Preview Newsletter
AM ACC Clips Report 03/08
-
New Chemicals Add Concern Over E-Cigarettes’ Health Impact
Aug 2, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Deirdre Lockwood
Two new chemicals of concern have been connected to electronic cigarettes: Glycidol, a probable carcinogen, is found in e-cigarette vapor; and propylene oxide, a respiratory irritant and possible carcinogen, is found in the flavored liquid heated by the device to produce the vapor. -
With JV, Sabic Makes Bold Move For North American Petchem Markets
Aug 3, 2016 | Platts
By Nida Qureshi
The global petrochemical heavyweights made headlines recently in announcing they are considering a joint venture for a multibillion-dollar petrochemical complex in the US Gulf Coast region. -
Additional Lawsuits Challenge EPA's Methane Rule
Aug 3, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
More than a dozen additional states and state agencies, as well as additional industry groups, became the latest entities Aug. 2 to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency's final rule aimed at curbing methane emissions from new oil and gas wells. -
Thirteen States Sue Over EPA Methane Rule
Aug 2, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
More than a dozen states have sued the Obama administration over a new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule to limit methane emissions at oil and natural gas sites. -
14 States, Trade Groups Challenge EPA Methane Rule
Aug 3, 2016 | E&E News Daily
By Amanda Reilly
Fourteen states and several trade groups today filed litigation challenging the Obama administration's recent rule to limit oil and gas industry methane emissions. -
Natural Gas Industry Wary Of New NEPA Guidance
Aug 2, 2016 | E&E Daily News
By Hannah Hess
Natural gas producers are warning the White House that new guidance on how federal agencies should consider climate change when conducting project reviews poses a hurdle to infrastructure designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. -
In Win For Advocates, Final NEPA GHG Guide Drops Review Threshold
Aug 2, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
The Obama administration's long-awaited guide for how agencies should consider the greenhouse gas impacts of their decisions drops a proposed 25,000-ton-per-year threshold for when agencies should review climate considerations, bolstering environmentalists who say the alternative language suggesting agencies review climate impacts if tools and data are available ensures more projects will be assessed. -
CSB Faults Tesoro for Safety Failures in Workers' Acid Burns
Aug 3, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
Sulfuric acid releases that burned workers in early 2014 at a Tesoro Corp. oil refinery in Martinez, Calif., were the result of “numerous process safety management system deficiencies,” the U.S. Chemical Safety Board said in a case study released Aug. 2. -
California Rail Hazmat Fee Illegal, Railroads Say
Aug 3, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California's new fee on rail deliveries of crude oil and certain other hazardous materials is illegal, the nation's two largest railroad companies said in a lawsuit (BNSF Railway Co. v. California State Board of Equalization, N.D. Cal., No. 16-cv-04311-JCS, 7/29/16). -
(ACC Blog) Plastics Reduce Environmental Cost By Nearly Four Times Compared To Alternative Materials
Aug 2, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By Steve Russell
The results of a new study are disrupting “conventional wisdom” about the sustainability of plastics. -
Companies Call for Tighter Regional Carbon Cap
Aug 3, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrea Vittorio
Levi Strauss & Co., Unilever and about 70 other companies are asking for a bigger cut in carbon emissions from the electric power sector in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic. -
EPA Advances Exception to Policy on Air Act Consistency
Aug 3, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency is moving ahead with a new exception to its policy that regional EPA offices “uniformly apply” all policies, procedures and criteria under the Clean Air Act, a decision that is likely to trigger industry lawsuits. -
EPA Updates Ozone, Particulate Permitting Guidance
Aug 3, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Environmental Protection Agency is updating the tools state regulators use to evaluate air pollution impacts from industrial facilities as part of the permitting process in draft guidance released Aug. 1. -
Transportation, Energy Projects to Get Climate Reviews
Aug 3, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
The Bureau of Land Management and other federal agencies overseeing public lands are to consider how a range of energy projects to be sited there—from mines to oil and gas extraction—might worsen climate change effects under a White House guidance announced Aug. 2. -
From Now On, Every Government Agency Will Have To Consider Climate Change
Aug 2, 2016 | The Washington Post
By Chris Mooney
The White House’s chief environmental office, the Council on Environmental Quality, finalized a six-year process of shaping how the government’s agencies, across the board, will factor climate change into their decisions.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
New Chemicals Add Concern Over E-Cigarettes’ Health Impact
Aug 2, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Deirdre Lockwood
Two new chemicals of concern have been connected to electronic cigarettes: Glycidol, a probable carcinogen, is found in e-cigarette vapor; and propylene oxide, a respiratory irritant and possible carcinogen, is found in the flavored liquid heated by the device to produce the vapor. Hugo Destaillats of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and his colleagues also confirmed the presence of the probable carcinogens formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, as well as the strong respiratory and eye irritant acrolein, in the vapor (Environ. Sci. Technol., DOI:10.1021/acs.est.6b01741).[+]EnlargeGlycidol is a probable carcinogen found in e-cigarette vapor. Propylene oxide is a respiratory irritant and possible carcinogen found in e-cigarette liquid.
Notably, the researchers conclude that several of these compounds come from heating the liquid’s solvents, propylene glycol and glycerin. Glycidol, acrolein, and formaldehyde are thermal by-products of glycerin, and propylene glycol degrades into acetaldehyde and formaldehyde.
The team tested two different brands of e-cigarettes with three different liquids, analyzing the liquid and vapor using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry and high-performance liquid chromatography. Propylene oxide was not detectable in the vapor in their HPLC analysis, but because it was found at relatively high levels in the liquid, the researchers speculate that it may be present in the vapor.
Several factors increased the amount of thermal degradation products delivered per puff, including repeated puffs within a half hour and increasing the e-cigarette voltage, both of which result in heating the liquid at a higher temperature. “As you increase the temperature, the amount of acrolein formed increases almost exponentially,” Destaillats says—by an order of magnitude for a voltage increase from 3.3 to 4.8 V. Minimizing the voltage could help e-cigarette users limit their exposure to these compounds, he says.
Most compounds of concern were detected at 0.3 to 70 μg per puff. The researchers estimate that e-cigarettes emit a quarter or less acrolein than a conventional cigarette for the equivalent number of puffs. However, the team’s calculations also indicate that at least two compounds in e-cigarette vapor exceed limits for chronic exposure—both secondhand and for vapers themselves—set by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment by up to an order of magnitude or more, Destaillats says. The team’s conclusions on health implications will appear in a forthcoming paper.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/94/web/2016/08/New-chemicals-add-concern-over.html
-
With JV, Sabic Makes Bold Move For North American Petchem Markets
Aug 3, 2016 | Platts
By Nida Qureshi
Leave it to ExxonMobil Chemical and Sabic to do it big.
The global petrochemical heavyweights made headlines recently in announcing they are considering a joint venture for a multibillion-dollar petrochemical complex in the US Gulf Coast region.
How big are we talking? The project would be anchored by a 1.8 million mt/year ethylene-capacity steam cracker — which would make it the largest such plant in the world — and also include polyethylene and monoethylene glycol production.
Potential locations include South Texas, near Corpus Christi, as well as Louisiana, near Plaquemine. This is key as both areas are home to refining and petrochemical clusters.
Corpus Christi has easy access to abundant feedstock from the Eagle Ford shale play as an added bonus, given the project under consideration would use ethane to feed the cracker.
For those keeping track of the shale-fueled petrochemical boom in North America, Sabic’s proposed incursion should come as no surprise.
The Saudi Arabia-based company has been trying to expand its footprint in North American olefins and polymers markets for some time. For the past 3-5 years, market participants deemed Sabic, already one of the world’s largest petrochemical and plastic resins producers, as a prime candidate to partner on a major petrochemical project in the US.
In the US, Sabic, which is 70% controlled by the Saudi government, first made a splash in 2007 with the acquisition of GE Plastics for $11.6 billion. The company renamed it Sabic Innovative Plastics before dissolving it in 2015 in a reorganization.
The company also operates a styrene plant in Carville, Louisiana as part of a joint venture with Total Petrochemicals and has an 11.5% stake in an olefins complex operated by Williams in Geismar, Louisiana.
A JV with ExxonMobil Chemical, another major player in the polymer resins space, would allow Sabic to penetrate North American polyethylene markets as a producer, one able to cash in on the region’s feedstock advantage.
Sabic is not the only Saudi company eyeing the region for expansion.
Aramco, the energy conglomerate owned by the Saudi government, recently lost a bid to claim the Shell Norco refining and chemical assets in St. James Parish, Louisiana as part of the Motiva split. Aramco and Shell formed Motiva in 1998 and spent $10 billion on an expansion of their Port Arthur, Texas plant making it the country’s largest. The split, which took place earlier this year, leaves Aramco with the Motiva name and ownership of the 600,000 b/day refinery in Port Arthur, Texas as well as distribution terminals. Shell, meanwhile, retains the Louisiana assets.
According to Reuters, Aramco’s failure to acquire the petrochemical asset in Norco was a setback the company’s objective to expand its footprint in key markets.
If history is any indication, an ExxonMobil-Sabic partnership stands a good chance of flourishing.
ExxonMobil and Sabic have worked together for 35 years in major chemical joint ventures in Saudi Arabia. Their first joint venture was established in 1980 to produce several poly-olefins including ethylene and propylene and became Saudi Arabia’s first polyethylene producer. Additionally, they partnered together in 1985 to establish Yanpet – one of the largest petrochemical complexes in that country.
The proposed JV would also bolster credence to a second wave of shale-driven petrochemical projects in North America expected to occur in the 2020-2023 timeframe, with Shell, Total and Thailand’s PTT also scheduled to have world-scale capacities start up by then.
The first wave, underway and expected to last through 2018-2019, includes world-scale projects by ExxonMobil Chemical, Chevron Phillips Chemical, Dow Chemical and Formosa Plastics Corporation USA.
-
Additional Lawsuits Challenge EPA's Methane Rule
Aug 3, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
More than a dozen additional states and state agencies, as well as additional industry groups, became the latest entities Aug. 2 to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency's final rule aimed at curbing methane emissions from new oil and gas wells.
They join the states of North Dakota and Texas in challenging the final agency action in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
New petitions for review include:
• Indep. Petroleum Ass'n of Am. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 16-1262, 8/2/16;
• Interstate Nat. Gas Ass'n v. EPA, D.C. Cir. , No. 16-1263, 8/2/16;
• West Virginia v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 16-1264, 8/2/16;
• W. Energy All. v. EPA, D.C. Cir. , No. 16-1266, 8/2/16;
• GPA Midstream Ass'n, D.C. Cir. , No. 16-1267, 8/2/16;
• Texas Oil and Gas Ass'n v. EPA, D.C. Cir. , No. 16-1269, 8/2/16;
• Am. Petroleum Inst. , D.C. Cir., No. 16-1270, 8/2/16.
“The rules are a solution in search of a problem and ignore the industry's success in voluntarily reducing methane emissions from these sources to a 30-year low,” West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey said in a statement.
Rule Published in June
Under the new source performance standards (RIN:2060-AS30), formally published by the EPA June 3, owners and operators of new and modified oil and gas wells would be required to develop leak monitoring plans and an initial leak survey within a year or within 60 days of startup and twice annually after that.
The EPA's first-ever methane emissions limits for new and modified wells triggered a duty for the agency to move ahead with regulations for existing sources. It has begun collecting information needed to do that.
Alabama, Arizona, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Wisconsin, along with the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet and North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality joined West Virginia as the states involved in the lawsuit.
Independent oil and gas producers involved in the litigation include the Independent Petroleum Association of America, the American Exploration & Production Council, Domestic Energy Producers Alliance as well as several state oil and gas associations.
The Western Energy Alliance filed its own lawsuit on the regulation, as did the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America.
Additional petitions also came from the Texas Oil and Gas Association, GPA Midstream Associationand the American Petroleum Institute.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=95037734&vname=dennotallissues&fn=95037734&jd=95037734
-
Thirteen States Sue Over EPA Methane Rule
Aug 2, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
More than a dozen states have sued the Obama administration over a new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule to limit methane emissions at oil and natural gas sites.
West Virginia, along with governments and agencies representing 12 other states, filed suit against the EPA on Tuesday, looking to block methane standards the agency released in May.
The rule, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R) said in a statement, is unnecessary and would add new costs to oil and gas drillers’ operations. Morrissey also warned the rule will allow for follow-up regulations from future presidential administrations.
“This is yet another example of unlawful federal overreach jeopardizing West Virginia jobs and working families,” Morrisey said in a statement. “The rules are a solution in search of a problem and ignore the industry’s success in voluntarily reducing methane emissions from these sources to a 30-year low.”
The EPA rule is part of an Obama administration effort to reduce methane emissions by up to 45 percent by 2025. The regulation limits leaks or flaring at new or modified drilling wells around the country.
Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas and also the main component of natural gas. Drillers oppose the rule, saying they are reducing emissions on their own because they have a financial incentive to capture as much methane as they can in order to put it on the market.
States joining West Virginia’s lawsuit include Alabama, Arizona, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Wisconsin. The Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet and North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality signed on as well.
North Dakota filed its own lawsuit against the methane rule in July.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/290159-thirteen-states-sue-over-epa-methane-rule
-
14 States, Trade Groups Challenge EPA Methane Rule
Aug 3, 2016 | E&E News Daily
By Amanda Reilly
Fourteen states and several trade groups today filed litigation challenging the Obama administration's recent rule to limit oil and gas industry methane emissions.
Led by West Virginia, the coalition of states asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review U.S. EPA's regulation, which covers new and modified sources of emissions in the industry.
Twenty oil and gas organizations led by the Independent Petroleum Association of America today filed a separate petition for review of the rule in the D.C. Circuit.
Published in June, EPA's Clean Air Act New Source Performance Standards require oil and gas companies to check and repair for leaks of methane, a greenhouse gas that's more than 25 times as potent as carbon dioxide.
Today is the deadline for entities to challenge the rule in court. Last month, North Dakota and Texas -- both states with big natural gas industries -- filed individual lawsuits asking the D.C. Circuit to review the rule (Greenwire, Aug. 1).
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey's office today said that the rule imposes "unnecessary and burdensome" requirements on the industry.
"This is yet another example of unlawful federal overreach jeopardizing West Virginia jobs and working families," Morrisey, a Republican, said in a statement. "The rules are a solution in search of a problem and ignore the industry's success in voluntarily reducing methane emissions from these sources to a 30-year low."
Alabama, Arizona, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette (R), the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet, and the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality joined West Virginia on the state petition.
All of the states are separately challenging EPA's Clean Power Plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
In today's petition, the states asked the D.C. Circuit to find the methane rule arbitrary and capricious under law and an abuse of EPA's discretion.
Along with some national organizations, today's industry petition includes several state-based oil and gas associations. The Western Energy Alliance filed its own petition this afternoon.
The American Petroleum Institute, which has been one of the most vocal critics of EPA's rule, today did not say whether it would also still file a suit against the rule. A spokesperson for the trade group said that API is "weighing all options as the deadline approaches."
The litigation comes as EPA is taking steps to regulate methane emissions from existing oil and gas operations, which also faces opposition from industry and state critics. Under the Clean Air Act, the New Source Performance Standards provide the basis for standards on existing sources.
The agency is accepting comments through today on a two-part draft information request that will be used to help shape future regulations on existing operations.
EPA, however, is not expected to complete the existing source rule before President Obama leaves office.
Environmentalists say EPA's new source regulations and its plans for existing sources are essential for addressing climate change and for meeting the Obama administration's goal of lowering oil and gas methane emissions 40 to 45 percent by 2025 from 2012 levels.
In a joint statement, the Clean Air Task Force, Earthjustice, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club pledged to defend the agency's New Source Performance Standards.
"EPA's methane standards build from actions in leading states and are the latest example of common sense clean air protections that will help to protect public health while reducing pollution and wasted natural gas," the environmental groups said. "We look forward to vigorously defending the standards in court."
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/08/02/stories/1060041109
-
Natural Gas Industry Wary Of New NEPA Guidance
Aug 2, 2016 | E&E Daily News
By Hannah Hess
Natural gas producers are warning the White House that new guidance on how federal agencies should consider climate change when conducting project reviews poses a hurdle to infrastructure designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The Center for Liquefied Natural Gas' Charlie Reidl said LNG has "an important role to play in the ongoing discussion about reducing global emissions, and being a supplier of this strategic fuel is an opportunity that the U.S. should embrace."
When the Obama administration issued a draft of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) guidance that was unveiled today, some analysts said it would prompt big regulatory changes at agencies like the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Greenwire, Dec. 19, 2014).
The president's Council on Environmental Quality noted the final guidance would provide a level of predictability and certainty by outlining how federal agencies can describe these climate change impacts, assisting decisionmakers in comparing alternatives and considering measures to mitigate those impacts.
Among other things, the new guidance:Advises agencies to quantify projected greenhouse gas emissions of proposed federal actions whenever the necessary tools, methodologies and data inputs are available.Encourages agencies to draw on their experience and expertise to determine the appropriate level (broad, programmatic, or project- or site-specific) and the extent of quantitative or qualitative analysis required to comply with NEPA.Counsels agencies to consider alternatives that would make the action and affected communities more resilient to the effects of a changing climate.Reminds agencies to use existing information and science when assessing proposed actions.
In comments filed at FERC earlier this year, the LNG group argued the guidance not only failed to serve NEPA's goals and purposes, but also creates another arbitrary hurdle for the industry, which is already forced to navigate an unpredictable and inconsistent regulatory approval process, Reidl said.
"The guidance issued today creates greater regulatory uncertainty that will hold the American LNG industry back at a time when it faces fierce competition from LNG projects in other countries that are rapidly coming online," he added, touting evidence that he said demonstrate that natural gas could be poised to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.
Michael Tadeo, a spokesman for the American Petroleum Institute, said while the group is reviewing the guidance, "it's important to note that the United States is leading the world in the reduction of carbon emissions, which are at near 20-year lows, while leading the world in the production of oil and natural gas."
Meanwhile, green groups heaped praise on the administration.
Natural Resources Defense Council President Rhea Suh declared the climate guidance a "game-changer."
The guidance includes a provision reaffirming that federal agencies must analyze the pollution caused by burning fossil fuels extracted from public land that has the potential to affect thousands of projects, from drilling and mining to hydraulic fracturing.
"As we have long argued, NEPA mandates that before any new mining, drilling or fracking project on federal lands is approved, the agency must assess the damage to the climate caused by using those polluting fuels for transportation or to generate power," said Kassie Siegel, director of the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute.
Siegel added, "That's a critical step toward keeping these dirty fossil fuels in the ground, which we must do to avert the worst risks of global warming."
The League of Conservation Voters' Sara Chieffo said the guidance ensures that climate change is a "core part" of the NEPA review process conducted by federal agencies.
"The National Environmental Policy Act is one of our bedrock statutes and is responsible for ensuring federal agencies look before they leap and providing the public a critical opportunity to have a say in projects in their backyards," Chieffo added.
Others praised the Obama administration for boosting the social cost of carbon, a calculation Republican lawmakers have been trying to block agencies from taking into account (Greenwire, July 20).
"This final guidance will help to increase transparency and ensure that the NEPA review process leads to smart decisions that benefit communities," said Jayni Hein, policy director at the New York University School of Law Institute for Policy Integrity.
CEQ is asking agencies to use the "best tools available" to quantify the direct and indirect climate impacts of their proposed actions, Hein said, urging them to include the social cost of carbon and the social cost of methane.
Rep. Frank Pallone, the New Jersey Democrat who serves as ranking member on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said the guidance will "ensure sound investments in infrastructure projects that anticipate future conditions and make our communities more resilient."
Pallone added, "NEPA is about making informed environmental decisions about federal projects, which must include consideration of climate change. This final guidance will help us adapt to the new conditions we face so that we make better-informed decisions to mitigate dangerous impacts on the climate."
-
In Win For Advocates, Final NEPA GHG Guide Drops Review Threshold
Aug 2, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
The Obama administration's long-awaited guide for how agencies should consider the greenhouse gas impacts of their decisions drops a proposed 25,000-ton-per-year threshold for when agencies should review climate considerations, bolstering environmentalists who say the alternative language suggesting agencies review climate impacts if tools and data are available ensures more projects will be assessed.
Omitting the threshold is the most significant, positive change in the White House Council for Environmental Quality's (CEQ) Aug. 2 final National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) guidance compared to the revised December 2014 draft, according to one source familiar with the document.
The 25,000-ton requirement was replaced with language that recommends agencies “quantify a proposed agency action's projected direct and indirect GHG emissions, taking into account available data and GHG quantification tools that are suitable for the proposed agency action.”
That means agencies cannot simply disregard the prior threshold and refuse to consider GHGs at large projects, according to the source. “The guidance says 'quantify' unless tools and data are not available to do so,” meaning more projects are expected to undergo NEPA GHG reviews.
The final guide also recommends that where agencies do not quantify a proposed action's projected GHG emissions due to lack of tools and data, they instead include “a qualitative analysis and explain the basis for determining that quantification is not reasonably available.”
While the guidance is generally drawing praise from environmental groups seeking to bolster climate reviews of projects, it is prompting strong criticism from industry groups and their allies, who say it will introduce significant uncertainty in NEPA reviews -- especially fossil fuel and transportation projects -- and may be unlawful.
Several industry group, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas (CLNG), are already suggesting they may challenge the guide, charging it is “arbitrary” or beyond the scope of CEQ's authority under NEPA.
The Chamber said in a statement that while it supports the “fundamental goal of NEPA, which is to ensure that the impact on the environment is considered in proposed federal actions, we are concerned that this expansion of authority goes beyond environmental protection, and in doing so has handed special interests another tool to stop infrastructure development and land management activities in their tracks.”
And Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), reiterated his long-standing warning that the guide may be procedurally unlawful because CEQ currently lacks a Senate-confirmed chair. “With no Senate-confirmed chairman, or even a nominee, today’s guidance can have no force or effect as CEQ staff have no authority to take any official action,” he said in a statement.
“Further, even if there were a Senate-confirmed Chairman of CEQ, global climate change falls outside of the scope of NEPA so the guidance has no legal basis,” he added.
But any industry challenges may face procedural hurdles as CEQ notes that the guide is not legally enforceable. The guide “is not a rule or a regulation, and the recommendations it contains may not apply to a particular situation based upon the individual facts and circumstances. This guidance does not change or substitute for any law, regulation, or other legally binding requirement, and is not legally enforceable,” the document says.
Also NEPA is a procedural statute that only requires disclosure and may not affect the substance of agency decisions
'Broad Mandate' Concerns
Another major change in the guidance is that the final document drops proposed language explicitly calling for agencies to consider upstream and downstream emissions impacts. Instead, it added footnotes that give examples of how agencies should consider such effects, an approach that the source familiar with the document says achieve essentially the same result.
The final guidance says agencies should disclose the “reasonably foreseeable direct and indirect emissions” when analyzing the direct and indirect effects of the proposed action. A footnote gives an example of “where the proposed action involves fossil fuel extraction, direct emissions typically include GHGs emitted during the process of exploring for or extracting the fossil fuel. The indirect effects of such an action that are reasonably foreseeable at the time would vary with the circumstance of the proposed action.
“For actions such as a Federal lease sale of coal for energy production, the impacts associated with the end-use of the fossil fuel being extracted would be the reasonably foreseeable combustion of that coal,” the guidance adds.
CEQ's Managing Director Christy Goldfuss first hinted that the council could drop the upstream and downstream language in May 2015 when she testified to Congress about the 2014 draft.
Her comments prompted concerns from environmental groups, which are seeking to force agencies to consider such impacts when reviewing LNG and other gas infrastructure projects.
But the source says the new language is helpful. Dropping the upstream/downstream language and including the footnotes is intended to address concerns with the draft's “broad mandate” to consider upstream and downstream emissions when it was unclear where the impacts would end, the source adds.
For example, if a NEPA review was conducted for building a government facility, there were questions about whether consideration of the manufacturing of the construction materials needed to be considered. Now they are “leaving it up to agency discretion” while providing examples of fossil fuel extraction projects that extend to combustion.
For fossil fuel transportation projects, a second footnote highlights a “current example” of such indirect effects, citing a Department of Energy document called “LifeCycle Greenhouse Gas Perspective on Exporting Liquified Natural Gas from the United States.”
The source says that is a “not-so-subtle push for any agency doing a coal or natural gas project” that includes production and transportation to look at the lifecycle emissions.
The final guidance also retains language calling for NEPA environmental impact statements (EIS) to not only consider the project's impact on GHG emissions, but also weigh the impacts of climate change on the proposed project. Advocates have called that a “reverse-EIS” that could result in increasing resilience, such as moving a project inland or shoring up a bridge to withstand a more severe storm.
Biomass-Specific Issues
The guide also retains language from the draft for biomass-specific issues, including that “NEPA reviews should consider whether to include a comparison of net GHG emissions and carbon stock changes that are anticipated to occur, with and without implementation of the proposed vegetation management practice, to provide information that is useful . . . to distinguish between alternatives.”
That analysis would take into account the estimated GHG emissions of biogenic and fossil fuels, the carbon sequestration potential, and the net change in carbon stocks relevant in light of the proposed action and timeframes.
CEQ has been under growing pressure to finalize the guide before the end of the Obama administration. It proposed an early version in 2010, then replaced that with the revised 2014 draft that has now gone final.
As recently as June 15, CEQ's associate director for NEPA Ted Boling told a workshop recently that he was unable to say when the final document would be released.
The White House says in a fact sheet that after “years of engagement” and a lot of feedback, the release of the final guidance is “another big step in the Administration's effort to consider how all types of federal actions will impact climate change and identify opportunities to build climate resilience.”
The fact sheet adds that it is intended to help agencies make informed and transparent decisions about the impacts of climate change associated with their actions.
The guide will be published in the Federal Register Aug. 5, and the source familiar with the document expects CEQ to publish a response to comments document. The source was unclear about the timing of the long-awaited release but is pleased it has been released so agencies can have certainty and move forward on their individual NEPA GHG guidance that will be tailored to their activities.
'Essential' Tool
Bolstering industry's fears, several environmental groups are praising the document, saying they expect it will help their efforts to challenge fossil fuel projects. For example, the Center for Biological Diversity said in a statement the provision urging quantification of GHGs from burning fossil fuels extracted from public land “is a huge victory for the climate. As we have long argued, NEPA mandates that before any new mining, drilling or fracking project on federal lands is approved, the agency must assess the damage to the climate caused by using those polluting fuels.”
The Sierra Club calls the guidance a “long awaited and essential new tool for addressing the climate crisis,” while the Natural Resources Defense Council says that the guide is a “game changer” that means agencies “shouldn't approve mines that will destroy the climate or bridges that will get washed away.”
The Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University says the guide will “ensure that the NEPA review process leads to smart decisions that benefit communities,” and agencies should use tools such as the social cost of carbon and the coal cost of methane to calculate the monetary impact of emissions.
And the League of Conservation Voters says the guidance shows that President Obama “continues to make climate change a top priority.”
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/win-advocates-final-nepa-ghg-guide-drops-review-threshold
-
CSB Faults Tesoro for Safety Failures in Workers' Acid Burns
Aug 3, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
Sulfuric acid releases that burned workers in early 2014 at a Tesoro Corp. oil refinery in Martinez, Calif., were the result of “numerous process safety management system deficiencies,” the U.S. Chemical Safety Board said in a case study released Aug. 2.
Four workers and contractors were burned at the refinery in two incidents in February and March 2014.
CSB Chairman Vanessa Allen Sutherland discussed the findings at a news conference in Emeryville, Calif.
The document serves as “a call to action for refineries across the nation to review the findings and concerns of the report and determine if the lessons can apply to their own facilities,” Sutherland said.
In the first incident on Feb. 12, 2014, two operators were opening a valve in an acid sampling system when they were sprayed with sulfuric acid. Though the workers were wearing personal protective equipment, including goggles and gloves, the gear failed to protect them from the chemical, the CSB study said. Both workers missed more than 150 days of work, the study said, and about 84,000 pounds of the chemical were released.
Less than one month later, on March 10, 2014, two contractors were sprayed by sulfuric acid during planned nonroutine maintenance work at the same alkylation unit and were treated at an area hospital for second-degree chemical burns.
Tesoro failed to fully cooperate with the investigation and didn't preserve crucial evidence, the case study said. The CSB also faulted Tesoro for downplaying the release as a minor incident rather than a significant process safety lapse.
Investigation Faults Safety Culture
Investigators discovered several examples of a lax safety culture at the refinery, the report said.
The lapses included failing to provide more effective personal protective equipment to workers, using safety procedures at the site that were less protective than Tesoro's corporate standards and creating perceived pressure on workers to cut corners on safety training to lower costs, the report said.
The report said 15 Tesoro employees and contractors were sprayed by sulfuric acid from 2010 to 2014.
“The fact that these incidents continued for an extended period demonstrates a culture that does not effectively prioritize worker safety,” the document said.
In a statement, Stephen Brown, Tesoro's vice president for governmental affairs, said the company “worked closely with multiple agencies on their investigations and we conducted an extensive review of procedures, controls and training” since 2014.
Company has Modified Procedures
Tesoro has worked to modify procedures, controls and training to reduce the risk of injuries, Brown said.
The company also described unspecified “inaccuracies” in the CSB's report but declined to elaborate.
Asked to address the company's concerns, Dan Tilemma, the agency's lead investigator for the case study, said, “We fully stand by the information that's in our report.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=95037733&vname=dennotallissues&fn=95037733&jd=95037733
-
California Rail Hazmat Fee Illegal, Railroads Say
Aug 3, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California's new fee on rail deliveries of crude oil and certain other hazardous materials is illegal, the nation's two largest railroad companies said in a lawsuit (BNSF Railway Co. v. California State Board of Equalization, N.D. Cal., No. 16-cv-04311-JCS, 7/29/16).
Filed in federal court in San Francisco, the complaint challenges a newly approved regulation requiring railroad companies to collect from their customers $45 for each rail car carrying 25 specified hazardous materials into the state. To be paid to the state's Board of Equalization, the fee is earmarked to help the state prepare for hazardous material incidents.
The federal ICC Termination Act of 1995, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act and the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 preempt the fee implemented under S.B. 84, a budget bill enacted in 2015, the complaint said.
Plaintiffs want an order blocking the state from collecting the fee.
“This hazmat charge defies federal law and economic logic,” the complaint filed July 29 by BNSF Railway Co. and Union Pacific Railroad Co. said. “If exclusive federal jurisdiction over the economic relationship between railroads and their customers means anything, it means that a State cannot establish the charges to be collected for rail transportation, order a railroad to collect them from its customers, and depress rail revenues and customer demand in the process.”
Chemicals Covered by Fee
California's Office of Emergency Services adopted the fee regulation in June. Expected to take effect later this year, the fee applies to rail cars containing acetonitrile, certain alcohols, anhydrous ammonia, ammonium hydroxide and calcium hypochlorite.
It also applies to chlorine, certain corrosive liquids, diesel fuel, environmentally hazardous substances, ethanol, gasoline, hydrogen peroxide, liquefied petroleum gas, liquefied gas, methanol, methyl ethyl ketone, nitric acid, petroleum crude oil, phenol, phosphoric acid, potassium hydroxide, propylene, sodium hydroxide, sulfuric acid, toluene and vinyl acetate.
California's fee only applies to rail deliveries, no other type of delivery of hazardous materials. The Interstate Commerce Clause and the federal hazardous materials law forbid states from discriminating against interstate commerce, the complaint said.
Benjamin J. Horwich of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP is representing BNSF Railway. Union Pacific's counsel are from Sidley Austin LLP and include Carol Lynn Thompson and in-house attorney Melissa B. Hagan.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=95037743&vname=dennotallissues&fn=95037743&jd=95037743
-
(ACC Blog) Plastics Reduce Environmental Cost By Nearly Four Times Compared To Alternative Materials
Aug 2, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By Steve Russell
The results of a new study are disrupting “conventional wisdom” about the sustainability of plastics. The study, conducted by Trucost, found that the environmental costs of using plastics in packaging and consumer goods is nearly four times less than they would be if plastics were replaced with alternative materials. While the environmental costs to produce the alternative materials may be lower, a more comprehensive outlook reveals that the total environmental costs are greater due to the much larger quantities of material needed to fulfill the same purpose as plastics. In other words, significantly less plastic is needed to do the same job as alternative materials, thereby decreasing the total environmental cost.
The study also found that, in addition to lowering environmental costs, plastics can enable significant environmental benefits during use. For example, plastics can make cars more fuel efficient, and plastic packaging can play a large role in minimizing food waste.
In addition to enumerating plastics’ environmental benefits, the study provided recommendations to help companies that make and use plastics minimize their environmental footprint.
The good news is the industry is already working on many of these recommendations – and we’re making progress.
One recommendation is to increase the amount of plastic recovered and recycled. Plastic recycling has grown significantly over the past decade: the volume of plastic bottles recycled has grown every year since 1990, topping 3 billion pounds in 2014. The amount of other rigid plastics recycled has quadrupled since just 2007. And the recycling rate for plastic film – including plastic bags and product wraps – has increased by 79% since 2005. As consumer access to curbside and other recycling programs increases, we expect to see these numbers continue to grow.
Another recommendation is to invest and implement efficient packaging technologies. Over the years plastic packaging has become increasingly lightweight without compromising the product it protects. Think of super light, flexible pouches, often used for soups, nuts, dried fruit and tuna. Fit-for-purpose plastic packaging allows us to ship more product with less package, which helps lower energy use and greenhouse gas emissions throughout the supply chain.
Trucost also recommends recovering plastics before they reach our oceans, which could cut environmental costs by more than $2.1 billion. Plastics makers have publicly committed to work to combat marine litter, and have launched more than 260 projects to help prevent plastics from entering our waterways. The projects include strengthening waste management systems and practices, increasing access to recycling, and advancing energy recovery technologies that convert non-recycled plastics into resources such as fuels or feedstock to generate new plastics.
Finally, the study suggests that the industry take the lead in driving improvements in the environmental performance of the plastic supply chain. The use of natural gas emits less greenhouse gases than some alternative energy sources. Plastic makers already use natural gas sourced liquids as our primary feedstock, resulting in fewer emissions, and we are gaining efficiencies through improved distribution. The recommendation to increase the use of renewable energy will be a tougher lift in current conditions, but this industry does not shy away from a challenge.
It’s an exciting time for plastics and for sustainability. Economic growth in emerging economies is creating opportunities for more people to access health and hygiene products, good nutrition and things that help us get more out of life. Plastics make it easier to produce and transport these items with a smaller environmental footprint. And, at the end of their useful life, more and more of these items can be recycled into new products or recovered for energy.
This new report sheds light not only on the many benefits of the plastics we use every day, but on opportunities to make smarter choices about how we produce, use and reuse plastics in ways that will benefit people and the planet.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2016/08/plastics-reduce-environmental-cost-by-nearly-four-times-compared-to-alternative-materials/
-
Companies Call for Tighter Regional Carbon Cap
Aug 3, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrea Vittorio
Levi Strauss & Co., Unilever and about 70 other companies are asking for a bigger cut in carbon emissions from the electric power sector in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic.
“Now is the time to redouble your commitment,” they wrote in an Aug. 2 letter to the governors of the nine states that make up a cap-and-trade program known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).
As part of an ongoing review, RGGI is looking at a range of scenarios for its post-2020 carbon cap, with a decline of either 2.5 percent or 5 percent per year. The companies, which are headquartered or do business in the region, were joined by about 20 institutional investors in calling for a 5 percent annual cap reduction.
“RGGI has been good for business and good for the region, but its work has just begun,” the investors wrote. Both letters were organized by sustainability advocacy group Ceres.
The program's latest auction of carbon allowances raised $68.3 million, though the price for each allowance has taken a hit this year amid an oversupply, along with cheap natural gas and other factors.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=95037724&vname=dennotallissues&fn=95037724&jd=95037724
-
EPA Advances Exception to Policy on Air Act Consistency
Aug 3, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency is moving ahead with a new exception to its policy that regional EPA offices “uniformly apply” all policies, procedures and criteria under the Clean Air Act, a decision that is likely to trigger industry lawsuits.
The agency, in a final rule scheduled for publication Aug. 3, is establishing what it describes as a “narrow procedural exception” that will allow regional offices to implement locally or regionally applicable court decisions without affecting national policy. The exception will ensure that only decisions issued by the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will be applied uniformly across the country, the agency said.
A 2015 proposed version of the rule (RIN:2060-AS53) drew criticism from a number of industry organizations, which expressed concern that businesses could be placed at a competitive disadvantage based on their location if the EPA allowed for the Clean Air Act to be applied differently in one region than in the rest of the country. Associations representing the oil and gas, power and chemical industries used their comments on the proposal to highlight potential legal challenges that could be brought if the agency moved ahead with amending its regional consistency regulations.
The Class of ‘85 Regulatory Response Group, which represents about 30 companies involved in the power sector, alleged that such an exception would violate language in Section 301(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act that requires the EPA to “assure fairness and uniformity” in policies for implementing and enforcing the statute. That association counts Xcel Energy Inc., Alliant Energy Corp. and Westar Energy among its members.
EPA Defends Against Criticism
The EPA spent much of the final rule addressing the industry arguments, offering a preview of the agency's legal defense of the new exception.
The approach advocated by the industry groups to maintain regional consistency would effectively grant every federal appeals court in the U.S. “unlimited nationwide jurisdiction” over the Clean Air Act, the EPA said.
“Rather than being merely persuasive, a decision in one circuit thus would become binding precedent in other circuits,” the EPA said. “Such a result is inconsistent with the court system established by Congress and years of case law.”
The agency cited Section 307(b) of the Clean Air Act, which gives the D.C. Circuit exclusive jurisdiction over lawsuits challenging nationally applicable regulations, as well as state or regionally applicable decisions that have been deemed to have nationwide scope or effect. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over any appeals to those D.C. Circuit rulings.
The EPA also directly addressed industry arguments that an exception would violate the Clean Air Act language requiring the agency to “assure fairness and uniformity.” There is nothing in Section 301(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act that suggests such standardization requires the “exact duplication” of all policies and criteria by all EPA regional offices, the agency said.
That language “does not specifically discuss whether the fairness and uniformity objectives must be applied to all court decisions,” the EPA said. “Instead, the provision requires the EPA to establish procedures that apply to its regional office officials and employees, but it does not address whether or how the EPA should address judicial decisions in those procedures.”
Action Stemmed From Loss
The EPA's regional consistency rulemaking is the result of a 2014 D.C. Circuit ruling that vacated a policy memorandum known as the Summit Directive, which instructed EPA regional officials to implement Title V operating permit requirements in a different manner in states under jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit than in all other states. The court ruled that policy violated the regional consistency regulations (Nat'l Envt'l Dev. Ass'n's Clean Air Project v. EPA, 752 F.3d 999, 2014 BL 150327, 78 ERC 1943 (D.C. Cir. 2014)).
In that decision, the D.C. Circuit said the agency could address its ruling by revising its regional consistency regulations. However, the panel that ruled the Summit Directive to be illegal “sidestepped” the issue of whether such an exception would conflict with Section 301(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act, according to Crowell & Moring LLP attorneys Kirsten Nathanson and David Chung.
Nathanson and Chung, in an article published by the American Bar Association, said the D.C. Circuit may be asked to weigh in on that issue once the EPA issued its final rule.
The EPA's final rule will go into effect Sept. 2. A 60-day period for filing legal challenges to the rule in the D.C. Circuit will open Aug. 3 and close Oct. 3.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=95037741&vname=dennotallissues&fn=95037741&jd=95037741
-
EPA Updates Ozone, Particulate Permitting Guidance
Aug 3, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Environmental Protection Agency is updating the tools state regulators use to evaluate air pollution impacts from industrial facilities as part of the permitting process in draft guidance released Aug. 1.
The draft guidance (RIN:2060-ZA24) updates the significant impact levels state regulators use during the prevention of significant deterioration permitting process to measure the impact expanded emissions will have on ambient concentrations of ozone and fine particulate matter. Significant impact levels are tools state regulators can use to determine whether any given industrial facility's emissions would have a negative impact on compliance with the national ambient air quality standards during the permitting review process.
The EPA updated its significant impact levels using a new air quality variability approach that it says produces values that are more universally applicable.
The revised significant impact levels recommended by the EPA would be 1.2 micrograms per cubic meter under the daily fine particulate matter standards, 0.2 micrograms per cubic meter under the annual particulate matter standards and 1.0 part per billion under the 8-hour ozone standards.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=95037715&vname=dennotallissues&fn=95037715&jd=95037715
-
Transportation, Energy Projects to Get Climate Reviews
Aug 3, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
The Bureau of Land Management and other federal agencies overseeing public lands are to consider how a range of energy projects to be sited there—from mines to oil and gas extraction—might worsen climate change effects under a White House guidance announced Aug. 2.
The long-awaited guidance from the Council on Environmental Quality also would ensure that roads, bridges and other transportation and infrastructure projects that receive federal funding are evaluated for how they might be affected by rising sea level and other climate impacts.
The guidance doesn't carry the authority of a federal rule or regulation, the council stressed, but its release was still hailed as a game-changer by environmental groups because it would ensure that climate impacts are integrated into the environmental reviews and assessments required for projects under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1970.
The guidance from the Council on Environmental Quality triggered broad opposition from congressional Republicans and industry when it was first released in draft form in February 2010. The draft guidance was revised in 2014 to extend climate reviews to projects on public lands; that change has survived in the final version that the council signed Aug. 1.
For land management agencies, the climate assessments would affect a range of agencies that oversee public lands from Bureau of Land Management to the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service.
But it will likely apply much more broadly to projects such as bridges, dams and highways, which often are targeted under the existing NEPA process by environmental and community groups.Roadblock to New Infrastructure?
That concerns industry groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
“While we fully support the fundamental goal of NEPA ... we are concerned that this expansion of authority goes beyond environmental protection, and in doing so has handed special interests another tool to stop infrastructure development and land management activities in their tracks,” Bruce Josten, the chamber's executive vice president for government affairs, said in a prepared statement.
“We are still reviewing the final guidance, but under the new requirements getting approval for projects and land decisions will almost certainly be more challenging,” he said, hampering “our ability to build badly needed infrastructure of all kinds” and making it more difficult to obtain permits for railroads, bridges and highways, as well as energy projects on public lands.
Those projects already undergo environmental assessments under NEPA, but agencies under the new guidance are directed to quantify the direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions and weigh climate change impacts in considering alternatives and in analyzing mitigation strategies.
Agencies also were directed to take into account “available data and GHG quantification tools that are suitable for the proposed agency,” the guidance said.
With an election a little more than three months away, environmental groups acknowledge that it will likely be up to the next administration to implement much of the guidance to ensure that climate impacts are fully integrated into the environmental impact process.Broad in Scope
But the scope of the climate reviews is relatively broad and “applicable to all federal actions subject to NEPA, including site-specific actions, certain funding of site-specific projects, rulemaking actions, permitting decisions, and land and resource management decisions,” the guidance said.
Climate impacts should be considered for “all new proposed agency actions” when environmental reviews have been initiated under NEPA, but agencies “should exercise judgment when considering whether to apply this guidance to the extent practicable” for projects or actions already underway.
The Council on Environmental Quality “does not expect agencies to apply this guidance to concluded NEPA reviews and actions for which a final” environmental impact statement or environmental assessment has been issued, it said.
There were several notable changes in the guidance from its draft released in 2010; for example, the draft proposed requiring impact analyses for any federal actions that would increase greenhouse gas emissions by 25,000 tons a year or more. The final version scraps that threshold, said Sharon Buccino, who directs the Natural Resources Defense Council's land and wildlife program, ensuring that projects or agency decisions with smaller or incremental amounts of emissions are reviewed.‘Big Change' From Draft
“That is one of the big changes from the draft, and it recognizes that there is significance to even smaller projects when you are adding up” the cumulative impact of emissions for each project, Buccino told Bloomberg BNA. “I think the [Obama] administration didn't want to take anything off the table” by including an emissions threshold that effectively would have ignored projects that, taken together, could add significantly to U.S. emissions, she said.
“This goes back to the over-arching purpose” of NEPA, “which is really to help ensure that government decisions that are made are informed and we are making smart investments going forward” while taking into account impacts on the environment and surrounding communities, she said.
Focusing on the greenhouse gases relevant to projects on public lands makes sense particularly for fossil fuels, with roughly 40 percent of the coal extracted in the U.S. coming from public lands, Buccino said.Public Lands Relevant
A greater focus on those emissions is crucial, said Josh Mantell, carbon management campaign manager for the Wilderness Society, given the U.S. pledge announced in the run-up to the global climate accord signed in Paris in December 2015. The U.S. vowed to cut its emissions 26 percent to 28 percent by 2025 from 2005 levels.
“How our public lands are used are important for keeping the impacts of climate change down to a reasonable level, particularly in light of that 26-to-28 percent reduction” the U.S. pledged, Mantell told Bloomberg BNA. “We need to make sure public lands work like the rest of the economy.”
But the mining industry sees that issue differently, particularly at a time when the U.S. coal industry has been struggling in the face of declining natural gas prices and increasing regulatory pressures.
“Extensive regulatory requirements already exist that consider, address and minimize the environmental impacts of mining,” said Luke Popovich, National Mining Association's vice president for external communications.
“It would be particularly harmful to American consumers and industries who rely on an affordable supply of domestic energy and minerals if this guidance were used to further thwart resource extraction,” Popovich said. “Needlessly frustrating resource development with redundant requirements will also stifle the creation of high wage jobs that are already being lost at an alarming rate.”
-
From Now On, Every Government Agency Will Have To Consider Climate Change
Aug 2, 2016 | The Washington Post
By Chris Mooney
In the past several weeks alone, the Obama administration has made multiple new moves to fight climate change. The administration announced new steps to help fill U.S. roadways with electric vehicles. It ruled that greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft endanger human health and welfare. And on the international stage, it moved the world closer to a deal to phase out super-polluting HFCs, chemicals in refrigerants and other industrial substances that warm the climate.
But as Obama’s term dwindles, the act isn’t over — on Tuesday the White House released yet another policy to fight climate change, one with potentially far-reaching consequences. The White House’s chief environmental office, the Council on Environmental Quality, finalized a six-year process of shaping how the government’s agencies, across the board, will factor climate change into their decisions.
The council’s new guidance involves what activists and environmental lawyers know as “NEPA” — one of those exceedingly wonky policies that is nevertheless critical to how the modern federal government functions. NEPA is short for a foundational 1969 environmental law, the National Environmental Policy Act, that required federal agencies to consider environmental consequences of their actions — all kinds of actions, ranging from granting a permit to drill on public lands to building a new road or bridge.
NEPA hails from the Nixon era, when Republicans were environmentalists, too, and when both parties actually agreed about environmental policy (or, at least, a lot more than they agree now). For the most significant federal actions, it requires agencies to prepare an “Environmental Impact Statement,” essentially a report, detailing the consequences of the move and how those consequences might be averted. The federal government wrote 563 of these reports in 2015, according to the White House.
NEPA is pretty sweeping – under it, “all federal agencies are to prepare detailed statements assessing the environmental impact of and alternatives to major federal actions significantly affecting the environment,” according to the EPA.
And now, the new guidance from the Council on Environmental Quality will ask agencies to not only include climate change in these considerations but actually quantify the climate impacts of their decisions, when possible, in the context of the environmental reviews that are already required by NEPA. It will also ask them to consider how to do things differently, in a way that could help prepare the U.S. better for a warming climate.
“From the public standpoint, we are now going to know what all of our decisions add up to in terms of impacting climate change,” said Christy Goldfuss, managing director of the Council on Environmental Quality. “You can think of all the different federal decisions, and how they all add up. We have numbers where we can actually say, ‘this is a huge decision, given the amount of greenhouse gases coming out of it.’
“And that gives the public a chance to really weigh in on decision-making,” continued Goldfuss, whose office was actually established by the original NEPA . “This will really embody the climate change analysis of this administration, where we say the federal agencies have to consider this over time.”
The final guidance released Tuesday is preceded by draft versions released in 2010 and 2014. Those garneredhundreds of comments from environmentalists, industry, and agencies themselves.
Early reactions to the new policy from the environmental community were quite favorable. The Natural Resources Defense Council’s president Rhea Suh called it a “game changer.”
“Simply put, this is a commonsense step that underlines the Administration’s commitment to addressing climate change. Federal land management agencies should implement this guidance without delay, and use cutting-edge science to make climate-smart decisions,” added Chase Huntley, senior director of the Wilderness Society’s energy and climate campaign.
When it comes to quantification, the new guidance suggests trying to calculate how many carbon dioxide emissions a new project, permit, or other agency action would cause — or, alternatively, how much carbon it may sequester. Replanting trees or other land use changes affecting agriculture, for instance, could lead to more storage of carbon in the U.S.’s soils and its vegetation, rather than in the atmosphere.
The guidance also directs agencies to consider not only direct emissions of a project but also the “indirect” emissions. So, building a new road might encourage more people to drive, leading to more vehicular emissions.
If agencies really can’t quantify the carbon consequences of their actions — if, for instance, there simply isn’t a legitimate scientific way of doing so — then the guidance recommends that they conduct a more “qualitative” analysis instead, and explain their reasoning.
Notably, the final guidance doesn’t prescribe any cutoff level, below which an amount of greenhouse gases would be considered insignificant. “A statement that emissions from a proposed Federal action represent only a small fraction of global emissions is essentially a statement about the nature of the climate change challenge, and is not an appropriate basis for deciding whether or to what extent to consider climate change impacts under NEPA,” reads the guidance.
To be sure, some U.S. government agencies may already have been considering the effect of climate change on their decisions. But they likely were operating from earlier draft guidances, and not always applying them uniformly.
“This will really provide that consistent framework, so that people understand what the rules of the road are,” Goldfuss said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/08/02/from-now-on-every-government-agency-will-have-to-consider-climate-change/?utm_term=.2f190d49d1ba
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested