ACC AM 9/8

Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.

LCSA News

1. (ACC Mentioned) Advocates Warn EPA 'Fit For Purpose' Risk Reviews Could Violate TSCA

   Sep 7, 2016 | InsideEPA

   By Bridget DiCosmo
   
   
   Environmentalists are cautioning that one EPA toxics officials' remarks that the agency is considering "fit for purpose" chemical risk reviews under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) -- in which EPA would target a review to inform regulatory decisions rather than a broader general assessment -- could violate the law.
2. (ACC Mentioned) Chemical Industry Seeks To Limit 'Conditions Of Use' In EPA Risk Reviews

   Sep 7, 2016 | InsideEPA

   By Bridget DiCosmo
   
   
   Chemical industry groups are seeking to limit how broadly EPA considers a substance potential "conditions of use" when conducting risk assessments under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), fearing that a broad interpretation could increase fees paid for the reviews or erroneously prioritize a chemical for review.
3. EPA Asbestos Review Sought Due to Imported Brake Parts Risks

   Sep 8, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Pat Rizzuto
   
   
   The health risks that imported asbestos-containing brake components pose should prompt the Environmental Protection Agency to make asbestos one of the first 10 chemicals it evaluates under an updated toxic substances law, a vehicle parts organization says.
4. How New Chemical Laws Will Impact Animal Testing

   Sep 7, 2016 | Chem.Info

   By Andy Szal
   
   
   Long-sought changes to the nation's chemical regulations will completely overhaul how the Environmental Protection Agency evaluates potentially hazardous chemicals — including how animals are used to test them.

Chemical Management News

5. EU Calls for Comments on Bisphenol A High Concern Listing

   Sep 8, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Stephen Gardner
   
   
   The European Chemicals Agency called for comments through Oct. 21 on proposals to list the suspected endocrine disruptor bisphenol A (BPA) and five other chemicals as substances of very high concern under the EU's REACH regulation.

Energy News

6. (ACC Mentioned) 'Anybody's Guess' What Conferees Can Agree On — Murkowski

   Sep 8, 2016 | E&E Daily

   By Geof Koss
   
   
   Energy conferees will formally meet this morning for the first time, following weeks of wide-ranging staff discussions that have some members cautiously optimistic that a compromise between the House and Senate energy bills can be brokered before the end of the year.
7. ‘Tough Slog’ Ahead for Energy Bill Compromise, Upton Says

   Sep 8, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   House and Senate energy bill negotiations face a “tough slog” ahead in reaching compromise on reconciling the differences between the chamber's two bills, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said Sept. 7 in an interview.
8. More Power Sector Emissions Cuts Required by EPA

   Sep 8, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Patrick Ambrosio
   
   
   Power plants in 22 states will be required to further reduce their emissions of nitrogen oxides under a regulation signed by Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy Sept. 7.
9. Fracking Impacts Need Closer Federal Review, Court Says

   Sep 8, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Carolyn Whetzel
   
   
   The U.S. Bureau of Land Management must take a hard look at hydraulic fracturing's impacts before it can open public lands in Central California to oil drilling, a federal court said (Los Padres ForestWatch v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., C.D. Cal., No. 15-cv-4378 MWF (JEMx), 9/6/16).
10. Drought Talks Drive Energy Bill

    Sep 7, 2016 | Politico (Morning Energy)

    By Eric Wolff
    
    
    There was “a lot of discussion during the recess” about how to address the California drought language House Republicans want to see in an energy bill, Sen. Maria Cantwell, the upper chamber’s lead Democratic negotiator, told reporters in the Capitol Tuesday evening.
11. Emotions Overcoming Facts in North Dakota Pipeline Dispute

    Sep 8, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog

    By Jack Rafuse
    
    
    It’s easy to overlook facts when issues strike an emotional chord. The saying goes that everyone is entitled to their own opinion; but not their own facts.

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Transportation News

12. PHMSA Looks to Expand Emergency Response Requirements for High-Hazard Trains

    Sep 7, 2016 | Safety and Health Magazine

    The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and the Federal Railroad Administration are accepting comment until Sept. 27 on a proposed rule that would expand the parameters for railroads to develop oil spill response plans for incidents involving high-hazard flammable trains.
13. USDOT's FRA Awards $25M in Grants for Positive Train Control Implementation

    Sep 7, 2016 | Construction Equipment Guide

    The U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) awarded $25 million in grants for 11 projects in six states and the District of Columbia to assist in implementing Positive Train Control (PTC).
14. Northwest Communities Can’t Risk Another Oil Train Disaster

    Sep 7, 2016 | Seattle Times

    By Arlene Burns, Ben Stuckart and Adrienne Fraley-Monillas
    
    
    It has been three months since 47,000 gallons of Bakken crude oil spilled when a Union Pacific oil train derailed, crashed, and piled up in a national scenic area along the Columbia River in Mosier, Ore.

Environment News

15. Senate GOP Wants 'Clear Understanding' of EPA's Remaining Agenda

    Sep 8, 2016 | E&E Daily

    By Arianna Skibell
    
    
    Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Republicans are calling on U.S. EPA to increase transparency about litigation, settlements and rulemaking petitions, saying the agency has failed to uphold promises to disclose the information.
16. Reduced Scope Of EPA's CSAPR 'Update' Rule Lowers Costs & Benefits

    Sep 7, 2016 | InsideEPA

    By Stuart Parker
    
    
    EPA has issued a final version of its Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) emissions trading rule “update” that reduces the scope of the regulation compared to the proposed version, leading to fewer projected cuts in ozone-forming air pollution that will lower the overall expected costs of the rule and also reduce the likely health benefits.
17. Researchers Find Data 'Not Yet' Able To Fully Evaluate Air Rules' Effects

    Sep 7, 2016 | InsideEPA

    By Stuart Parker
    
    
    Air quality data is "not yet" able to fully and accurately evaluate the potential impact on human health from decades of clean air regulations, according to studies by the Health Effects Institute (HEI), but the free-market group Center for Regulatory Solutions (CRS) is faulting advocates' claims on the benefits of stricter EPA air standards.
18. Obama on Climate Change: The Trends Are ‘Terrifying’

    Sep 8, 2016 | New York Times

    By Julie Hirschfeld Davis, Mark Landler, and Coral Davenport
    
    
    Seventy-four years ago, a naval battle off this remote spit of land in the middle of the Pacific Ocean changed the course of World War II.

Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.

LCSA News

1. (ACC Mentioned) Advocates Warn EPA 'Fit For Purpose' Risk Reviews Could Violate TSCA

   Sep 7, 2016 | InsideEPA

   By Bridget DiCosmo

   Environmentalists are cautioning that one EPA toxics officials' remarks that the agency is considering "fit for purpose" chemical risk reviews under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) -- in which EPA would target a review to inform regulatory decisions rather than a broader general assessment -- could violate the law.

   "Nowhere in the extensively revised TSCA does Congress use the term 'fit for purpose' to describe the risk evaluations it wants EPA to undertake," say joint Aug. 24 comments filed by several environmental groups on EPA's rule for developing a process to conduct risk evaluations under the updated law.

   EPA has used the term "fit for purpose" for previous work, for example in a July 2012 draft "Framework for Human Health Risk Assessment to Inform Decision Making" released by the Office of the Science Advisor, in which the agency described it as the "consideration of the usefulness of the assessment for its intended purpose, to ensure that the assessment produced is suitable and useful for informing the needed decisions."

   But the environmentalists in their written comments warn that EPA would be violating TSCA if it focused risk reviews based on how useful they would be to inform potential regulation of chemicals, rather than a general review of a substance's risks. Relevant documents are available on InsideEPA.com. (Doc. ID: 194300)

   The groups -- Earthjustice, BlueGreenAlliance, Breast Cancer Action Fund, Center for Biological Diversity, Greenpeace, and others -- refer to an Aug. 9 presentation by Tala Henry, director of the agency's risk assessment division within its Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics at a Washington, D.C. meeting. At that meeting, Henry indicated that the agency intends to conduct "fit for purpose" risk evaluations, according to the comments.

   EPA sought public comment at the recent meeting and through a docket open for input until Aug. 24 on a rule it will develop on its process for conducting risk evaluations to determine whether a chemical "presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment" under section 6 of the law. The section outlines requirements on chemical reviews and how chemicals should be prioritized to undergo those reviews. EPA has one year from the statute's June 22 implementation date to craft the rules on prioritizing substances and evaluating them.

   Henry also indicated that as part of the TSCA work plan risk assessment program, staff have begun to transition from a more specific scoping exercise, where assessments looked only a few narrow uses of a chemical. The work plan effort was as designed to focus the efforts of its program to address risks from chemicals using authority under the existing TSCA, though the revised TSCA bolsters the agency's power to regulate substances.

   EPA's Aug. 9 presentation says that EPA plans to in its risk evaluations to examine the ways chemical-specific uses affect exposure pathways, routes, and potentially exposed populations.

   But the environmental groups in their letter say TSCA Section 6(b)(4)(F), which describes risk evaluation requirements under the new law, does not allow a "fit for purpose" approach.

   They cite a later 2014 version of the agency's draft "Framework for Human Health Risk Assessment to Inform Decisionmaking," which indicates that the "fit for purpose" approach involves targeting risk evaluations toward risk management options. "TSCA envisions that EPA will design and conduct risk evaluations to identify and characterize risks with an open mind to what the data will show, and then determine the appropriate risk management -- not to design a risk evaluation with particular risk management options in mind," the comments say.

   Environmentalists are also urging EPA to reject industry's bid for a "tiered" evaluation process for chemical reviews consisting of an initial "screening level assessment," followed by a more in-depth risk evaluation, with different types of data appropriate to different tiers.

   "We strongly urge EPA to reject the notion that tiered risk evaluation is even permitted under TSCA, let alone required," the groups say in their comment letter, adding, "Congress would have explicitly required EPA to conduct tiered risk evaluations if it had wanted EPA to adopt this practice."

   Moreover, the groups say, if Congress intended EPA to develop a tiered process under section 6 of the new law for targeting existing chemicals, it would not have made specific references to tiered testing requirements under section 5, which governs chemical safety testing and data generation.

   In developing the rule, EPA is seeking input on how to implement a directive in the revised TSCA for using either "sentinel" or "aggregate" exposures to evaluate chemicals, the latter being the approach advocates favor, saying it would better reflect real world risk compared to the sentinel method traditionally used by agencies.

   Section 6(b)(4)(f) says that evaluations shall "describe whether aggregate or sentinel exposures to a chemical substance under the conditions of use were considered, and the basis for that consideration."

   Environmentalists say that sentinel exposures are in line with EPA's traditional approach for risk assessment, taking the most serious risk and assuming that reducing that exposure will lower overall risk and that this is the chemical sector's preferred approach, unlike the aggregate exposures environmentalists prefer. Aggregate exposure assesses every possible exposure and leads to an evaluation that aims to reduce the sum total of risk. EPA speakers, however, said that they had little knowledge of the sentinel concept and are hoping for comments on it to further elucidate the approach.

   Jeff Morris, deputy director of EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), said at the Aug. 9 meeting that, "Sentinel exposures, is one that we would like comment on," adding that, "It's not a term we've typically used in our program but it is used in other areas, such as occupational exposure risk assessment."

   In their comments, the environmental groups say that the provision should not be read to mandate any particular exposure assessment technique. Rather, they say, it mandates that EPA "describe whether" it applied particular exposure techniques. "EPA's regulations and/or guidelines should clearly state that 'sentinel exposures' is never a replacement for aggregate exposure assessment under TSCA," they say.

   Aggregate assessment must be considered as a requisite component of using the best available science, a requirement under section 26 governing the general administration of the statute, the groups argue.

   Chemical industry groups, however, continue to seek a tiered approach to risk evaluation, with the American Chemistry Council (ACC) saying in its Aug. 24 comments, "We believe the statute contemplates a tiered approach to risk evaluation and recommend that EPA include a tiered approach in the rule."

   The group says that because the law allows for up to six months in between when EPA designates a chemical a "high-priority substance" and when the agency must publish the scope of the risk evaluation, EPA could use the scoping phase to conduct a screening level review. "A tiered approach, where EPA uses the scoping step (step 1) to conduct a quantitative screening level analysis, will allow EPA to focus its limited resources on more robust refined risk evaluations for only those conditions of use where unreasonable risks cannot be ruled out," ACC says in its comments.

   The first phase of the evaluation would require less data and be based on conservative, health protective assumptions. EPA could then do a second, more refined evaluation requiring more realistic and representative data, higher tier modeling approaches, and a more comprehensive consideration of human relevance and dose-response relationships, for chemicals it believes should receive further consideration.

   On sentinel exposures, the group says, "We believe EPA should include definitions of both aggregate and sentinel exposures in the proposed regulation so the regulated community will understand how EPA intends to apply the terms, and to ensure consistency and regularity in application."

   While ACC recognizes that EPA need not apply both types of exposure assessment, the group argues the statute gives EPA the discretion to do so and that sentinel exposure "should be thought of as the exposure that is judged to cause the plausible upper-bound individual human exposure to a substance of interest within a broad category."

   http://insideepa.com/inside-epa/advocates-warn-epa-fit-purpose-risk-reviews-could-violate-tsca
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

2. (ACC Mentioned) Chemical Industry Seeks To Limit 'Conditions Of Use' In EPA Risk Reviews

   Sep 7, 2016 | InsideEPA

   By Bridget DiCosmo

   Chemical industry groups are seeking to limit how broadly EPA considers a substance potential "conditions of use" when conducting risk assessments under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), fearing that a broad interpretation could increase fees paid for the reviews or erroneously prioritize a chemical for review.

   For example, one industry source says the way the term is written in the statute, "it could capture quite a bit, it could capture more than the intended use," creating concerns that one manufacturer could have a particular application in mind when designing a substance, but may not have control over how a downstream processor uses the chemical. This creates potential confusion and could unnecessarily subject a substance to priority review, the source says.

   Environmentalists, however, oppose any attempt to limit the way fees are assessed to particular uses or to restrict EPA's risk findings on chemicals to some uses by finding that other uses might be "low priority."

   "There is no basis in the law to designate particular uses as 'low priority' on the ground that they are low risk," Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, a coalition of environmental groups that pushed for strict TSCA reform, says in Aug. 24 written comments filed on EPA's efforts to develop risk evaluation rules under the updated law. Relevant documents are available on InsideEPA.com. (Doc. ID: 194347)

   EPA is in the process of developing three rules under the revised TSCA: a rule establishing a process for screening and designating chemicals as "high- or low-priority" under section 6 of the law, a rule outlining how the agency intends to conduct risk evaluations of high priority chemicals under section 6 and a rule establishing a system for collecting fees from industry to offset some of the costs associated with implementation of the law. The agency hopes to issue proposals for each rulemaking in December with a final version of each rule slated for mid-June 2017.

   But stakeholders have raised questions about how broadly the agency plans to consider the scope of a chemical's "conditions of use" under the revised chemical safety statute, which took effect June 22. The interpretation applies in the context of assessing chemicals' safety and in assessing how to structure fees for industry.

   Section 6(b)(4)(F)i) of the new law requires EPA to conduct risk evaluations to determine whether a substance may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment because of a potential hazard and a potential route of exposure under the conditions of use, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation identified as relevant by the agency administrator.

   The statute defines "conditions of use" as the "circumstances, as determined by the Administrator, under which a chemical substance is intended, known, or reasonably foreseen to be manufactured, processed, distributed in commerce, used, or disposed of."

   In Aug. 24 comments filed on the risk evaluation rule, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) says, "EPA need not include every conceivable condition of use in a risk evaluation."

   ACC says the statutory definition "points to the need for EPA to determine the relevant conditions of use" because it specifies the circumstances "under which a chemical substance is intended, known, or reasonably foreseen to be manufactured, processed, distributed in commerce, used, or disposed of" rather than all circumstances.

   ACC argues, "had Congress intended EPA to necessarily address all 'conditions of use' in an evaluation, that term (and EPA's ability to define the conditions of use) would have been surplusage," saying EPA should first conduct an initial scoping process to narrow the focus of the risk evaluation to only those conditions of use that may pose a potential risk to human health and/or the environment under relevant exposure conditions.

   Additionally, ACC says EPA should not include exposure scenarios that are in clear violation of Occupational Safety & Health Administration workplace limits or agency regulatory requirements, exposures that are not consistent with labeling requirements for safe use, or exposures that are inconsistent with intended uses of consumer products. Nor should EPA include exposure scenarios regulated under other federal laws, the group argues.

   ACC is seeking a tiered approach, where EPA uses the initial screening-level assessment to rule out risks for certain conditions of use, leaving the agency to focus a full risk evaluation on only those conditions of use where unreasonable risks cannot be ruled out. "When a screening assessment indicates low risk for a particular condition of use, the Agency should have a high degree of confidence that the potential risks are much lower than the calculation and, therefore, the actual risks are lower and/or perhaps non-existent," the comments say

   ACC says that when a screening-level risk assessment indicates a potential concern for an adverse effect, this does not mean that the actual risks necessarily significant and warrant action." Rather, it indicates EPA should take a second step in the risk evaluation process to refine the evaluation to more accurately quantify potential risks.

   However, Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families counters in its comments that allowing certain uses or pathways to be deemed of low concern before undergoing a full risk evaluation would be inappropriate and violate the law.

   "Under section 6(b)(4)(A), the only mechanism for determining that a chemical or its individual uses do not present an unreasonable risk is completion of a full risk evaluation that meets all the requirements of section 6(b)(4)(F)," it says, adding that an informal low risk finding during the scoping process is not a sufficient basis for such a determination.

   Advocates have also opposed industry' claim that fees apply to chemical producers for industry-requested risk evaluations should be confined to costs for the portion of the scope of the review that is the subject of the request.

   Chemical companies say that it would be unfair to charge a specific manufacturer to pay the entire cost of a review if that company is only seeking evaluation of a specific "condition of use" of a substance rather than all uses of the chemical.

   "At some point, we need some clarity about whether the scope of an industry requested review is confined to the conditions of use specific to the company requesting the evaluation," Michael Walls, vice president of regulatory and technical affairs at the ACC said during an Aug. 11 EPA meeting in Washington, D.C. on the fees system. "That may have consequences for the fee system," he added.

   The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) in Aug. 24 comments filed with EPA faults industry's claim that fees apply to chemical producers for risk evaluations should be confined to costs for the portion of the scope of the review that is the subject of the request. "There simply is no basis for such an approach in the law," EDF says.

   http://insideepa.com/inside-epa/chemical-industry-seeks-limit-conditions-use-epa-risk-reviews
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

3. EPA Asbestos Review Sought Due to Imported Brake Parts Risks

   Sep 8, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Pat Rizzuto

   The health risks that imported asbestos-containing brake components pose should prompt the Environmental Protection Agency to make asbestos one of the first 10 chemicals it evaluates under an updated toxic substances law, a vehicle parts organization says.

   “The continued importation of asbestos-containing brakes and brake component material presents an unreasonable risk to the health of American workers,” the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association told the EPA in a Sept. 6 letter. The importation of these products also poses a risk to do-it-yourselfers who replace their own brakes, it said.

   Members of the association phased out manufacturing and importing brake pads and related equipment containing asbestos years ago, Ann Wilson, senior vice president of government affairs for the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association, told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 7.

   The association wants to encourage the use of safer alternatives throughout the market and level the playing field, Wilson said.

   Asbestos-containing parts, which are cheaper than ones made without asbestos, still are being used by service stations, independent auto repair shops and other operations that provide after-market service, she said. Brake pads and linings use composite materials, making it difficult to determine exactly what they contain, the association's letter said. Products are not required to be labeled as containing asbestos, it said. 

   Reducing Risks of Asbestos

   The passage of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Pub. Law No. 114-182), which amended the Toxic Substances Control Act as of June 22, provides a way for the EPA to identify the risks of asbestos-containing materials and protect people from asbestos exposure, the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association's letter said.

   The Lautenberg Act requires the EPA by December to identify 10 high-priority chemicals for which it has undertaken risk evaluations.

   The EPA should include asbestos as one of those 10 and evaluate the risks that brake friction materials pose, Wilson said.

   As of January 2015, the phaseout of asbestos and other constituents in motor vehicle brake pads was completed due to California and Washington state laws, the letter said. 

   State Laws Drove Industry

   The state laws drove what became a de facto industry standard, the EPA said in a January 2015memorandum of understanding designed to make the industrywide practice apply nationwide.

   The Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association was among eight industry groups that signed the memorandum, which was intended to protect watersheds and waterways from copper in particular, as well as from asbestos, cadmium, lead and mercury.

   As industry groups worked with states to phase out the use of these hazardous compounds, it became apparent that asbestos-containing brakes and brake components were still entering the U.S., Wilson said.

   In its letter to EPA, the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association backed up its concerns about imports with information it said the International Trade Administration provided Congress in 2015.

   “Roughly $2.2 million in asbestos-containing brake friction materials and pads were imported into the United States in 2013 (most recent full year available),” the association said, providing Bloomberg BNA an e-mail exchange it had with the agency confirming the trade agency provided the information to Congress. An agency press officer did not reply to Bloomberg BNA's Sept. 7 request for independent verification.

   Wilson said the imported volume of asbestos-containing brake friction materials is small, but adds up because there are so many vehicles that need brake pad to be replaced.

    http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=96843126&vname=dennotallissues&fn=96843126&jd=96843126

   Return to headline | Return to top

4. How New Chemical Laws Will Impact Animal Testing

   Sep 7, 2016 | Chem.Info

   By Andy Szal

   Long-sought changes to the nation's chemical regulations will completely overhaul how the Environmental Protection Agency evaluates potentially hazardous chemicals — including how animals are used to test them.

   Chemical Watch reports that one provision of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act requires the EPA to "reduce and replace the use of vertebrate animals" in chemical testing where "practicable, scientifically justified and consistent with [the Lautenberg Act's] policies."

   An EPA plan to reduce animal testing is due by mid-2018, and subsequent updates on its progress and further planned reductions are required in subsequent five-year increments.

   In addition to improving animal welfare, proponents told CW that the change would produce improved chemical data by making better use of other available information or different methods, including screenings or computer models.

   “We lack information on many chemicals and how they affect a diverse human population because we [relied] too heavily on slow, unreliable and expensive animal tests,” Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine toxicologist Kristie Sullivan told the website.

   The animal testing provision, like the bill itself, was broadly supported by both advocacy and industry groups.

   Some critics, however, warned that any alternative methods would need to be properly vetted in order to prevent incorrect classifications of some chemicals.

   The Lautenberg Act, which was signed into law in June, largely requires the EPA toevaluate chemicals considered likely to be dangerous and make affirmative safety decisions for new chemicals.

   The agency has already cleared a handful of new substances, but analysts warned that regulations of high-priority chemicals alone could take decades.

   http://www.chem.info/news/2016/09/how-new-chemical-laws-will-impact-animal-testing
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

5. EU Calls for Comments on Bisphenol A High Concern Listing

   Sep 8, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Stephen Gardner

   The European Chemicals Agency called for comments through Oct. 21 on proposals to list the suspected endocrine disruptor bisphenol A (BPA) and five other chemicals as substances of very high concern under the EU's REACH regulation.

   Designating the substances as SVHCs would trigger obligations for companies that produce them, or use them in their products, and could lead to bans on the use of the substances within the European Union, unless specific continued-use authorizations are granted, ECHA said Sept. 7.

   Bisphenol A (4,4’-isopropylidenediphenol) is widely used in the manufacture of polycarbonate plastics and in applications such as thermal paper and tin can linings.

   France proposed that BPA be listed as an SVHC under REACH (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals) on the basis that it is reprotoxic.

   Besides BPA, ECHA said comments also should be provided on proposed SVHC designation for 4-heptylphenol, branched and linear, a group of substances used in lubricants; 4-tert-butylphenol, which is used in adhesives and sealants; benzene-1,2,4-tricarboxylic acid 1,2-anhydride, which is used to make esters and polymers; nonadecafluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) and its sodium and ammonium salts, which is used in a range of applications; and p-(1,1-dimethylpropyl)phenol, which is used to produce polymers.

   Divided Opinions

   BPA is “one of the chemicals of most concern on the EU market,” and it is “just a matter of time before it is banned,” Tatiana Santos, senior policy officer at advocacy group the European Environmental Bureau, told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 7/

   “Companies should hurry up and replace it with safer solutions as soon as possible,” she added.

   But Jasmin Bird, a spokeswoman for industry group PlasticsEurope, told Bloomberg BNA that listing BPA as an SVHC “could send a stigmatizing signal to the market, which may trigger unnecessary substitution.”

   This could lead to more use of substances with risks that “have not been as thoroughly assessed and understood as for BPA,” Bird said.

   Existing Restrictions

   BPA is already restricted in the EU through limits on its presence in polycarbonate infant feeding bottles. France also proposed a REACH restriction on BPA in thermal paper used in cash register receipts.

   Listing a chemical as an SVHC triggers obligations for suppliers to provide their customers with safety data sheets, and for producers or importers of items that contain the substance to file notifications with ECHA.

   So far, 169 chemicals have been designated as SVHCs under REACH.

    http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=96843105&vname=dennotallissues&fn=96843105&jd=96843105

   Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

6. (ACC Mentioned) 'Anybody's Guess' What Conferees Can Agree On — Murkowski

   Sep 8, 2016 | E&E Daily

   By Geof Koss

   Energy conferees will formally meet this morning for the first time, following weeks of wide-ranging staff discussions that have some members cautiously optimistic that a compromise between the House and Senate energy bills can be brokered before the end of the year.

   But it remains to be seen whether the push to enact the first major energy bill in nearly a decade can transcend the deep policy divides between the two chambers.

   Each conferee will have two minutes to lay out their views, with the option of submitting longer written comments for the record. No bill text or amendments will be considered (Greenwire, Sept. 2).

   Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) will replace Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), who retired from the House this week, as a conferee, a spokeswoman for House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said yesterday.

   The meeting comes after weeks of staff discussions during the recent recess that Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who is also chairing the conference, said covered "all aspects of the bill."

   "I think we have been pleasantly surprised at how much work we have been able to get in before we reconvened," she told E&E Daily yesterday. "These next couple weeks are going to be very busy. The number of meetings will probably double what we have done already at this point in time."

   Murkowski expressed confidence that the conference process will yield something that can be sent to the president but cautioned that it remains a work in progress.

   "I think we have a good solid construct for an energy bill coming out of conference that we can develop," she said. "What is going to be included in that final report is anybody's guess at this point in time."

   Other conferees were fairly upbeat about the prospects for a deal.

   "There's still lots of areas where we can find some low-hanging fruit, common agreement," House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) told E&E Daily yesterday, saying he's "optimistic and positive" on the conference.

   Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas), who is representing the Senate GOP leadership in the conference talks, drew parallels between the effort and the bipartisan Water Resources Development Act, which may move through the chamber this week (see related story).

   "I just think it would be good for us to get this done," Cornyn said yesterday. "I don't think this is particularly controversial at this point, and it's kind of like the [WRDA] bill, something that we could get done that would be a significant accomplishment."

   Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the ranking member on the Energy and Natural Resources panel, told reporters this week that recent discussions have focused on the House provisions. "We're really just starting to dig in with the House," she said.

   However, she signaled a willingness to negotiate on Western drought provisions — an issue injected into the energy debate by Bishop and one that was discussed extensively over the recess.

   "I think the issue is there's so many areas of the country where we've taken small consensus approaches about next steps that really will add capacity, and I think they're still kind of in confrontation with the parties in their state," Cantwell said. "So we want to talk to them, we want to get something done there, but it can't be a my-way-or-the-highway approach because there's so many of these interests within each state."

   She noted that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) is continuing to work to try to reach a deal among California interests on the issue.

   Bishop said Congress should do what it can to tackle drought.

   "You can't keep kicking the can down the road," he said. "It's got to be solved sometime. And Feinstein is close to an agreement. You've been so close to an agreement in the past — for hell's sakes, take this opportunity to finish it and do it."

   A Democratic aide closely following the discussions said yesterday that staff talks have identified areas within the scope of the conference that both sides feel can yield some sort of a deal.

   "The hard work of figuring out what we can live with is already done. We know what a consensus bill would look like," the aide said, but added, "we're not sure what will happen to make it a good bill."

   Bishop's opposition to the permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund contained in the Senate bill remains a sticking point, as do differences in the efficiency titles of both bills.

   Ahead of today's meeting, the American Chemistry Council and other industry groups laid out a wish list for the efficiency provisions they'd like to see in the final product.

   Despite some signs of progress at the staff level, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said yesterday that the principal conferees haven't spoken since before the break.

   "We'll see where we are," he said yesterday.

   http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/09/08/stories/1060042483
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

7. ‘Tough Slog’ Ahead for Energy Bill Compromise, Upton Says

   Sep 8, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   House and Senate energy bill negotiations face a “tough slog” ahead in reaching compromise on reconciling the differences between the chamber's two bills, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said Sept. 7 in an interview.

   “No one expects anything earlier than lame duck,” Upton told Bloomberg BNA. “It's not going to happen this month. I don't think anyone has any anticipation we will have a bill done before.”

   While staff members were talking over the August recess, “I don't think there were any expectations we were going to have a breakthrough,” Upton said.

   Divisive issues bill conferees will need to wade through during a congressional session shorted by an election year include whether to permanently reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the management of federal forests and how to deal with California's drought.

   A formal conference committee is expected to convene Sept. 8 for members’ opening statements.

    http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=96843121&vname=dennotallissues&fn=96843121&jd=96843121

   Return to headline | Return to top

8. More Power Sector Emissions Cuts Required by EPA

   Sep 8, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Patrick Ambrosio

   Power plants in 22 states will be required to further reduce their emissions of nitrogen oxides under a regulation signed by Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy Sept. 7.

   The final Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update establishes new statewide emissions budgets intended to address pollution that affects the ability of downwind communities to meet and maintain the 2008 ozone standards of 75 parts per billion. The rule, which the EPA estimates to cost $68 million annually, will affect 886 power plants in the eastern U.S., including power plants operated by Duke Energy, American Electric Power and Luminant.

   The agency, in a fact sheet accompanying the rule, said its analysis shows that the power sector will be able to meet the new emissions control requirements, which start in May 2017, while maintaining the reliability of the electric grid.

   “Today's update builds on the decades of success under the Clean Air Act that has led to significant cuts in nitrogen oxide emissions from upwind states that affect their downwind neighbors,” said Janet McCabe, EPA's acting assistant administrator for air and radiation. “The common-sense actions that power plants can take to quickly and affordably reduce this harmful pollution will help protect the health and lives of millions of Americans, restore visibility at our nation's most treasured parks, and ensure that air quality continues to improve in the eastern United States.”

   The EPA projected that the new rule, along with other changes already underway in the power sector, will cut nitrogen oxides emissions by 80,000 tons per year. For every dollar spent on complying with the rule, as much as $13 in health benefits will be realized through reduced exposure to pollution, according to the EPA.

   A Court-Approved Framework

   The new regulation (RIN:2060-AS05) is built on the same framework as the original Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, which aimed to address interstate transport under the 1997 ozone standards.

   That framework was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2014. The court ruled that the EPA's cross-state rule was based on a reasonable interpretation of the Clean Air Act's “good neighbor” provision, which requires upwind states to control emissions that prevent downwind areas from attaining or maintaining national ambient air quality standards (EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, LP, 134 S. Ct. 1584, 2014 BL 118432, 78 ERC 1225 (2014)).

   While that Supreme Court ruling upheld the framework of the original Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, the court also held that the EPA does not have the authority to require states to achieve reductions beyond what would bring all affected downwind states into compliance with national air standards. That opened the door to “as-applied” challenges from states, several of which were victorious in a 2015 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which held that the original CSAPR rule impermissibly over-controlled emissions in 13 states ( EME Homer City Generation LP v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 2015 BL 239912, 80 ERC 2005 (D.C. Cir. 2015)).

   A pair of attorneys told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 7 that given the Supreme Court's decision in EME Homer, the basic approach is unlikely to be successfully challenged by states and utilities affected by the update rule.

   “I think the overall CSAPR framework is on very solid ground, legally speaking,” Graham McCahan, a senior attorney with the Environmental Defense Fund, said.

   James Rubin, a partner with Dorsey & Whitney LLP, said that the EPA used the same four-step methodology for setting emissions budgets as it had in the original cross-state rule, which has already been approved by the Supreme Court and will not likely to be subject to further legal challenges.

   Both Rubin and McCahan indicated it is possible that states or utilities could sue the EPA, alleging that the rule requires more emissions cuts than necessary.

   “It is always possible, however, that states and utilities in some of the 22 regulated states will seek to challenge other aspects of the rule, particularly given the Supreme Court's allowance of ‘as-applied’ challenges to ‘over-regulated’ states and the D.C. Circuit's subsequent remand of several state budgets on that basis,” Rubin said in an e-mail. “EPA has expressly sought to address the D.C. Circuit remand...and has emphasized that most reductions can be made by using existing controls. Still, some states and utilities may have concerns with the potential impacts of the required reductions and some states face tighter budgets than as proposed by EPA.”

   Emissions Caps Higher Than Proposed

   While some states, including Michigan, Kansas and Indiana, saw their emissions budgets set at a more stringent level than the EPA originally proposed, many states will not have to reduce their power sector emissions by as much as the EPA proposed. That includes states like Ohio, Iowa andArkansas, all of which alleged in comments on the proposal that the EPA was attempting to unreasonably over-control pollution in their state.

   In addition, North Carolina, which was included in the proposal, is not covered by the final rule. The agency concluded that North Carolina is not linked to any downwind attainment or maintenance receptor in the modeling used to support the rulemaking.

   Overall, the EPA's final rule allows for a total of 299,592 tons of ozone-season nitrogen oxides emissions in the 22 covered states for 2017. That's a decrease from the 315,986 tons under the proposal.

   The overall increase in allowable emissions drew criticism from Sierra Club, which had previouslyargued that the proposed version of the rule didn't go far enough to cut power sector emissions. Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg, the majority owner of Bloomberg L.P., parent of Bloomberg BNA.

   Zachary Fabish, an attorney with the Sierra Club, told Bloomberg BNA that the final rule issued by the EPA does not require enough emissions reductions to fully meet the states’ “good neighbor” obligations under the 2008 ozone standards.

   “It's a half measure,” Fabish said. “It doesn't get everyone where they need to be. It's not going to bring states into attainment of the standard.”

   Fabish said that because the update rule does not fully resolve interstate transport and the EPA has “no concrete plans” to do so at this time, the EPA's action “flatly contradicts” the Clean Air Act and a D.C. Circuit ruling governing the timing of implementation of ozone standards (NRDC v. EPA, 777 F.3d 456, 2014 BL 361062, 79 ERC 2065 ( D.C. Cir. 2014)).

   Fabish declined to comment when asked about the possibility of legal challenges to the Cross-State Update Rule.

   Budgets Based on Existing Controls

   The EPA calculated the emissions budgets based on the level of reductions that could be achieved quickly, given the need to help downwind states during the 2017 ozone season, which begins May 1. That agency said those reductions include turning on or optimizing existing pollution control technology.

   McCahan of the Environmental Defense Fund said that the initial Cross-State Air Pollution Rule budgets gave the power sector “a little too much slack” because many utilities did not install state-of-the-art selective catalytic reduction technology. An analysis by the Ozone Transport Commission found that it was actually cheaper for utilities to buy allowances on an emissions trading market than it was to actually run their pollution controls, he said.

   “This [the update rule] is one step in helping remedy that,” McCahan said.

   Utilities also will be able to use some “banked” allowances from the 2015 and 2016 emissions budgets under the original cross-state rule to fulfill their obligations under the updated regulation. The EPA said it will allow about 99,700 allowances to be converted from the original CSAPR ozone-season trading program to the CSAPR update trading program.

   Fabish of the Sierra Club explained the excess credits are the result of a nearly three-year delay in implementation of the original cross-state rule, which was stayed by the D.C. Circuit pending litigation. The Sierra Club estimated that there were around 250,000 excess credits, which would mean that utilities wouldn't actually have to actually reduce emissions for “a long time,” Fabish said.

   The Sierra Club had urged the EPA to either not allow old credits to apply or allow them to apply at a “steep discount,” Fabish said. The 99,700 in allowances the EPA will allow under the final rule is “still a huge amount” and will further reduce the actual emissions reductions achieved by the rule, he said.

    http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=96843129&vname=dennotallissues&fn=96843129&jd=96843129

   Return to headline | Return to top

9. Fracking Impacts Need Closer Federal Review, Court Says

   Sep 8, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Carolyn Whetzel

   The U.S. Bureau of Land Management must take a hard look at hydraulic fracturing's impacts before it can open public lands in Central California to oil drilling, a federal court said (Los Padres ForestWatch v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., C.D. Cal., No. 15-cv-4378 MWF (JEMx), 9/6/16).

   Issued Sept. 6, the decision from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California requires the bureau to prepare a supplemental impact statement to analyze the potential “environmental consequences” of hydraulic fracturing on more than 1 million acres of federal land and mineral estate in Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Tulare and Ventura counties.

   The bureau failed to consider available information that identified potential impacts of fracking on groundwater quality and found other health and environmental concerns related to chemicals used in well stimulation activities, the court said. As a result, the bureau's initial environmental analysis was flawed, the court said.

   The bureau's final environmental impact statement had estimated hydraulic fracturing would be used on only 25 percent of the wells drilled on the land.

   Government Violated NEPA

   As a result, the bureau was obligated to prepare a supplemental impact statement, the court said in finding the federal government had violated the National Environmental Policy Act.

   “This is a huge victory in the fight to protect our water and wildlife from fracking pollution and dangers drilling,” Brendan Cummings, conservation director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement. The center and Los Padres ForestWatch are the lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging the bureau's resource management plan for the land.

   “The Obama administration must get the message and end this reckless rush to auction off our public land to oil companies,” Cummings said.

   While the court agreed with plaintiffs' claim that a supplemental analysis is needed, it rejected allegations that the bureau had failed to close more of the land to drilling as a mitigation tool.

    http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=96843122&vname=dennotallissues&fn=96843122&jd=96843122

   Return to headline | Return to top

10. Drought Talks Drive Energy Bill

    Sep 7, 2016 | Politico (Morning Energy)

    By Eric Wolff

    GETTING SOMETHING DONE ON THE DROUGHT: There was “a lot of discussion during the recess” about how to address the California drought language House Republicans want to see in an energy bill, Sen. Maria Cantwell, the upper chamber’s lead Democratic negotiator, told reporters in the Capitol Tuesday evening. As Pros remember from Tuesday, water policy has quietly become the linchpin of the energy overhaul Cantwell and Sen. Lisa Murkowski have been pushing for the last year. Democrats seem open to at least a piecemeal approach to help the parched state if GOP lawmakers are willing to budge from the larger drought bill they added to the House negotiating package.

    Story Continued Below

    “So we want to talk to them, and we want to get something done there, but it can’t be a ‘my way or the highway’ approach,” Cantwell said, noting that various interests in California are still battling over the best approach to the drought. One option, she added, would be to “take steps one through three or maybe even four, and then let’s keep working on what five through 10 is. … I think that’s where we are in a couple states. And I think California is still at loggerheads with each other and the various interests, which makes it a lot harder.”

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who has been a key negotiator on drought policy, has been “so great on this,” Cantwell said, and the California Democrat will continue to be a key participant in the negotiations despite not being a formal member of the conference committee, which has its first public meeting Thursday. The conferees will continue negotiating behind the scenes this month, but Cantwell did not say more public meetings were planned. As for when a final conference report could come out, the Washington Democrat said a lame duck session is most likely. “I mean, a miracle could happen, but I doubt that this is something that’s going to get wrapped up in the next two weeks,” Cantwell said.

    WRDA UP?: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell took the first procedural step to bring up the Water Resources Development Act last night after a tense afternoon of negotiations with Minority Leader Harry Reid. The bill has broad support from Democrats, especially since it includes an aid package for lead-contaminated Flint, Mich., and other communities grappling with water infrastructure problems. But with lawmakers in town for just a short few weeks between summer recess and October campaigning, Reid signaled he would only allow the measure to advance if a deal could be reached on top priorities, including Zika response and funding to keep the government open past September.

    “I'm willing to do what I can to act responsibly by not blocking this bill as the Republicans would do. But we will legislate very carefully,” Reid said on the floor Tuesday. That move drew pushback from his own camp, though, including from Sen. Barbara Boxer, the top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee, and Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow, who has labored for more than six months on the Flint package.

    Bipartisan warmup routine: As McConnell filed a motion to proceed to the WRDA bill last night, EPW Chairman Jim Inhofe joined Boxer, Stabenow and Michigan Democrat Gary Peters in a huddle on the floor, giving Boxer a quick shoulder massage and pulling her and Stabenow into a group hug.

    A final deal to take up the WRDA bill does not yet appear to have been struck, and no votes have been scheduled. But Inhofe was feeling optimistic last night when he came off the floor. “We have all the leadership – I talked to Chuck Schumer, everyone’s really interested in this. I think we’re ready to get this thing passed,” he told ME, noting that Reid was “much more cooperative than he would have been an hour-and-a-half ago.”

    With a dash of coal ash: In a small twist, Republicans are using WRDA to push a bipartisan compromise that would give EPA more power to enforce standards on sites storing coal ash waste. The 421-page manager’s amendment includes language related to enforcement of EPA’s 2014 coal ash rule, which relied on citizen lawsuits rather than direct EPA enforcement. Those lawsuits (likely brought by environmental groups) would mean district-level judges around the U.S. would be in charge of determining technical issues about whether a site meets permit requirements, which could lead to different outcomes in different jurisdictions. The WRDA language, which Inhofe’s office said was cleared with Boxer, authorizes EPA to enforce permit violations if certain conditions are met. An Inhofe spokeswoman said the change wouldn't outright block citizen suits, but that it would make it harder for such suits to move forward "because it creates a permit shield and a site will have to reach a minimum criteria set by EPA."

    
    http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-energy/2016/09/drought-talks-drive-energy-bill-heres-the-wrda-on-the-street-ferc-on-you-crazy-pete-olsons-216193
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

11. Emotions Overcoming Facts in North Dakota Pipeline Dispute

    Sep 8, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog

    By Jack Rafuse

    It’s easy to overlook facts when issues strike an emotional chord.  The saying goes that everyone is entitled to their own opinion; but not their own facts.  Unfortunately, it appears that opinions have already trumped facts when it comes to the Dakota Access pipeline.

    For those unfamiliar, the Dakota Access project is a 1,172-mile pipeline from the Bakken and Three Forks production areas in North Dakota to major markets across the United States. The $3.78 billion project will create nearly 10,000 jobs and foster millions for local economies. The project is currently under protest from members of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, whose land is near the planned route.

    In a recent opinion piece, Standing Rock Sioux tribe chairman David Archambault II writes eloquently, but ultimately without precision and factual context as he opines against the ongoingDakota Access pipeline. He said that, when it comes to opposing Dakota Access, “we all have a responsibility to speak for a vision of the future that is safe and productive for our grandchildren.”

    To be sure, it is fully within the opposition’s right to disagree with aspects of the Dakota Access pipeline. However, the Standing Rock Sioux tribe did not participate in any public comment meetings in North Dakota, did not submit written testimony in opposition to the project, and refused to meet with officials from the Dakota Access project on 7 different invitations.  This was a process that included nearly 400 meetings on cultural surveying and 11 meetings between the Army Corps of Engineers and the Standing Rock Sioux tribe. As American citizens, we have the right to civic participation but also the obligation to abide by its outcomes.

    There are also safety concerns that must be addressed.  Currently, much of the oil being produced out of the Bakken in North Dakota is transported via railways, putting hundreds of communities at risk as the massive crude containers roll through densely populated areas. Economists and industry experts at the Manhattan Institute found that in a side-by-side comparison, pipelines are dramatically safer than their rail counterparts. The American Farm Bureau agrees, arguing:

    Pipelines significantly reduce transportation costs, are more efficient, and are impervious to weather or traffic related delays. If other industries were physically able to send their products through a pipeline, they would be delighted to do so.

    Moreover, there are numerous experts who virtually agree in unanimity that pipeline safety is superior to that of rail.  In particular, pipelines bring increased security as it moves crude oil off of rail and into pipelines like Dakota Access. 

    On a slightly more personal level, there have been plenty of incidences where protestors havethreatened and intimidated pipeline workers. So, forgive the preaching, but talking of a safe future seems disingenuous when endangering the lives and livelihoods of others.

    As I mentioned above, I understand Chairman Archambault’s defense of his opinion.  What I cannot understand, however, is why he continues to ignore the fact that his Tribe refused to engage during the orderly process that lead to the approval of the Dakota Access pipeline. Sadly, Chairman Archambault’s position fails the very future he is trying to protect. The Dakota Access pipeline represents a safe and productive future for all American citizens.

    Dr. Jack Rafuse is a former White House energy advisor and energy executive.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/294917-emotions-overcoming-facts-in-north-dakota-pipeline
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Transportation News

12. PHMSA Looks to Expand Emergency Response Requirements for High-Hazard Trains

    Sep 7, 2016 | Safety and Health Magazine

    The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and the Federal Railroad Administration are accepting comment until Sept. 27 on a proposed rule that would expand the parameters for railroads to develop oil spill response plans for incidents involving high-hazard flammable trains.

    The Department of Transportation defines a high-hazard flammable train as a continuous block of 20 or more tank cars loaded with a flammable liquid, or 35 or more tank cars loaded with a flammable liquid dispersed through a train. The proposed rule, which was published in the July 29 Federal Register calls for railroads to issue comprehensive response plans for communities and first responders along affected train routes.

    “We’ve taken more than 30 actions in the last two years to continue to address risk, and we continue to push the industry to do more to prevent derailments from happening,” Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx said in a July 13 press release.

    Other requirements included in the proposed rule:Railroads must provide state emergency response commissions with a reasonable estimate of how many high-hazard flammable trains will travel each week through each county in the state.Railroads must specify the routes HHFTs will travel.Railroads must describe the materials being shipped and outline the appropriate emergency response information required by hazardous materials regulations.Railroads must provide the name, address and phone number for at least one contact person in their organization.

    “The substantial surge in our country’s production of crude oil is creating a serious need for improved response and communication between railroads and the communities through which they travel,” PHMSA Administrator Marie Therese Dominguez said in the release.

    To comment on the proposed rule, visit www.regulations.gov and enter “PHMSA-2014-0105 (HM-251B)” in the search bar.

    http://www.safetyandhealthmagazine.com/articles/14641-phmsa-looks-to-expand-emergency-response-requirements-for-high-hazard-trains
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

13. USDOT's FRA Awards $25M in Grants for Positive Train Control Implementation

    Sep 7, 2016 | Construction Equipment Guide

    The U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) awarded $25 million in grants for 11 projects in six states and the District of Columbia to assist in implementing Positive Train Control (PTC).

    FRA received 30 eligible applications requesting $90.6 million, nearly four times the $25 million Congress provided in the appropriations bill that funds FRA for fiscal year 2016. Many awards will help railroads achieve interoperability among the different PTC systems that railroads are deploying.

    “These grants get us a bit closer to implementing Positive Train Control — a long overdue technology that prevents accidents and saves lives,” said Anthony Foxx, U.S. transportation secretary. “We will continue to do everything in our power to help railroads install this technology. We encourage Congress to fully fund the President's request for significant funds to help more railroads activate PTC.”

    PTC systems are designed to prevent certain train-to-train collisions; over-speed derailments; incursions into established work zone limits; and trains going to the wrong tracks due to improper switching.

    “Every dollar we invest in implementing Positive Train Control as quickly as possible is money well spent because ultimately it means fewer accidents and fewer fatalities,” said Sarah E. Feinberg, FRA administrator. “Today's grants inch us closer to a safer rail network with PTC.”

    In 2008, Congress mandated PTC implementation on the main lines of Class I railroads and entities providing regularly scheduled intercity or commuter rail passenger transportation over which any poisonous or toxic by inhalation hazardous materials are transported, or over which intercity or commuter rail passenger transportation is regularly provided. Last October, Congress extended the original PTC implementation deadline from Dec. 31, 2015, to at least Dec. 31, 2018.

    FRA awarded grants in the approximate amounts below to the following entities:

    California

    • Metrolink — $2.4 million to develop, test and deploy a full-feature service desk management suite of software applications that will allow each railroad to create, track, manage and share PTC system and asset trouble tickets internally within the organization and with interoperable railroad partners.

    • Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) District — $3 million to install PTC and integrated new grade crossing warning systems on the 2.1-mi. (3.4 km) passenger rail extension between downtown San Rafael and Larkspur, Calif.

    • Caltrain — $2.88 million to conduct two test procedures for the field integration and functional testing of Caltrain's Interoperable-Incremental Train Control System (I-ITCS) that will allow Interoperable Electronic Train Management System (I-ETMS) equipped tenants to seamlessly operate on Caltrain's tracks.

    District of Columbia

    • Amtrak — $2.64 million to put in place authentication technology to fully secure the PTC wireless communication and data transmittal between a train's point of origin and targeted receivers on the Northeast Corridor.

    • American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association — $2.5 million to create a Crew Initialization Back Office Server System (CI-BOS) hosted service to assist small railroads tasked with implementing PTC, particularly systems that interoperate with Class I railroads.

    Massachusetts

    • Providence and Worcester Railroad Company (P&W) — $965,832 to acquire and install eight Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System (ACSES) PTC onboard units for P&W's locomotives utilized on Amtrak's Northeast Corridor.

    Minnesota

    • Twin Cities & Western Railroad Company — $1.1 million to implement and test PTC systems, including a contract with a back office service and interoperability message software provider, initial activation and licensing fees of hosted back office systems, and two PTC equipped locomotives.

    Missouri

    • Department of Transportation — $3 million to jointly partner with the Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis (TRRA) for an Interoperable Electronic Train Management System (I-ETMS) implementation project on the Missouri side of TRRA's territory.

    North Carolina

    • Department of Transportation — $771,070 to equip five converted Cab Control Units with Interoperable Electronic Train Management System (I-ETMS) and conduct testing on the Piedmont corridor or within any adjacent rail territory of NCDOT's rail partners (Norfolk Southern Corporation and Amtrak).

    Texas

    • Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority — $3 million to implement Enhanced Automatic Train Control (E-ATC) that will overlay the existing wayside signal system and enhance onboard, wayside and control office equipment and software to create a functional PTC system in the Austin area.

    • Fort Worth & Western Railroad — $2.56 million to install PTC on-board equipment and 220 MHz radios on nine locomotives in a phased installation, develop a crew initialization back office server, and train necessary personnel to operate and maintain the PTC system.

    Since 2008, FRA has provided significant assistance to support PTC implementation. Those efforts include:

    • Providing more than $650 million in grants to passenger railroads, including nearly $400 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 funding.

    • Issuing a nearly $1 billion loan to the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority to implement PTC on the Long Island Rail Road and Metro-North Railroad.

    • Building a PTC system testbed at the Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo, Colo.

    • Working directly with the Federal Communications Commission and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to resolve issues related to spectrum use and improve the approval process for PTC communication towers.

    • Dedicating staff to work on PTC implementation, including establishing a PTC task force.

    For more information, visit https://www.fra.dot.gov/.

    http://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/usdots-fra-awards-25m-in-grants-for-positive-train-control-implementation/30607
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

14. Northwest Communities Can’t Risk Another Oil Train Disaster

    Sep 7, 2016 | Seattle Times

    By Arlene Burns, Ben Stuckart and Adrienne Fraley-Monillas

    IT has been three months since 47,000 gallons of Bakken crude oil spilled when a Union Pacific oil train derailed, crashed, and piled up in a national scenic area along the Columbia River in Mosier, Ore. The derailment, fire and potential for catastrophic explosion were another wake-up call for the communities trapped between the Bakken crude-oil wells and destinations on the West Coast — including proposed export terminals. We are in grave danger.

    As elected officials from these cities caught in the middle, we are deeply concerned by the risks that oil trains pose to our neighborhoods, drinking-water supplies, businesses, schools and entire communities. There are no jobs that come from moving oil trains through our cities, no revenue to support disaster recovery, only burdens, such as air pollution, traffic delay and uncertainty about when and where a disaster will happen next.

    We cannot accept being the doormat for the oil industry and will not be quiet when it comes to protecting our residents.

    The Spokane City Council’s recent effort to allow voters to stop oil and coal trains, while ultimatelystymied by legal complications, should be praised. That type of instinct, to take action and explore every tool that might be available, has become necessary to protect our communities. As the Washington State Council of Firefighters wrote in a letter to the Spokane City Council on Aug. 10, the disaster in Mosier made it clear that “an immediate halt” to Bakken crude oil by rail has never been more urgent. However, as cities stuck in the middle, we know we cannot take on the fossil-fuel industry alone.We applaud jurisdictions with control over oil-terminal expansions that have passed ordinances that don’t allow crude oil terminals.” 

    We applaud jurisdictions with control over oil-terminal expansions that have passed ordinances that don’t allow crude oil terminals, such as the cities of Hoquiam, Aberdeen and Vancouver. And we greatly appreciate the work of Whatcom County to implement a moratorium on any new permit applications as it considers a more permanent solution. We are encouraged by local leaders like Deputy Mayor Ryan Mello of Tacoma, who recently said that fossil-fuel export projects should be “off the table.”

    We also commend Govs. Jay Inslee and Kate Brown of Oregon, and U.S. Sens. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., Patty Murray, D-Wash., Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., who are pushing for new safety rules and inspections.

    Despite all these efforts, we continue to face a critical risk to the health and safety of our communities and the water and land we depend on. Stopping new terminals, while an important step, will not stop the existing oil trains that run through our communities every day. And fossil-fuel trains, even after promises of improvement, remain a clear and present danger.

    We refuse to become the next Lac-Mégantic rail disaster, where 47 people were killed, while waiting for a disaster-proof oil train.

    We need to talk to our neighbors and speak out together about our concerns and apply pressure at every level.

    We need to take practical steps to address climate change by transitioning away from oil and accelerating the shutdown of coal-fired power plants in the Northwest.

    We need our governors and state legislatures to implement every possible measure in their power to protect communities, like ours, that have few defenses from coal and oil trains.

    Ultimately, we need the president, with the support of Congress, to put an end to fossil-fuels movement by rail.

    Protecting our communities from oil and coal trains requires a renewed commitment to action and local, state and federal legislators and executives working together.

    As the communities hemmed in by fossil-fuel trains, and with the threat of another Mosier-type crash hanging over us, we can’t wait any longer.

    http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/northwest-communities-cant-risk-another-oil-train-disaster/
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

15. Senate GOP Wants 'Clear Understanding' of EPA's Remaining Agenda

    Sep 8, 2016 | E&E Daily

    By Arianna Skibell

    Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Republicans are calling on U.S. EPA to increase transparency about litigation, settlements and rulemaking petitions, saying the agency has failed to uphold promises to disclose the information.

    EPW Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), along with all 10 committee members, yesterday sent the agency a letter requesting details about planned regulatory actions for the remainder of the Obama administration.

    The senators specifically mention EPA agreements with environmental activist groups that critics say have been a driving force for many of the agency's regulatory activities.

    "Given the impending presidential transition," said the letter, "it is imperative that Congress and the American public have a clear understanding of the ongoing litigation and the regulatory and administrative actions that may be underway or planned."

    The lawmakers added that "much of this important information is not publicly or readily available."

    The letter cited EPA's 2013 committment to operate more openly, including establishing a new guidance on records maintenance and agency officials' use of personal email accounts (E&ENews PM, July 9, 2013).

    At the time, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who used to head the EPW panel, said the agency's pledge persuaded him to support the nomination of Administrator Gina McCarthy and to drop a threatened filibuster.

    But committee members expressed frustration yesterday yet again with EPA's rulemaking process, saying the lack of transparency could have a negative and lasting impact.

    "A transparent account of ongoing and planned regulatory actions is important not just for the incoming administration, but also for potentially impacted state, local, and tribal officials, job creators, and members of the public," they wrote.

    The letter asked the agency for a trove of information, including a list of all current actions, pending litigation, copies of mass emails, guidance documents and briefings or memoranda from staff concerning the upcoming transition.

    EPA has denied colluding with environmental groups to push regulations through court settlements. Administration defenders have also said that most actions being completed in the coming months have long been in development.\

    http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/09/08/stories/1060042487
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

16. Reduced Scope Of EPA's CSAPR 'Update' Rule Lowers Costs & Benefits

    Sep 7, 2016 | InsideEPA

    By Stuart Parker

    EPA has issued a final version of its Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) emissions trading rule “update” that reduces the scope of the regulation compared to the proposed version, leading to fewer projected cuts in ozone-forming air pollution that will lower the overall expected costs of the rule and also reduce the likely health benefits.

    The rule, released Sept. 7 ahead of its publication in the Federal Register, also drops a plan to add North Carolina to the states regulated by CSAPR's cap-and-trade program. That decision is a major win for the state, which had opposed its suggested inclusion in the program, and could weaken ongoing attempts by Eastern states to expand the scope of the trading rule.

    As a result of the decision to reduce the scope of the update, EPA estimates that the health benefits of the final rule will be up to $880 million in 2017, in 2011 dollars, compared to $1.2 billion in the proposal released in 2015. Costs are now expected to be $68 million, which is lower than the proposal's projected $96 million.

    The original CSAPR, established in 2011, ultimately applied to power plants in 28 states and sought to reduce interstate emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) in order to help states in the eastern half of the country attain the 1997 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), expressed as 84 parts per billion, as well as the 2006 fine particulate matter NAAQS of 15 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) annually and 35 ug/m3 over 24 hours.

    EPA's updated version only applies to the part of the program addressing cuts in ozone-forming NOx, and is designed to help states that are struggling to meet the more-recent 2008 ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb. However, the rule does not address the even-stricter ozone limit of 70 ppb that the agency issued Oct. 1.

    The rule covers 22 states rather than the 23 proposed and updates the NOx “budgets,” or state-specific emissions caps, to help reduce ozone levels by forcing air pollution cuts from power plants in upwind states whose emissions have a “significant contribution” to downwind states' ability to attain federal air standards.

    EPA defines significant contribution as one percent or more of the applicable NAAQS, as part of the CSAPR methodology that has survived legal challenges, including a Supreme Court hearing, largely intact.

    Emissions Budgets

    The new rule also responds to a July 28, 2015, remand of the original CSAPR's state emissions budgets by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA. The court found EPA had imposed excessively stringent budgets that “overcontrol” 11 upwind states for NOx, requiring them to curb emissions by more than is required to meet the NAAQS in their downwind neighbors.

    In the new rule, state NOx budgets are reduced from those established under the original CSAPR, in order to produce the larger emissions cuts required to meet the 2008 ozone NAAQS. However, the cuts are around 5 percent smaller than the proposed version of the updated rule, according to an EPA fact sheet.

    Prompted by power sector criticism of its methodology for the original CSAPR, EPA has also somewhat revised from the proposal its assumption about the efficiency of selective catalytic reduction (SCR), a NOx control technology often deployed on coal-fired power plants. The final updated NOx trading program assumes a reasonably achievable emission rate of 0.10 pounds per million British thermal units (lbs/mmBtu), less efficient than the 0.075 lbs/mmBtu assumed in the proposal, and this informs the reduced stringency of state NOx budgets, EPA says.

    State's Exclusion

    EPA's update rule also marks a significant win for North Carolina, which is kept out of CSAPR. The state “is not included in the final CSAPR Update because modeling for the final rule indicates that the state is not linked to any downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptors,” which are air quality monitors showing NAAQS nonattainment, or monitoring areas that have previously been in nonattainment, EPA says in the fact sheet.

    North Carolina has sued EPA in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina seeking a response by the agency to a Dec. 2013 petition by eight Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) states to massively enlarge the OTC to include North Carolina and seven other new states in order to curb interstate emissions. Emissions controls are tougher than elsewhere within the current OTC, which now includes 12 Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states. Sources say North Carolina wants to quickly exclude itself from any expanded OTC area.

    The suit, van der Vaart, et al. v. McCarthy, et al, was stayed by the court until Sept. 12 pending EPA's issuance of the CSAPR update, and the agency's decision could help the state's arguments in its case.

    But regardless of EPA's decision on the OTC states' petition it would appear North Carolina would not now be included in any larger OTC, at least with respect to attainment of the 2008 75 ppb ozone NAAQS.

    The new rule creates one NOx trading group for all 22 included states: Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

    For Georgia, which is not included among those states, it creates a separate NOx trading group to satisfy Georgia's obligations that stem from its linkage to downwind states for the 1997 ozone NAAQS -- but not for the tougher 2008 ozone NAAQS. Georgia appears to be the only state to be in such an anomalous position.

    Trading Allowances

    EPA will allow a limited conversion of approximately 99,700 banked CSAPR trading allowances under the new program, to “facilitate a smooth shift” between the two programs. The agency in its proposal estimated the pool of banked allowances in 2017 at around 210,000, and proposed a “surrender ratio” of 2:1 or higher in order to reduce the number of allowances carried over. The program's critics have long charged that a surfeit of cheap credits has allowed upwind power plants to continue polluting by buying credits, rather than running emissions controls.

    EPA notes the updated CSAPR and other regulatory programs already in place should cut NOx in the eastern United States by 20 percent in 2017, relative to 2015 levels. The reduction attributable to the CSAPR update is smaller than foreseen, however, which reduces both the estimated costs and the health benefits associated with the rule.

    “Changes to the geography of the CSAPR Update region, budget-setting methodology, and consideration of state rules . . . in the benefits analysis resulted in lower costs and fewer total emission reductions and benefits across the region than estimated at proposal,” EPA says in its fact sheet. Among the state rules at issue is Pennsylvania's reasonably available control technology rule requiring tougher controls on power plants. 

    http://insideepa.com/daily-news/reduced-scope-epas-csapr-update-rule-lowers-costs-benefits
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

17. Researchers Find Data 'Not Yet' Able To Fully Evaluate Air Rules' Effects

    Sep 7, 2016 | InsideEPA

    By Stuart Parker

    Air quality data is "not yet" able to fully and accurately evaluate the potential impact on human health from decades of clean air regulations, according to studies by the Health Effects Institute (HEI), but the free-market group Center for Regulatory Solutions (CRS) is faulting advocates' claims on the benefits of stricter EPA air standards.

    The statements on the limitations of science about the impacts of agency regulations highlight the long-running debate over the costs and benefits of EPA's Clean Air Act rules to curb emissions. The agency often argues that the health cost savings and other benefits of its policies far outweigh the costs to regulated industries of reducing emissions. But industry groups and conservative lawmakers have faulted some of EPA's estimates as flawed.

    Underlying the cost-benefit argument is also a broader question of whether EPA's programs to reduce pollution have the claimed health benefits, and HEI in its recent presentation said this remains a point of debate. HEI is a body co-funded by government and the auto-industry and other sources, aiming for impartial findings.

    In a presentation to the EPA-sponsored National Ambient Air Monitoring Conference, held Aug. 8-11 in St. Louis, HEI researcher Katherine Walker said that science has "not yet" been able to answer some of the questions about air regulations' effects.

    Walker said that among the questions yet to be answered include: What health benefits have regulations actually achieved? Do changes in air pollution actually cause changes in health? And are the the expected impacts of reducing air pollution likely to be the same at low concentrations observed today?

    More questions that have yet to be answered include: What is the impact of changing technologies and fuels on exposures to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and PM2.5 composition, on nitrogen dioxide (NO2), on ultrafine particles and on components of brake and tire wear? What are the impacts of those changing technologies and fuels on human health? And what is the value of denser monitoring networks of low cost monitors to improved individual-level exposure and health assessment?, according to a copy of her presentation.

    "There's an increasing demand for very large data sets" and an "ongoing need for long-term, high quality, complete data from as many existing monitors as possible," Walker told the conference. However, she said more monitoring may be needed, perhaps provided through non-traditional "personal" monitors.

    "It may not be enough. We need more systematic evaluation of the information added by higher density, low cost monitors," Walker said. "We need your continued expertise and involvement in epidemiologic and other studies to make sure the data are appropriately used and interpreted."

    Case Studies

    Walker presented the results of two recent case studies aimed at evaluating the impact of air quality programs using the "causal inference" method, a statistical approach to try to link cause and effect.

    The first study examines the effects on health of areas in the western United States being designated "nonattainment" for the coarse particulate (PM10) NAAQS. The second concerns the effects of installing SO2 "scrubbers" on emissions and ambient PM2.5 concentrations nationally. Both are examined in a recent HEI paper by researchers led by Corwin Zigler, of the Harvard School of Public Health, published on HEI's website.

    In the PM10 case, the researchers found uncertain and differing outcomes in different areas, although they did conclude that the results suggested evidence that PM10 played a causal role in the reduction of hospitalization for respiratory disease -- but not for cardiovascular disease.

    In the scrubbers study, the researchers found that installation of scrubbers had, on average, caused reductions in SO2, but not in nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide emissions, and this is "consistent with what is known about scrubbers," according to a critical analysis of the paper by HEI's Review Committee.

    The panel praises the work, but notes uncertainty in the findings."What the considerable methodological work in this study indicates, however, is that the presence of a clear causal framework is not a substitute for detailed consideration of potentially important covariates and the testing of the sensitivity of results to key assumptions made in implementing the methods," the committee says, noting various sources of uncertainty of the study results.

    Ambient Exposures

    Meanwhile, CRS is pushing back on an American Thoracic Society (ATS) report released Aug. 10 that says many areas of the country still have PM2.5 and ozone levels in excess of what it considers safe.

    ATS-recommended levels are, however, tougher than EPA's NAAQS for PM2.5, set at 11 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) annually compared to a NAAQS of 12 ug/m3, and 60 parts per billion (ppb) for ozone compared to the current NAAQS of 70 ppb that the agency set last October.

    In counties with "valid" ozone measurements according to ATS, the group found that using 2011-2013 data, 14 percent had PM2.5 levels above the ATS recommendation, and 91 percent had ozone levels above their suggested level. ATS says this equates to 9,320 excess deaths in the country each year, and 21,400 excess instances of illness.

    However, CRS -- a frequent critic of tougher ozone standards -- takes issue with ATS' methods, and especially the choice of 2011-2013 as the baseline for the study. This "artificially inflates the alleged benefits of setting a lower standard of 60 ppb. It is well known that efforts to reduce pollution across industry have resulted in ozone-forming emissions being cut in half since 1980 -- and they are expected to drop by another 36 percent in the next few years," CRS says.

    Further, "By using old data, ATS grossly misrepresents the current state of air quality, while minimizing the great strides that have been made in improving air quality," the group says. CRS also questions ATS' assumptions about the links between air pollution and health -- precisely the kind of issue HEI's causal framework research is designed to test.

    EPA in its latest air trends report, which looks at air quality up to 2015, reinforces the message that air quality continues to improve in almost all areas of the country, for all pollutants, and that the outlook for further improvements, especially in ozone levels, is positive.

    http://insideepa.com/daily-news/researchers-find-data-not-yet-able-fully-evaluate-air-rules-effects
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

18. Obama on Climate Change: The Trends Are ‘Terrifying’

    Sep 8, 2016 | New York Times

    By Julie Hirschfeld Davis, Mark Landler, and Coral Davenport

    Seventy-four years ago, a naval battle off this remote spit of land in the middle of the Pacific Ocean changed the course of World War II. Last week, President Obama flew here to swim with Hawaiian monk seals and draw attention to a quieter war — one he has waged against rising seas, freakish storms, deadly droughts and other symptoms of a planet choking on its own fumes.

    Bombs may not be falling. The sound of gunfire does not concentrate the mind. What Mr. Obama has seen instead are the charts and graphs of a warming planet. “And they’re terrifying,” he said in a recent interview in Honolulu.

    “What makes climate change difficult is that it is not an instantaneous catastrophic event,” he said. “It’s a slow-moving issue that, on a day-to-day basis, people don’t experience and don’t see.”

    Climate change, Mr. Obama often says, is the greatest long-term threat facing the world, as well as a danger already manifesting itself as droughts, storms, heat waves and flooding. More than health care, more than righting a sinking economic ship, more than the historic first of an African-American president, he believes that his efforts to slow the warming of the planet will be the most consequential legacy of his presidency.

    During his seven and a half years in office, Mr. Obama said, a majority of Americans have come to believe “that climate change is real, that it’s important and we should do something about it.” He enacted rules to cut planet-heating emissions across much of the United States economy, fromcars to coal plants. He was a central broker of the Paris climate agreement, the first accord committing nearly every country to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

    But while climate change has played to Mr. Obama’s highest ideals — critics would call them messianic impulses — it has also exposed his weaknesses, namely an inability to forge consensus, even within his own party, on a problem that demands a bipartisan response.

    He acknowledged that his rallying cry to save the planet had not galvanized Americans. He has been harshly criticized for policies that objectors see as abuses of executive power and far too burdensome for the economy.

    That has made Mr. Obama’s record on climate curiously contradictory, marked by historic achievements abroad and frustrating setbacks at home. The threat of global warming inspired Mr. Obama to conduct some of the most masterful diplomacy of his presidency, which has bound the United States into a web of agreements and obligations overseas. Yet his determination to act alone inflamed his opponents, helped polarize the debate on climate change and will carry a significant economic cost.

    Mr. Obama chalks up the contradictions both to politics and to the amorphous, unseen nature of the threat.

    “It feels like, ‘Meh, we can put this off a little bit,’” he said.

    The president spoke in a cottage on a Marine base that overlooks Kaneohe Bay in his home state, Hawaii. Angry waves crashed on the rocks below the house, the sea churned by one of two hurricanes spinning close to the island. Hawaii, as one of Mr. Obama’s climate advisers pointed out, normally does not get back-to-back hurricanes.

    “When you see severe environmental strains of one sort or another on cultures, on civilizations, on nations, the byproducts of that are unpredictable and can be very dangerous,” Mr. Obama said. “If the current projections, the current trend lines on a warming planet continue, it is certainly going to be enormously disruptive worldwide.”

    Eight years ago, when Mr. Obama ran for president against Senator John McCain of Arizona, both men had essentially the same position on global warming: It is caused by humans, and Congress should enact legislation to cap greenhouse gas emissions and force polluters to buy and trade permits that would slowly lower overall emissions of climate-warming gases.

    But in the summer of 2010, a cap-and-trade bill Mr. Obama had tried to push through Congress failed, blocked by senators from both parties.

    “One would have hoped for transformational leadership, in the way J.F.K. would have done it,” said Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.

    That domestic defeat was compounded by failure on the world stage after efforts to enact a highly anticipated United Nations climate change treaty in Copenhagen fell apart in 2009.

    By the fall of 2010, Tea Party “super PACs” supported by the billionaire brothers Charles G. and David H. Koch had seized on cap-and-trade as a political weapon, with attacks that helped Republicans take control of the House.

    Polls showed that few Americans thought of climate change as a high public policy priority, and the percentage of voters who accepted the reality that it was caused by humans had tumbled.

    “There is the notion that there’s something I might have done that would prevent Republicans to deny climate change,” Mr. Obama said. “I guess hypothetically, maybe there was some trick up my sleeve that would have cast a spell on the Republican caucus and changed their minds.”Continue reading the main story

    In fact, some Republicans, including Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, were willing to go forward with a more limited climate bill that would have restricted emissions only from power plants. But the president’s own party would not unify even around that, with Democrats from industrial and coal states digging in against him. Ironically, Mr. Obama would end up with regulations that narrowly target power plant emissions.

    “The White House wanted 60 votes on climate, and they weren’t interested in Republican votes,” Mr. Alexander said in an interview. “Now it’s back to power plant only. The lesson here is that if people who want a result would be a little bit more flexible, they might actually get one.”

    In defeat, the president appeared cowed. Campaigning against Mitt Romney in 2012, he barely mentioned climate change.

    Mr. Obama, who understood that a legislative push would be fruitless, told his advisers to figure out how to enact deep emissions cuts without Congress. They found a way through the Clean Air Act of 1970, which gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to issue regulations on dangerous pollutants.

    In 2014, Mr. Obama unveiled the first draft of what would become the Clean Power Plan: a set of Clean Air Act rulesthat could lead to the closing of hundreds of coal-fired power plants.

    The move enraged critics, including Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, whose state relies heavily on coal.

    Another critic, Laurence H. Tribe,likened the rules to “burning the Constitution” — a charge that might have stung, since Mr. Tribe, a liberal constitutional scholar, was a mentor to Mr. Obama at Harvard Law School.

    Mr. Obama dismissed the criticism as the voice of Mr. Tribe’s client, Peabody Energy, the nation’s largest coal company, which filed for bankruptcy protection in April. “You know, I love Larry,” he said, but “when it comes to energy issues, Larry has a history of representing fossil fuel industries in big litigation cases.”

    The legality of the climate rules is likely to be decided by the Supreme Court, the composition of which depends on the outcome of the presidential election. Deep-pocketed corporations will not give up the legal fight easily, even after a Supreme Court decision, and Republicans in Congress will continue their legislative attacks. If the rules survive, they will almost certainly cost the coal industry thousands of jobs.

    “What we owe the remaining people who are making a living mining coal is to be honest with them,” Mr. Obama said, “and to say that, look, the economy is shifting. How we use energy is shifting. That’s going to be true here, but it’s also going to be true internationally.”

    But soon after Election Day, Mr. Obama interrupted a broad discussion with historians about the country’s challenges with a surprising assertion. Douglas Brinkley, a historian who attended the session, recalled, “Out of nowhere, he said, ‘If we don’t do anything on the climate issue, all bets are off.’”Scrutinizing the Science

    Few people would have described Mr. Obama as a climate evangelist when he ran for the White House in 2008. While he invoked the rising seas and heating planet to thrill his young supporters, he did not have the long record of climate activism of Al Gore or John Kerry, who is now his secretary of state. Like many things with Mr. Obama, his evolution on climate was essentially an intellectual journey.

    Mr. Obama immersed himself in the scientific literature, which left little doubt that the planet was warming at an accelerating rate. “My top science adviser, John Holdren, periodically will issue some chart or report or graph in the morning meetings,” he said, “and they’re terrifying.”

    The morning Mr. Obama unveiled the final version of the Clean Power Plan last year, he summoned his senior climate adviser, Brian Deese, to the Oval Office. Mr. Deese expected that the president would hand him some last-minute changes to his speech. Instead, he brought up an article in the journal Science on melting permafrost.

    The research not only documented faster increases in temperatures, but also drew direct links between fossil fuel emissions and extreme weather.

    Mr. Obama scrutinized reports like the 2014 National Climate Assessment, which tied climate change to events like flooding in Miami and longer, hotter heat waves in the Southwest.

    “More and more, there are events that are happening that are astoundingly unusual, that knock your socks off, like the flooding in Louisiana,” said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University. “Those are the kinds of events where it’s becoming possible to draw attribution.”

    Benjamin J. Rhodes, one of the president’s closest aides, recalled Mr. Obama talking about “Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed,” Jared Diamond’s 2005 best seller, which explored the environmental changes that wiped out ancient societies like Easter Island and discussed how modern equivalents like climate change and overpopulation could yield the same destruction.

    The president’s Pacific roots also came into play. In Honolulu last week, he told a meeting of Pacific Island leaders that few people understood the stakes of climate change better than residents of their part of the planet. Crops are withering in the Marshall Islands, he noted. Kiribati is buying property in another country for the day that its own land vanishes beneath the waves. And villagers in Fiji have been forced from their homes by high seas.

    Shifting monsoon patterns in South Asia could affect a billion people who depend on low-lying agriculture, Mr. Obama said in his interview.

    “If you have even a portion of those billion people displaced,” he said, “you now have the sorts of refugee crises and potential conflicts that we haven’t seen in our lifetimes.”

    “That,” he added, “promises to make life a lot more difficult for our children and grandchildren.”Joining Forces With China

    Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton never seem to tire of telling the story of Copenhagen: In December 2009, with the climate conference on the verge of failure, the two learned of a meeting of the leaders of Brazil, China, India and South Africa, from which they had been pointedly excluded. Elbowing their way past a Chinese security guard, they crashed the meeting, and over the course of 90 minutes of tense negotiations with the abashed leaders, they extracted an agreement to set goals for lowering emissions.

    The Europeans, who had been cut out of the talks, derided the deal as toothless, but Mr. Obama learned from the experience. A global climate accord could not simply be a compact among developed economies, he said. It had to include the major developing economies, even if they resented being held to standards that had never applied to the club of wealthy nations. And any agreement had to be led by the two largest emitters, the United States and China.

    Mr. Obama set about persuading President Xi Jinping of China to join the United States in setting ambitious reduction targets for carbon emissions. Tensions were already high over China’s hacking of American companies, and the United States was balking at China’s slow-motion colonization of the South China Sea. A casual, get-acquainted summit meeting between Mr. Obama and Mr. Xi at the Sunnylands estate in California in June 2013 had failed to break the ice.

    But the meeting did produce one headline: an agreement to explore ways to reduce emissions of hydrofluorocarbons, known as HFCs, potent planet-warming chemicals found in refrigerants. In hindsight, it would prove significant. The final international accord on the chemicals is expected to be ratified next month in Rwanda.

    “It was a place Obama and Xi found some common ground,” said John D. Podesta, a chief of staff to President Bill Clinton whom Mr. Obama recruited to lead his climate efforts in his second term. (Mr. Podesta is now the chairman of Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign.)

    Mr. Podesta and Todd Stern, the State Department’s climate envoy, began arduous negotiations with China. They were backed by Mr. Kerry and Mr. Obama, who sent Mr. Xi a letter with a proposal in which the United States would pledge to increase its target for reducing carbon emissions by 2025 if the Chinese pledged to cap and then gradually reduce their emissions.

    China had historically resisted such agreements, but the air pollution there had become so bad, Mr. Obama noted, that the most-visited Twitter page in China was the daily air-quality monitor maintained by the United States Embassy in Beijing.

    “One of the reasons I think that China was prepared to go further than it had been prepared to go previously,” Mr. Obama said, “is that their overriding concern tends to be political stability. Interestingly, one of their greatest political vulnerabilities is the environment. People who go to Beijing know that it can be hard to breathe.”

    The Chinese were also swayed by Mr. Obama’s announcement in 2014 of his regulations to reduce emissions from coal-fired power plants, which gave Mr. Kerry and his team of climate diplomats the leverage they needed in months of meetings with China. On Nov. 11, 2014, after a quiet stroll across a bridge in the Chinese leadership compound beside the Forbidden City, Mr. Xi and Mr. Obama sealed their agreement.

    “By locking in China,” Mr. Obama said, “it now allowed me to go to India and South Africa and Brazil and others and say to them: ‘Look, we don’t expect countries with big poverty rates and relatively low per-capita carbon emissions to do exactly the same thing that the United States or Germany or other advanced countries are doing. But you’ve got to do something.’”

    A little more than a year later, in Paris, the United States led negotiations among 195 countries that resulted in the most significant climate change agreement in history. And this past weekend in Hangzhou, China, Mr. Obama and Mr. Xi formally committed their two nations to the Paris accord. For Mr. Obama, it was not just redemption for Copenhagen, but a vindication of his theory of the United States’ role in the world.

    “There are certain things that the United States can do by itself,” Mr. Obama said. “But if we’re going to actually solve a problem, then our most important role is as a leader, vision setter and convener.”An Ambitious, Divisive Legacy

    To his successor, Mr. Obama leaves an ambitious and divisive legacy: a raft of new emissions rules that promise to transform the United States economy but are likely to draw continuing fire from Republicans, and an aggressive — some say unrealistic — pledge made in Paris to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent from 2005 levels by 2050.

    All of this, he acknowledges, could be undone at the ballot box. “I think it’s fair to say that if Donald Trump is elected, for example, you have a pretty big shift now with how the E.P.A. operates,” he said.

    Mrs. Clinton has embraced Mr. Obama’s go-it-alone approach, promising to meet and in some cases exceed his goals without trying to pass cap-and-trade legislation. She is proposing marquee projects like installing 500 million solar panels by 2020 and giving states and cities $60 billion to invest in energy-efficient public transportation and buildings.

    “It will be first-order business,” Mr. Podesta said.

    But Mrs. Clinton will face the same partisan fire Mr. Obama has. He noted that, like him, Mrs. Clinton had been pilloried in coal country for acknowledging that coal mining would have a declining role in a 21st-century economy. Mr. Obama’s bet is that as his regulations get woven into the fabric of the economy, they will be harder for anyone to unwind. He says that his successor should promote past victories, including those of Republicans like Richard M. Nixon and George Bush.

    For his part, Mr. Obama said he planned to stay active in fighting climate change in his post-presidential life. During his tour of the wildlife on Midway, he paused to make an improbable remark.

    “My hope,” he said, “is that maybe as ex-president I can have a little more influence on some of my Republican friends, who I think up until now have been resistant to the science.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/08/us/politics/obama-climate-change.html
    

    Return to headline | Return to top