCarthy also had some advice for job applicants to EPA: Do some work at the local level.
"It's you I need," she told the auditorium of students today, noting that EPA is "always" hiring.
She said she likes to see job applicants "that have had some real-world experience and can see the power of working at the local level." That work "makes it so much harder to put black hats and white hats when you see faces of everybody struggling and want to do the right thing," she added.
"I need those people with those experiences at the federal level, so that they're not sitting in Washington thinking they know it all or that a large policy is mine, I own it, it's the best thing ever, don't need to talk to anybody about it because I'm really smart. That is the attitude that will not get you anywhere fast, so get some real-world experience." She urged the students to "be unafraid for people to have different opinions; you're supposed to have different opinions."
Problems beyond lead
In the wake of the contaminated water crisis in Flint, Mich., McCarthy also called for broad investments in cities' infrastructure.
Flint's "only problem isn't lead in their drinking water; it is the fact that they have a drinking water system that only needs to serve half of the population it did in the '70s because it has been deteriorating since the '70s in terms of its economic engine to keep that city vital," she said.
The broader challenge is "about the economic vitality of our cities."
She pushed back against the notion that environmental investments hinder economic growth, calling it "nonsense." Those who believe that should "move to Beijing, move to New Delhi," she said.
"The environment does not hold back cities; it opens up opportunities, and you have to look at it as an integrated thought process, that's what sustainability is."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/04/21/stories/1060036033
-
Va. Lawmakers Block Funding for Climate Rule Compliance
Apr 21, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Elizabeth Harball
Virginia's General Assembly yesterday blocked funding for the state environment agency to work on ways of fulfilling a federal mandate to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
In a move decried by environmental groups, the Virginia House of Delegates yesterday pushed forward language in the state budget stating that the Department of Environmental Quality can no longer use state funding to prepare or submit a compliance plan for the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan "unless the stay issued by the United States Supreme Court is released."
Under U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, which was stayed by the Supreme Court in February, states are required to cut power-sector carbon emissions and submit compliance strategies detailing how they plan to achieve the reductions. Many states are debating whether to continue planning for the rule following the stay.
Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) supports the Clean Power Plan. In March, he vetoed a bill Virginia lawmakers put forth requiring the General Assembly's approval of the state compliance plan submittal for the EPA rule (ClimateWire, March 3).
The governor had proposed an amendment to remove the language in the budget barring the DEQ from spending state funds to comply with the Clean Power Plan.
"I strongly believe that Virginia needs to proceed with development of the regulations while a stay is in place," the governor's recommendation stated, adding "submission of such plan to the United States Environmental Protection Agency will not be authorized until the stay issued by the United States Supreme Court is released."
But yesterday, the House of Delegates voted to override the governor's amendment, meaning the state agency will be restricted from working on compliance with EPA's climate rule as of July 1.
Michael Dowd, director of the Virginia DEQ's air division, said in an email yesterday the agency still needs to meet with its attorneys and the governor's office to determine the full impact of the budget language.
"Certainly, we won't be putting pen to paper to draft a plan or start a regulatory process," said Dowd. "With the stay in place, we are pretty limited on what we can do anyway, so it might not impact our work too much."
A restriction or a 'symbolic jab'?
Virginia environmental groups criticized the budget restriction, holding a protest outside the General Assembly yesterday morning wearing orange life vests and yellow rain boots.
Virginia Sierra Club director Glen Besa argued it's "more than ironic" that Republicans in the General Assembly "would use the budget to block action on climate change when Virginia taxpayers are already spending millions to deal with sea-level rise."
However, Natural Resources Defense Council attorney Walton Shepherd argued McAuliffe may be able to devise a workaround allowing his state to continue pursuing Clean Power Plan compliance. He called the budget language a "symbolic jab."
"I just don't think this is something that will stop the governor from moving forward," said Shepherd. "By doing it through a budget restriction, it's necessarily a very narrow action."
Dominion Resources Inc., a major Virginia utility that recently made headlines for filing an amicus brief calling the Clean Power Plan's goals "feasible," declined to comment on the funding block.
"The budget issue is the purview of policymakers, the Governor, and the legislative process," Dominion spokesman David Botkins said in an email.
McAuliffe's office did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication.
Virginia's Legislature is not the first state to restrict funding for its environment agency related to the Clean Power Plan.
Wyoming's governor this spring signed a law prohibiting the state's Department of Environmental Quality from spending money to plan for EPA's climate rule, although it does allow the agency to "attend meetings and otherwise be informed as to any potential need to develop and submit a state plan" (ClimateWire, March 7). Missouri's General Assembly is moving forward with a similar bill (ClimateWire, March 16).
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/04/21/stories/1060035988
-
US Senate Passes Wide-Ranging Energy Policy Bill by 85-12 Vote
Apr 21, 2016 | Platts
By Maya Weber
A broad bipartisan US energy policy bill cleared the Senate by an 85-12 vote Wednesday, winning backing from groups across the political spectrum.
The legislation (S. 2012), which would mark the first time the Energy Policy Act has been reformed since 2007, contains provisions highly sought after by US LNG developers seeking more certainty that projects will not be held up by changing tides in Department of Energy reviews for exports to countries without free trade agreements.
Despite wide support for the bill that was a product of compromise, the legislation stalled for several months after coming to the Senate floor amid a partisan standoff on funding for Flint, Michigan, and objections to an offshore drilling amendment.
The vote of "85 to 12 is a pretty good signal of support for a product that came to the Senate floor as a result of a good process," said Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Lisa Murkowski, Republican-Alaska. "I think the vote that you see reflected this morning is indicative again of the need to update and modernize our energy policies but also a recognition of a collaborative effort."She and ranking member Maria Cantwell, Democrat-Washington, championed the bill as providing badly needed updates to energy policies that had not been revamped since 2007 despite dramatic changes in the energy sector.
Cantwell, for instance, on the floor Tuesday highlighted $2 billion directed for development of the microgrid and incentives for development of energy storage, which she called a "game changer." The bill also calls for investments in cybersecurity to protect the grid and make it more resilient, she said.
The bill seeks to add predictability to decision-making on LNG exports by requiring DOE to approve or disapprove applications to export to non-free trade agreement countries within 45 days of the National Environmental Policy Act review at the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or the Maritime Administration.
Charlie Riedl, executive director of the Center for LNG, called the action as a "watershed moment" for the US LNG sector.
"Project developers should know that they have a rock-solid timeframe to work with, and that certainty is crucial for these large, complex, capital-intensive investments in the US economy. This legislation will help catalyze the fast-maturing domestic LNG industry," he said.
Dena Wiggins, president and CEO of the Natural Gas Supply Association, also applauded the Senate for "voting for a bipartisan energy bill that will help broaden our country's opportunities to meet worldwide demand for natural gas with our abundant domestic supplies."
The bill also aims to add accountability and transparency to the interstate pipeline permitting process. It would set the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as the lead agency in permitting pipeline projects and set a goal of completing other agency authorizations within 90 days of FERC approvals. Steps to improve transparency include requiring FERC to publish an online "regulatory dashboard" to track information related to the permit review.
The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America has seen the pipeline permitting provisions as an incremental step.
"Both the House and Senate provisions on pipeline permitting matters are modest in nature, providing incremental transparency and accountability in the permitting and approval of natural gas pipelines. They are also largely similar. As such, reconciling the two bills on this issue should be a fairly straightforward process," the group said.
On other matters, the measure requires reviews on the effectiveness of capacity markets and steps to bolster electricity infrastructure and modernize the grid. Provisions on land and water conservation and mineral security are also included, along with a section geared toward repealing obsolete programs.
A substantial energy efficiency section takes up many pieces of a bill by Senators Rob Portman, Republican-Ohio, and Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat-New Hampshire, and as such won support from the Alliance to Save Energy.
The House in December also passed a broad package of energy policy changes that includes provisions to ease impediments to pipeline permitting and energy exports, but its prospects were clouded by a White House veto threat and loss of much its Democratic support as measures with less bipartisan support were added during committee and floor action.
Murkowski said she would support holding a formal conference with the House over the legislation and suggested the time and legislative calendar would be the key hurdles to getting something through this session of Congress. She expressed optimism that differences over issues could be worked out given sufficient time.
Industry backers of the bill were hopeful that prospects for it becoming law would be bolstered a strong, bipartisan vote in the Senate, followed by compromises in conference committee.http://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/washington/us-senate-passes-wide-ranging-energy-policy-bill-26424158
-
Major Northeast Gas Pipeline Canceled
Apr 21, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Kinder Morgan Inc. is canceling its controversial $3.3 billion project to build a natural gas pipeline from upstate New York through Massachusetts and New Hampshire.
The Northeast Energy Direct project, meant to bring gas to areas with high prices and little infrastructure access, faced strong opposition from environmental groups and local activists.
The pipeline also entered into the 2016 presidential campaign, with Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders both opposing it in the run-up to the New Hampshire primary in February.
Kinder Morgan’s board decided late Wednesday that it could not find the necessary utility customers to make the pipeline financially viable, the Boston Globe reported.
“There are currently neither sufficient volumes, nor a reasonable expectation of securing them, to proceed with the project as it is currently configured,” the company said, according to the Globe.
The company, with the support of Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker (R), hoped to bring gas from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale region to New England to be used in power plants and help the area lower its carbon dioxide emissions.
The cancellation is a huge victory for environmental groups, who had made killing the pipeline a top priority for the region.
“Kinder Morgan is stopping the pipeline because it is both expensive to ratepayers and simply not needed,” George Bachrach, president of the Environmental League of Massachusetts, told the Globe. “Massachusetts has the capacity to develop its own energy in solar, wind and hydro. In the process, we can create new industries and jobs here, rather than exporting our dollars and jobs to fossil fuel states.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/277110-major-northeast-gas-pipeline-cancelled
-
We Flew Over 8,000 Oil and Gas Wells. Here's What We Found.
Apr 21, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jon Goldstein
Drive by an oil or gas well pad, maybe out West, and it may not look like much. You’ll see a couple of storage tanks, some pipes, maybe a see-sawing pump jack.
For a different and more eye-opening view, fly over one of these industrial sites with an infrared camera. Chances are you’ll now see dark plumes of methane, the main ingredient in natural gas, pouring from the facility or piece of equipment.
We did exactly that for a new study to determine how common so-called “super emitter” sites are.
These large and evasive sources of methane pollution make up the lion’s share of the roughly 9 million tons the oil and gas industry wastefully spews into the atmosphere every year. And they provide an urgent reminder why stronger methane pollution laws are needed now.
We hired one of America’s most experienced leak detectioncompanies to fly a helicopter over 8,000 well pads in seven states across the country for our study, using infrared technology to capture photos and videos of methane and other pollutants. It was the largest-ever study of its kind in the United States.
A grim picture emerged from those helicopter trips over Arkansas, Montana, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah and Wyoming: Methane pollution is widespread, pouring out from hundreds of these super emitter sites.
Worse, these leaks sit largely undetected.
But our research also confirmed what other studies have shown, namely that super emitters are nearly impossible to predict. They can happen anywhere, anytime, when malfunctioning equipment goes unattended and sloppy mistakes are made.
This is why we can no longer continue to rely on industry policing itself. We need strong rules that require all operators to keep their facilities from polluting the atmosphere.
An affordable and effective fix
Regularly checking oil and gas facilities for leaky equipment is the most effective way to identify both big pollution sources – which our study focused on – but also smaller sources that together make up a significant share of industry emissions.
Such systematic checks are both affordable and effective.
In Colorado, for example, operators have been inspecting oil and gas equipment for leaks – at some sites as often as once month – for more than two years now. Industry has been on board and voiced no complaints over the program.
Momentum is building: Will you help?
Earlier this year, President Obama pledged to cut methane pollution from all existing oil and gas infrastructure, after already issuing a rule for future sites. His latest commitment requires the government to get serious about comprehensive, rigorous methane monitoring and repair for the first time in United States history.
The Bureau of Land Management has also proposed semi-annual leak detection practices at existing sources to reduce methane emissions from oil and gas facilities on federal and tribal lands. But as our data shows, more stringent and sweeping practices are needed nationwide to curb methane emissions, especially from super emitters.
Coming off the hottest year on record, the time for action has never been more pressing.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2016/04/21/we-flew-over-8000-oil-and-gas-wells-heres-what-we-found
-
Hess Exports First Bakken Crude
Apr 21, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Houston-based Hess Corp. earlier this month sent 175,000 bbl of Bakken Shale crude to Rotterdam, in the Netherlands, a senior Hess spokesman told news media.
This is the first North Dakota crude to leave North America since the U.S. government lifted the crude export ban last December, and it follows comments last Friday by the state's lead oil/gas regulator, Lynn Helms, that Bakken exports were unlikely (see Shale Daily, April 19).
Hess would not disclose the buyer but said the crude would be refined in Europe after being shipped in tankers from St. James, LA, and being sent from the Hess Tioga loading facility in North Dakota by rail. "Crude was delivered this week to Rotterdam," a Houston-based Hess spokesperson told NGI's Shale Daily on Thursday.
In regard to future export plans, the Hess spokesperson said that "exporting Bakken crude expands the list of customers that can help us achieve our goal of seeking the highest value. Where the crude goes is determined by where we get the best value."
"At this point, we haven't heard from any other [producers] on their plans [regarding exports], though I know many were supportive of lifting the export ban [see Shale Daily, Dec. 16, 2015]," said a spokesperson for the North Dakota Petroleum Council (NDPC), Tessa Sandstrom, who confirmed that Hess had sent the first export shipments.
Sandstrom said other exports from the Bakken may take additional time as producers develop relationships and "find the right markets." NDPC is not involved in marketing negotiations, she said.
NDPC has no historic records or past indicators on whether North Dakota crude in earlier decades in the 20th century was ever exported outside of North America since the first commercial well was drilled in the state (Clarence Iverson No. 1) in 1951.
Along with Hess, other major Bakken producers, such as Continental Resources and ConocoPhillips, have supported lifting the crude oil export ban. Hess' first well was drilled in 1951 near Tioga, the site of its current loading and processing facilities.
Hess touts its North Dakota operation as "competitive with the best shale oil plays in the world," according to its website. It cites the application of its so-called Lean manufacturing techniques on its wells as being "among the lowest cost and most productive in the Bakken."
In 2015, Hess sold a 50% interest in its Bakken midstream assets and formed a joint venture with Global Infrastructure Partners, which resulted in total cash proceeds to Hess of $3 billion (see Shale Daily, June 11, 2015). The midstream joint venture assets include the Tioga Gas Plant, the Tioga Rail Terminal, a crude oil truck and pipeline terminal and the crude oil and natural gas gathering systems in North Dakota, and the rail terminal was essential in its initial exports.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/106135-hess-exports-first-bakken-crude
-
(ACC Mentioned) Safety Board Deadlocked on Demanding More Disclosure
Apr 21, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board yesterday considered, and then deadlocked on, whether it should keep pressing a top industry group to tell the public more about chemical plant hazards.
The CSB has said the American Chemistry Council should publish more of the information it receives from members. That hasn't happened.
Some board members wanted to use a business meeting yesterday to drop the issue. In the end, the board postponed action after an inconclusive 2-2 vote.
Following a 2002 report on the hazards of reactive chemical explosions, the CSB mulled whether greater public disclosure of chemical facility risks could be a way to prod plants to operate more safely.
The report identified 167 serious chemical incidents from 1980 to 2001, with more than half involving chemicals not covered by existing U.S. EPA or Occupational Safety and Health Administration programs.
The CSB issued two recommendations to the then-Chemical Manufacturers Association: work with the National Institute of Standards and Technology "in developing and implementing a publicly available database for reactive hazard test information" and "promote submissions of data by your membership."
Secondly, CSB said the group, now known as the American Chemistry Council, should "develop and implement a program for reporting reactive incidents that includes the sharing of relevant safety knowledge and lessons learned with your membership, the public and government to improve safety system performance and prevent future incidents."
Nearly 15 years later, the industry's leading trade organization still runs a safety program, but it does not share data on plant incidents with the public.
The program for member firms, known as Responsible Care, requires companies to "provide the public with access to product safety and stewardship information," including "relevant health and environmental effects and safety management measures to promote safe handling and use of products throughout their lifecycle."
ACC says the program has helped reduce process safety incidents by 53 percent in the past 20 years and claims a worker safety rate six times better than the manufacturing sector average.
But ACC and member companies contend they cannot increase disclosure because of liability risks. They wouldn't want people to know, for instance, whether a plant narrowly avoided an unplanned release of hazardous chemicals.
CSB Chairwoman Vanessa Sutherland said the outstanding recommendation to ACC may no longer serve a purpose. The effort also could distract CSB from its primary mission of investigating the root causes of chemical incidents, she said.
"There's not a titanium link between a reporting program to the public and prevention," Sutherland said.
Rather, she said, excessive disclosure may provide little safety benefit and alarm the public, the way that Department of Homeland Security color-coded terror alerts did in the years after Sept. 11, 2001.
Oversight agencies may see no benefit to such a reporting program because they have not proposed one through regulation, Sutherland said.
Other board members expressed a desire not to let ACC off the hook for failing to become more transparent.
Throwing in the towel on safety recommendations "just because we've given up hope that they're ever going to get adopted" would send the wrong message by encouraging companies to ignore CSB findings they don't like until the agency moves on, CSB board member Kristen Kulinowski said.
"When there's a question of whether there should be information provided to the public," board member Rick Engler said, "I'm going to come down on the side of information to the public."
Addressing the board, Karen Haase, ACC's senior director of regulatory and technical affairs, said the group took CSB's findings seriously and had considered them over the years.
"It's not a matter of sitting and waiting for it to disappear," Haas said.
In a statement, the trade group added the CSB "has an important role in investigating process safety incidents."
"ACC is committed to working constructively with the CSB to identify best practices that will help our members safeguard their employees and communities," the statement said.
Michael Wright, health and safety director at the United Steelworkers union, said the trade group's legal argument was unconvincing.
"It seems to be equivalent to saying, 'We don't want to share critical safety information with you because we're afraid you will do something with it,'" Wright said. "The whole point is to do something with it."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/04/21/stories/1060036043
-
Mexico Chemical Plant Explosion Kills 13, Injures 136
Apr 21, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
An explosion at a Mexican petrochemical plant yesterday killed 13 people and injured dozens more, leading to evacuations and a toxic air release.
Luis Felipe Puente, the head of Mexico's civil defense agency, said emergency crews found 10 dead employees inside the plant, on top of the three who were reported dead immediately following the blast.
Petróleos Mexicanos, the state-run oil company, said at least 136 workers were injured in the explosion in Coatzacoalcos, an industrial city on the Gulf Coast, and 88 remained hospitalized.
The plant produces vinyl chloride, a toxic chemical used to make PVC pipes, among other products.
More than 2,000 people were evacuated from the area, Veracruz state Gov. Javier Duarte said.
The company said there was no longer a danger to area residents.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/04/21/stories/1060036027
-
Court Rejects Industry Bid to Reconsider Jurisdiction
Apr 21, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
A federal appeals court today rebuffed a request from industry groups to reconsider a decision over where legal challenges to the Obama administration's Clean Water Rule should play out.
In a short order, the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied petitions asking the full court to hear arguments over jurisdiction. A three-judge panel on the court has ruled that federal appellate courts -- not local district courts -- have jurisdiction to hear such challenges under the Clean Water Act (Greenwire, Feb. 22).
The court received six petitions asking for an "en banc" hearing before the court's full roster of active judges.
"The original panel has reviewed the petitions for rehearing and concludes that the issues raised in the petitions were fully considered upon the original submission and decision of the cases," said the order issued today. The petitions were circulated to the full court, but no judge requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc, the court said.
Judge Damon Keith, appointed by President Carter, wrote a dissenting opinion in February, disagreeing with his two Republican-appointed colleagues' reasoning that the court must have jurisdiction over the Clean Water Rule litigation.
Keith would "grant rehearing for the reasons stated in his dissent," the court order said today.
A coalition of agriculture, building and other industry groups had asked the full court to reconsider its decision. The 19 parties -- including the American Farm Bureau Federation, American Petroleum Institute and National Association of Home Builders -- wrote in their appeal that keeping the cases in appeals court would amount to "an enormous waste of party and judicial resources" if it turns out the court lacked jurisdiction in the first place (Greenwire, March 1).
Today's decision marks another victory for the Obama administration's lawyers, who contend that the cases should be heard in appeals court.
The Waters of the U.S. regulation from U.S. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers, which seeks to redefine which streams and wetlands receive automatic protection under the Clean Water Act, triggered dozens of lawsuits after the regulation was finalized last year. The 6th Circuit has put the rule on hold.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/04/21/stories/1060036040
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested