Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 4/14/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) Kathryn Z. Klaber: Putting Shell Project in Proper Perspective
Apr 13, 2017 | Pittsburg Business Times
By Joe Wojcik
The single most important reason Shell is risking capital here is because of the readily available ethane from the Marcellus and related shale formations to serve as the plant’s feedstock. -
Dems Petition FDA to Ban Potentially Toxic Chemical From Shampoos, Body Wash
Apr 14, 2017 | The Hill - Regulation
By Lydia Wheeler
New York Democratic Sens. Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand are petitioning the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ban a potentially cancer-causing chemical from consumer and children's products, including shampoo, shower gels and lotions. -
(ACC Mentioned) Screen Chemicals Faster, Trade Group Tells EPA
Apr 14, 2017 | BNA Daily
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency should commit to a 20-year timeframe to screen chemicals in commerce if it wants to effectively focus on chemicals of greatest concern, says the American Cleaning Institute. -
(ACC Mentioned) Benzene, Styrene Data Sought for Cancer Hazard Review
Apr 14, 2017 | BNA Daily
By Pat Rizzuto
The cancer-causing potential of two mass-produced chemicals, benzene and styrene, will be reviewed by a World Health Organization agency that is soliciting toxicity and exposure data on the compounds. -
(ACC Mentioned) Environmentalists, Labor Seek to Intervene in Industry RMP Rule Suit
Apr 14, 2017 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists, labor and community groups are seeking to intervene in industry groups' stayed lawsuits challenging EPA's facility accident prevention rule, arguing they will be harmed by weakening or vacating the rule and that the agency is unlikely to adequately represent their interests given Administrator Scott Pruitt's past opposition. -
EPA to Delay Compliance Deadlines for Power Plant Effluent Limits
Apr 14, 2017 | BNA Daily
By Amena H. Saiyid
Power plants may be able to hold off on putting in controls to meet revised discharge limits for toxic pollutants if the EPA decides to remand part of the new requirements. -
As Oil and Gas Industry Goes Big in the Permian, Efforts to Tackle Emissions Will Be Telling
Apr 13, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jon Goldstein and Ben Ratner
Much ink has been spilled recently about big new oil and gas investments in the Permian Basin across West Texas and Southeastern New Mexico. -
Perry Hails CCS at Ribbon-Cutting for Texas Project
Apr 13, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Christa Marshall
Energy Secretary Rick Perry called carbon capture technology "groundbreaking" today and said President Trump wants the United States to become "energy dominant." -
Ohio Attracts Another NatGas-Fired Power Project, Potentially More Industry
Apr 14, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Yet another developer is at work to build a natural gas-fired power plant in Appalachia, this time in Ohio's Monroe County on a rust belt site that was purchased out of bankruptcy with a vision to revitalize it for Utica Shale-related growth. -
Fracking Chemical Disclosure Requirement Approved in Montana
Apr 14, 2017 | BNA Daily
By Tripp Baltz
Drillers would be required to disclose the chemicals they use in hydraulic fracturing under a bill approved by the Montana Legislature. -
Cove Point Asks DOE for Commissioning LNG Cargo Authorization
Apr 14, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
Dominion Cove Point (DCP) has asked the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for authorization to begin exporting commissioning cargos from its liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facilities on the Chesapeake Bay in Lusby, MD. -
(ACC Mentioned) US Steel Plant in Indiana Spills Contaminated Wastewater into Lake Michigan
Apr 14, 2017 | World Socialist Website
By Benjamin Mateus
On Tuesday, April 11, US Steel’s plant in Portage, Indiana, reported a spill of wastewater into the Burns Waterway just 100 yards from Lake Michigan. -
Chicago Agency Finds High Level of Spilled Chemical in Lake
Apr 13, 2017 | Washington Post
By Associated Press
A water sample from Lake Michigan near a wastewater spill at a U.S. Steel plant in Indiana contained an elevated level of a potentially carcinogenic chemical but well below federal safety standards, the Chicago Department of Water Management said Thursday. -
Chemical Safety Board Shutdown Plan Left Officials ‘Shocked’
Apr 14, 2017 | BNA Daily
By Sam Pearson
Called to a meeting with the White House Office of Management and Budget March 15, Chemical Safety Board leaders came prepared to explain how the agency could trim its $11 million budget in the upcoming fiscal year. -
Unions Set to Defend Chemical Safety Plant Rule
Apr 14, 2017 | BNA Daily
By Marissa Horn
Unions say they are willing to fight for the EPA's chemical safety rule in court if the Trump administration won't. -
PHMSA Leadership Void Puts 'Mega Rule' in Limbo
Apr 14, 2017 | Politico Pro
By Ben Lefebvre
The Trump administration's failure to fill vacancies at the federal pipeline regulator is stalling work on a major overhaul of safety regulations that's been six years in the making — and putting new pipeline projects at risk. -
(ACC Mentioned) Supply Chains Must Collaborate with Cities to Improve Logistics
Apr 13, 2017 | Supply Chain Dive
By Edwin Lopez and Jennifer McKevitt
With urban freight delivery growth expected to expand 40% by 2050, municipal and business leaders must collaborate to develop smart logistics infrastructure and ensure congestion does not get out of hand, according to the 2017 MHI Annual Industry Report. -
Environmentalists Sue EPA for Data to Back Pruitt Climate Remarks
Apr 14, 2017 | BNA Daily
By Rachel Leven
Environmentalists sued the EPA on April 13 to provide documents that back Administrator Scott Pruitt's assertion that human activity isn't the largest factor driving global climate change, a statement that contradicts a scientific consensus and the agency's own website. -
U.S. ‘Needs to Exit’ Paris Climate Pact, EPA Chief Says
Apr 14, 2017 | BNA Daily
By Dean Scott
The U.S. “needs to exit” the Paris climate pact, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said April 13, siding with those in the Trump administration who want complete withdrawal from the 2015 agreement reached among nearly 200 nations. -
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s Claim that China and India have ‘No Obligations’ Until 2030 Under the Paris Accord
Apr 14, 2017 | Washington Post
By Glenn Kessler
During an appearance on Fox and Friends, the EPA administrator denounced the Paris Accord, the global agreement on curbing climate change, as a “bad deal for America.” Asked his biggest objection to the accord, he claimed that China and India had no obligations until 2030, even though “they are polluting far more than we are.” -
Northeast Regulators Urge EPA to Expand Ozone Reduction Zone
Apr 13, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA should reverse itself and agree to a historic expansion of a regional ozone reduction zone as a matter of basic fairness, several Northeastern state regulators said at an agency public hearing today. -
Obama-Era Ozone Rule Remains in Place, for Now
Apr 14, 2017 | BNA Daily
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Trump administration's review of the 2015 ozone standards hasn't changed looming implementation deadlines and existing permitting requirements for industry, at least not yet.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Kathryn Z. Klaber: Putting Shell Project in Proper Perspective
Apr 13, 2017 | Pittsburg Business Times
By Joe Wojcik
The single most important reason Shell is risking capital here is because of the readily available ethane from the Marcellus and related shale formations to serve as the plant’s feedstock.
Full Article Found Here: http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/news/2017/04/13/kathryn-z-klaber-putting-shell-project-in-proper.html
-
Dems Petition FDA to Ban Potentially Toxic Chemical From Shampoos, Body Wash
Apr 14, 2017 | The Hill - Regulation
By Lydia Wheeler
New York Democratic Sens. Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand are petitioning the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ban a potentially cancer-causing chemical from consumer and children's products, including shampoo, shower gels and lotions.
The Environmental Protection Agency has listed 1,4 Dioxane as a potentially dangerous chemical and in November named it one of the top 10 chemicals to evaluate after Congress passed the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Schumer, the Senate minority leader, said the chemical is regularly used in everyday toiletry items that create suds like shampoos, shower gels, body washes, foaming hand soaps, bubble baths and lotion, but companies aren’t always required to list it on the product labels.
“The fact that 1,4 Dioxane, a potentially dangerous chemical, is hiding out in everyday products expected to make us clean is very disturbing, and to make matters worse, likely carcinogens like this one can be even more harmful to kids,” he said in a statement.
Earlier this year, Schumer and Gillibrand asked EPA to prioritize and accelerate the risk evaluation for 1,4-Dioxane after a study found that the chemical was more prevalent in Long Island’s water supply than anywhere else in the state. Now they want the FDA to issue a rulemaking to keep it out of the products that go down drains and end up in the nation's water supply.
The lawmakers say companies should be required to use vacuum stripping technology to rid products of this dangerous toxin.
http://thehill.com/regulation/pending-regs/328720-ny-dems-petition-fda-to-ban-toxic-chemical-from-shampoos-body-wash
-
(ACC Mentioned) Screen Chemicals Faster, Trade Group Tells EPA
Apr 14, 2017 | BNA Daily
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency should commit to a 20-year timeframe to screen chemicals in commerce if it wants to effectively focus on chemicals of greatest concern, says the American Cleaning Institute.
“From an industry standpoint, we need a credible federal program that would install confidence in the market,” Paul DeLeo, the institute's associate vice president for environmental safety told Bloomberg BNA.
The agency's proposed process to screen chemicals and follow up with risk evaluations for those deemed high priorities “doesn't instill any confidence in the market,” DeLeo said. At the proposed pace, the agency will be carrying out chemical evaluations for the next 200 years, he said.
Proposed Rule
DeLeo spoke with Bloomberg BNA regarding a rule (RIN:2070-AK23) the EPA proposed Jan. 17 describing procedures it would use to decide which chemicals are high or low priorities for risk evaluation (82 Fed. Reg. 4825). Those deemed high priorities for risk evaluation would be assessed, which could lead to chemical restrictions, labeling requirements or other controls.
The proposed rule is the second of three “framework” regulations mandated by the 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act to accomplish something the EPA has never done. The three rules would establish the agency's procedures to determine which chemicals have been in commerce and review them.
The EPA's chemical prioritization rule proposed a four-step process to decide whether chemicals are high or low priorities for risk evaluation:
• pre-prioritization, during which the agency would decide whether it has sufficient information to initiate the formal prioritization process;
• initiation, which triggers both a statutorily mandated nine- to 12-month process and 90-day comment period;
• proposed designation and a second 90-day comment period; and
• final designation.
The American Cleaning Institute, American Chemistry Council and other trade associations up and down the chemical supply chain submitted comments voicing particular concern about the lack of detail in EPA's pre-prioritization phase. Comments were due March 20.
The institute, council and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, a coalition of more than 450 organizations and businesses, were among the commenters suggesting ways the EPA could flesh out its proposed pre-prioritization phase.
Canada as Model?
“We take the example Canada provided,” DeLeo said.
Between 1999 and 2006 the Canadian government sorted through and categorized the 23,000 chemicals on its inventory, called the Domestic Substances List. That process identified approximately 4,000 chemicals that met criteria to warrant further reviews, which the government has carried out since 2006.
The process is practical, DeLeo said. “They are making decisions; getting things done,” he said.
The EPA isn't compelled by the 2016 TSCA amendments to complete its chemical review within a specific timeline, he said.
But “it would benefit the agency, industry and consumers for EPA to think boldly,” DeLeo said. The cleaning institute's written comments offer ideas to narrow the number of chemicals the EPA would sort to a workable number it could screen.
Other individuals working on behalf of chemical manufacturers weren't convinced patterning the U.S. approach on Canada's is the best strategy.
“I don't see a need for EPA to prioritize all active substances in commerce like Canada or Australia,” Herbert Estreicher, an attorney based in Keller and Heckman LLP's Washington, D.C., office, said.
All EPA needs to do is keep screening enough substances to keep a pipeline of chemicals pumping into risk evaluation, he said.
The three framework rules build a pipeline from the pool of chemicals that are or have been in commerce through a prioritization phase. The chemicals emerging from that phase branch off into a low-priority space where they remain unless new information raises their risk potential or they're pumped into a high priority bin triggering risk evaluations.
If the EPA's evaluations determine a chemical poses unreasonable risks to people or the environment, those chemicals will be regulated or otherwise addressed to prevent those risks.
“All EPA needs do is enough to keep the risk evaluation pipeline full. There are more than enough known candidates to keep EPA busy for decades,” Estreicher said.
More Detail Needed
Sarah Brozena, senior director of regulatory and technical affairs at the American Chemistry Council, told Bloomberg BNA the agency's idea for a pre-prioritization phase might work, but much more detail is needed.
The agency's pre-prioritization process wasn't well-defined and didn't seem to have time limits, she said.
“There's a sense that by and large there will be a large group of chemicals just sitting there,” Brozena said.
The agency didn't specify how its initial “holding” phase would work or how much information would be needed to move past that stage, Sarah Amick, vice president for environment, health, safety and sustainability at the Rubber Manufacturers Association, told Bloomberg BNA.
Companies that purchase chemicals to make goods, such as tires, are concerned the marketplace may deselect chemicals stuck in that hold phase, she said. The ambiguity of being “on hold” could raise concerns, Amick said.
Fishing Expedition?
Brozena said the holding phase could make companies vulnerable to an EPA “fishing expedition” for data before the agency knows how much information may already be available for their chemicals and what it may need.
The Humane Society, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine voiced similar concerns in comments they submitted and a subsequent letter from PETA.
“This ‘pre-prioritization’ step, which our legislators never intended, would produce paralyzing uncertainty in the regulated community,” PETA wrote in a March 30 letter to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt.
EPA's “Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics proposes a screening process that could require chemical manufacturers to conduct extensive toxicity testing—before it even prioritizes chemicals for risk evaluation,” it said.
Data Sources
EPA's process should, instead, focus on gathering existing information, mining databases to get a handle on human and environmental exposures and using automated toxicity tests that provides snapshots of how chemicals affect cells and other biologically active parts of the body, wrote the Humane Society and Gradient, an environmental consulting firm, in joint comments.
The Dow Chemical Co. agreed the EPA's pre-prioritization phase could offer the opportunity for the agency to acquire toxicity and exposure information by extrapolating from data on similar chemicals.
Dow endorsed the chemistry council's comments, which described domestic and foreign sources of chemical data the EPA could tap.
The chemistry council urged the EPA to work with manufacturers, processors, distributors and companies that purchase chemicals to make goods like computers and cars to obtain data voluntarily.
It also listed legal authorities the agency could use to gather existing data.
Brozena said the council aimed to offer solutions rather than criticisms and to suggest a process that would make EPA's criteria, procedures and consequent decisions clear.
Amick, from the Rubber Manufacturers Association, said its members—companies like Bridgestone Americas, Inc.; the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Michelin North America, Inc., and Pirelli Tire North America—already are preparing to submit data to the EPA.
They're identifying the chemicals they use and getting ready to provide the agency data about how they use them, she said.
Supporting Pre-Prioritization
“We strongly support pre-prioritization as a good concept,” Liz Hitchcock, legislative director for Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, told Bloomberg BNA.
Like the cleaning institute, chemistry council and other commenters, the environmental coalition offered ideas to flesh out the concept.
The agency needs to keep a steady flow of chemicals in the pipeline, so it should start by bringing about 60 chemicals into pre-prioritization, Hitchcock said.
The agency should do literature searches, call for data to be voluntarily submitted and use its authority under Section 8 (a) and 8(d) of TSCA to gather existing health and safety data, the coalition's comments said.
These and other suggestions in the coalition's comments should enable the EPA to manage its work at the required pace and keep the pipeline flowing, she said.
The Environmental Defense Fund urged the agency to aggressively use its authorities to secure chemical information it lacks. Otherwise the prioritization process could bias towards data-rich chemicals, its comments said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109361170&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109361170&jd=109361170
-
(ACC Mentioned) Benzene, Styrene Data Sought for Cancer Hazard Review
Apr 14, 2017 | BNA Daily
By Pat Rizzuto
The cancer-causing potential of two mass-produced chemicals, benzene and styrene, will be reviewed by a World Health Organization agency that is soliciting toxicity and exposure data on the compounds.
Both chemicals are produced in billions of pounds annually, because they are fundamental building blocks in the production of other chemicals.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) will be conducting the reviews.
The styrene (CAS No. 100-42-5) review is more likely to attract attention because the chemical's classification as a reasonably anticipated human carcinogen by the U.S. National Toxicology Program in 2011 was vigorously opposed by manufacturers. The IARC, which is part of the World Health Organization, classified styrene as possibly carcinogenic to humans, or a “2B” carcinogen, in 2002.
Benzene (CAS No. 71-43-2) has long been classified by the international agency and the U.S. toxicology program as a known human carcinogen.
The IARC's reviews of these major chemicals comes as some members of Congress investigate the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ funding of the research agency. The American Chemistry Council, an industry trade group, launched a campaign in January to encourage lawmakers to “seek reform” of IARC following the agency's conclusion that the widely used herbicide glyphosate is a probable carcinogen. Monsanto Co.'s popular Roundup weedkiller contains glyphosate.
The BASF Corp., Dow Chemical Co., Lyondell Chemical Co. and Shell Chemical LP produced styrene in or imported it into the U.S. in 2011, the most recent year for which the Environmental Protection Agency provides such data. All four companies also are listed as producers under the European Union's REACH (registration, evaluation, authorization and restriction of chemicals) regulation.
Dow, Lyondell and Shell also are listed under REACH as making benzene, and they produced it in or imported it into the U.S. in 2011.
Upcoming Deadlines
IARC is accepting recommendations through July 21 for experts who could serve on its panel that will review styrene and two other smaller production volume chemicals: styrene-7,8-oxide (CAS No. 96-09-3) and quinoline (CAS No. 91-22-5).
Companies, environmental health and other organizations wishing to observe the styrene review must request observer status by Nov. 24.
Toxicity, exposure and other data for all three chemicals will be accepted through Feb. 16, 2018, so it is available to for the review on March 20 to 27, 2018, in Lyon, France.
IARC is no longer accepting nominations for experts who could serve on its benzene review panel, but organizations wanting to attend the meeting can request observer status by May 15.
Toxicity, exposure and other data for benzene may be submitted through Sept. 1.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109361183&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109361183&jd=109361183
-
(ACC Mentioned) Environmentalists, Labor Seek to Intervene in Industry RMP Rule Suit
Apr 14, 2017 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists, labor and community groups are seeking to intervene in industry groups' stayed lawsuits challenging EPA's facility accident prevention rule, arguing they will be harmed by weakening or vacating the rule and that the agency is unlikely to adequately represent their interests given Administrator Scott Pruitt's past opposition.
“Potential inadequacy of representation is particularly clear where, as here, there has been an Administration change in the leadership of the agency defendant,” environmentalists and other public interest groups say in their April 12 motion to intervene.
“Further, it is hard to see how such potential inadequacy could not exist when, as is true here, a previous opponent of an agency action when it was under development becomes the head of the agency charged with defending that very action,” says the motion, which was filed by groups including California Communities Against Air Toxics and the Union of Concerned Scientists.
The groups are seeking to intervene in American Chemistry Council et al., v. EPA et al., a suit filed by multiple groups in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to block the agency's Jan. 13 final rule overhauling its Risk Management Plan (RMP) facility safety rule.
The rule strengthens requirements for facility audits, hazard analysis and data disclosure but the petitioners say the rule is costly and unnecessary.
Others have also raised concerns. Last summer, Pruitt, who was then Oklahoma's attorney general, led a letter from state officials arguing that proposed RMP requirements for disclosure of facility data to emergency planners and the public would help terrorists target industrial facilities.
The pending suit is one of a number of means industry is pursuing to repeal the rule.In addition to the suit, industry groups successfully petitioned EPA to reconsider the rule.
Pruitt March 13 granted the industry request for EPA to reconsider the RMP rule, and backed industry arguments that the Obama EPA had not adequately vetted all factors affecting the final rule. Pruitt also delayed the rule's effective date -- from March 21 to June 19 -- to allow time to reconsider the policy, and has since proposed a further delay -- until Feb. 19, 2019.
After Pruitt agreed to reconsider the rule, the court granted an industry request to hold the case in abeyance pending EPA's reconsideration.
Industry groups are also pushing lawmakers to approve Congressional Review Act disapproval resolutions to repeal the rule, though it is unclear whether those will advance before a statutory deadline in the coming weeks.
But the public interest and labor groups are now seeking to intervene in the stayed litigation, fearing the agency will roll the rule back.
In its filings, labor groups, including United Steelworkers (USW) and AFL-CIO, argue the RMP update protects workers and residents near industrial facilities and that the Trump EPA is unlikely to adequately defend the rule.
“USW has a legally protected interest in defending the Rule, which establishes prevention and compliance requirements, chemical emergency preparedness measures, and community access to information designed to protect USW’s members and their families,” labor groups say. “USW seeks to intervene to oppose Petitioners’ attempt to weaken, delay or vacate this Rule.”
Both sets of prospective intervenors also contend that the Trump administration's repeated delays of the rule and Pruitt's past opposition to the update suggest that the agency is unlikely to protect the workers' and community groups' interest in the litigation.
“Weakening, delaying, or vacating provisions of the Rule would (i) lessen the safeguards in place to protect USW’s members and their families, (ii) remove important procedural steps certain facilities must take under the Rule to strengthen protections from chemical disasters, and (iii) deny USW and its members, and the first-responders who protect them, access to essential safety and emergency response information,” the labor groups argue.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/environmentalists-labor-seek-intervene-industry-rmp-rule-suit
-
EPA to Delay Compliance Deadlines for Power Plant Effluent Limits
Apr 14, 2017 | BNA Daily
By Amena H. Saiyid
Power plants may be able to hold off on putting in controls to meet revised discharge limits for toxic pollutants if the EPA decides to remand part of the new requirements.
The Environmental Protection Agency said it will issue a separate rulemaking to stay deadlines for the effluent limits for about 1,080 mostly coal-fired power plants following its plan to reconsider and potentially remand parts of the rule, according to an April 12 notice signed by Administrator Scott Pruitt.
The agency's plan to put the deadlines on hold responds to power industry petitions urging the EPA to take a second look at the the 2015 effluent limitations guidelines rule (RIN:2040-AF14) that would regulate discharges of arsenic, selenium, nitrates, mercury, zinc and other pollutants. Pruitt agreed to the industry petitions a day before traveling to a coal mining plant owned by Consol Energy in Pennsylvania, where he said the “regulatory assault is over” on the fossil fuel industry.
The Utility Water Act Group, the Southwestern Electric Power Co, a subsidiary of American Electric Power, and Union Electric Co., an Ameren Corp. subsidiary, petitioned the EPA March 24, while the Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy petitioned the agency April 5 to reconsider the rule's impacts that would adversely affect jobs. These groups also asked the EPA to suspend the compliance deadlines that range between 2018 and 2023 and stay the rule, while the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans weighs multiple challenges from the electric power industry (SW. Elec. Power Co. v. EPA, 5th Cir., No. 15-60821, 11/20/15).
Power plants are responsible for 30 percent of all industrial discharges of toxic pollutants into the surface waters, according to an EPA factsheet. The 2015 rule would require all owners and operators of power plants to invest significant capital into building and designing pollution controls and associated infrastructure for each plant to comply with the rule. The EPA estimated these costs at $480 million, but engineers say the costs would be much higher.
Stay and Reconsider
The EPA responded April 12 that it would stay the 2015 effluent limits rule for 120 days, as it reconsiders the petition based on new data the power industry claims it has on wastewater treatment of discharges arising from burning sub-bituminous and lignite coals.
The agency also said it will file a motion requesting the Fifth Circuit to pause the legal proceedings until it finishes reconsidering the rule “after which it will inform the Court of any portions of the Rule for which it seeks a remand so that it can conduct further rulemaking.”
An American Electric Power spokeswoman said the company was supportive of EPA's decision to reconsider the rule.
“It is appropriate to delay the compliance schedules until the EPA determines whether they will remand the rule,” AEP spokeswoman Tammy Ridout told Bloomberg BNA in an April 13 email. “We hope the outcome will strike a better balance between environmental protection and the cost to our customers.”
The Waterkeeper Alliance, the Environmental Integrity Project and the Sierra Club have largely supported the 2015 rule, except for the provision exempting wastewater generated prior to Jan. 1, 2018. The groups are represented by Earthjustice and Sierra Club attorneys.
The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg, founder of Bloomberg L.P., and Bloomberg BNA is an affiliate of Bloomberg L.P.
Oppose ‘Any Stay’
“We will oppose any stay of litigation,” Earthjustice attorney Thomas Cmar told Bloomberg BNA April 13.
Cmar reiterated that the effluent limits for the power sector that the EPA finally revised in 2015 were 30 years overdue and strongly supported by a technical record.
The industry has “offered no evidence that calls into question EPA's original findings,” Cmar said, as he termed the stay “purely a political move by the new administration.”
The environmental groups are represented by Thomas Cmar and Matthew Gerhart, attorneys with the nonprofit legal firm Earthjustice, as well as Casey Roberts and Joshua Smith with Sierra Club.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109361193&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109361193&jd=109361193
-
As Oil and Gas Industry Goes Big in the Permian, Efforts to Tackle Emissions Will Be Telling
Apr 13, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jon Goldstein and Ben Ratner
Much ink has been spilled recently about big new oil and gas investments in the Permian Basin across West Texas and Southeastern New Mexico. What some are dubbing “Permania” includes a more than $6 billion investment by ExxonMobil in New Mexico acreage and an almost $3 billion one by Noble Energy across the border in Texas, among others. But a large question remains: will these types of big bets also come with the needed investments to limit methane emissions?
It’s not just an academic question. The answer will go a long way toward revealing if industry actors plan to operate in a way that serves the best interest of local communities and taxpayers. Unfortunately, New Mexico is currently the worst in the nation for waste of natural gas resources from federal lands (such as those that are found in large parts of the state’s Permian Basin). Largely avoidable venting, flaring and leaks of natural gas from these sites also puts a big hole in taxpayers’ wallets, robbing New Mexico taxpayers of $100 million worth of their natural gas resources every year and depriving the state budget of millions more in royalty revenue that could be invested in urgent state needs like education.
Meanwhile, at least one estimate shows a doubling of methane emissions in recent years on 2.1 million acres of Texas’ Permian Basin lands managed by the University of Texas, and students and faculty are calling for needed reductions. There’s good reason to believe that the rest of the Texas Permian has seen similar increases in methane emissions.
The answer to this million dollar waste question will also reveal if these large oil and gas companies plan to “walk the talk” on their commitments to reduce emissions. Methane is the primary component of natural gas and a potent greenhouse gas, more than 80 times more potent pound for pound than carbon dioxide in the short term.
For instance, Darren Woods the new Chairman and CEO of oil giant ExxonMobil recently stated in his first blog as CEO: “I believe, and my company believes, that climate risks warrant action and it’s going to take all of us – business, governments and consumers – to make meaningful progress.” If Exxon invests $6.6 billion in New Mexico drilling sites (more than the entire U.S. Environmental Protection Agency annual budget proposed by President Trump for comparison) but doesn’t make the necessary investments to capture fugitive methane emissions, these words will ring hollow. Conversely, by choosing to set a positive example through implementing methane controls, increasing transparency, and engaging responsibly on methane policy development, Exxon could chart a positive path and set an example worth following.
This is because scientists estimate that methane emissions are already responsible for roughly one quarter of the warming we are experiencing today, and the oil and gas industry is the largest source of industrial methane emissions in the U.S. What’s more, addressing methane pollution will also help alleviate local air quality concerns such as in Eddy County, New Mexico’s number one oil producer and recipient of a failing grade for ozone smog pollution from the American Lung Association.
The “layer cake” of oil and gas resources beneath New Mexico and West Texas may be an energy bounty, but in order for the people of these states to reap the full benefit (and minimize the risks to their health and climate) these companies will have to invest in leading technologies to capture methane waste and pollution. Neighboring states like Colorado have put state methane rules in place for just this reason and their economies have benefited as taxpayer revenue goes up while new methane mitigation small businesses thrive and entrepreneurs invent the next generation of solutions. These states should do the same and oil and gas companies can help show leadership by standing up and advocating for sensible methane policies, just as Noble Energy did with success in Colorado.
As Exxon’s Mr. Woods wrote, “by taking advantage of human ingenuity, embracing free markets and enacting sound government policies, we can meet the world’s energy needs and meet all of our shared aspirations in an environmentally and socially responsible way.” We could not agree more. As all eyes shift to the Permian, there is an opportunity – and an obligation – to put the market to work reducing emissions and to support sound methane emission government policies to set a level playing field and provide an assurance to the public that all companies are operating responsibly.
That’s the only way Texans and New Mexicans will be able to have their cake and eat it too during the next anticipated development boom. And it’s the only way that companies from Exxon and Noble to smaller drillers can address the global concern that methane emissions leaks away the credibility of natural gas in the transition to a low carbon energy economy.
http://blogs.edf.org/texascleanairmatters/2017/04/13/as-oil-and-gas-industry-goes-big-in-the-permian-efforts-to-tackle-emissions-will-be-telling/
-
Perry Hails CCS at Ribbon-Cutting for Texas Project
Apr 13, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Christa Marshall
Energy Secretary Rick Perry called carbon capture technology "groundbreaking" today and said President Trump wants the United States to become "energy dominant."
Perry had previously said little as Department of Energy chief about carbon capture and sequestration, and the administration's support for CCS technology has been in doubt since Trump's "skinny budget" proposed slashing the department's main arm for funding it and the president issued an executive order undoing other climate policies.
Speaking at NRG Energy Inc.'s Petra Nova project in Texas, the world's largest retrofit of a coal-fired power plant with CCS, Perry said the "solutions to many of the energy challenges we're wrestling with lie with projects like Petra Nova."
The former Texas governor didn't mention climate change or the proposed budget cuts, but his remarks signaled that the administration sees CCS as providing a future for coal. The technology captures and stores man-made carbon dioxide emissions underground.
Petra Nova "is a tremendous example of how investments in clean technology can also lead to increased development of conventional sources. It shows we don't have to pit the environment against the economy. We can ... and will ... be good stewards to both," Perry said, according to a transcript.
The administration is committed to developing cutting-edge energy technologies that could unleash America's full energy potential in all forms, he added.
"The president has made it very clear to me that he does not want the United States to be energy independent ... he wants us to be energy dominant," Perry said.
He also praised Trump's efforts to undertake a thorough review of energy policies, saying the administration is addressing "the regulatory mess we inherited."
"In a short amount of time, [Trump] has taken harmful regulations that prioritized a political agenda over the realistic needs of base load generation," Perry said.
The administration doesn't want to "trim around the edge of problems" but "implement a complete overhaul with real solutions," he said.
Perry said his primary message to Group of Seven energy ministers at a meeting this month was a dual one of curtailing regulations and supporting energy policies "that are smart and designed for the innovative era."
Perry spoke today at a ribbon-cutting for Petra Nova, which became operational at the end of 2016. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) and NRG Energy CEO Mauricio Gutierrez also attended the event, where Perry assisted in turning a CO2 pipe valve.
Petra Nova is the first U.S. coal generator to capture CO2 at scale and is a joint venture between NRG and JX Nippon Oil & Gas Exploration Corp., with each contributing approximately $300 million. DOE provided about $190 million (Energywire, Jan. 10).
The project removes more than 90 percent of the CO2 from a 240-megawatt slipstream. The 1.6 million tons of annually captured greenhouse gas will then be piped to Hilcorp Energy Co.'s West Ranch Oil Field for use in oil recovery.
NRG announced today that the project has delivered more than 300,000 tons of carbon dioxide to the oil field, after being on time and on budget.
Perry's visit comes after Trump issued an executive order unraveling climate regulations last month and released a budget blueprint that calls for cuts at DOE's Office of Fossil Energy, which funds much of the federal government's CCS research. Additionally, a proposed budget for the rest of fiscal 2017 would cut the office by about $300 million, or about half its budget (Greenwire, March 28).
Trump has touted "clean coal" repeatedly but hasn't outlined his specific views on policies and programs supporting CCS.
Petra Nova was supported by DOE's Clean Coal Power Initiative and received support from the National Energy Technology Laboratory, which could face budget cuts.
Perry was a longtime supporter of CCS before taking the helm at DOE. Petra Nova was one of the few projects he mentioned during an opening statement at his confirmation hearing, and he signed a bill as governor of Texas that backed "clean energy projects" trapping and storing emissions.
He also supported a multimillion-dollar fund in Texas to support carbon capture technology and originally pushed for FutureGen, a planned low-emissions coal plant that was later canceled. The plant was to be located in Texas.
Perry is expected to speak next week at the National Coal Council spring meeting, where carbon capture technology will be a focus.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/04/13/stories/1060053081
-
Ohio Attracts Another NatGas-Fired Power Project, Potentially More Industry
Apr 14, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Yet another developer is at work to build a natural gas-fired power plant in Appalachia, this time in Ohio's Monroe County on a rust belt site that was purchased out of bankruptcy with a vision to revitalize it for Utica Shale-related growth.
A subsidiary of Fortress Transportation and Infrastructure Investors LLC (FTAI) plans to file for a key air quality permit with state regulators this month to build a 485 MW combined-cycle facility at the Center Port Terminal in Hannibal. It's the latest downstream development in a sleepy area that's been lifted by Utica production.
At a site miles up the Ohio River in Belmont County, PTT Global Chemical pcl is considering building a multi-billion dollar ethane cracker. "The idea of a cracker right up the river -- that completely changes the game in the region," said Mark Barry, a project development executive with FTAI subsidiary Ohio River Partners Shareholders LLC.
Existing rail lines, a port and transmission lines were a few of the things that attracted FTAI to the site, he said. Barry said FTAI is "methodical." An affiliate of Fortress Investment Group LLC, it was established as a cash vehicle to generate long-term returns through transportation and infrastructure assets. FTAI went public in 2015 and has a number of port and intermodal projects across the United States.
The company and the power plant it intends to build are exactly what Eric Spirtas had hoped for. He's the president of Hannibal Development Partners LLC, which purchased the site for $25 million in 2014 from bankrupt Ormet Corp. Ormet operated an aluminum smelting plant for years at the site but was forced to close it in 2013 after facing low aluminum prices and climbing electricity rates -- putting more than 1,000 people out of work at the time.
Center Port Terminal is now home to about 10 tenants, Spirtas said. They handle multiple clients working throughout the Utica and Marcellus shales. Transloading, equipment staging and personnel management operations take place daily at the site. Hannibal Development initially marketed the property as a central oilfield service terminal, but later looked at the bigger picture to try and attract a power plant or large manufacturer. Even after FTAI's decision, there's room for more at the 1,700-acre site.
"We're also looking at the long-term. We're talking to natural gas liquids (NGL), and gas-to-liquids (GTL) companies, refineries, crackers; and now we have the power plant developer," Spirtas told NGI's Shale Daily. "This site is perfect for long-term operators. Once you have the power plant, you have a position where satellite companies here, down the road, in the area can jump in and enjoy that megawattage."
Barry added that FTAI plans to sell power into the PJM Interconnection marketplace, noting that selling directly to an adjacent business is complicated by regulatory, contractual and physical considerations. The company is, however, studying the option, which depends on how the project and site develop.
In the late 1950s, Ormet built two-coal fired plants to power its facility that were supplied by a nearby coal mine, demonstrating how different the region's economy once was. American Electric Power Co. later bought the plant, built a third unit and was eventually forced to close it without a dedicated facility to supply.
Development at the Center Port Terminal is exactly what local officials had hoped for. Private and public sector economic development organizations across the Appalachian Basin have stepped up to market old brownfields that once served as coal-fired plants or booming steel operations. Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia have even signed a cooperative agreement to create policies that promote the region's prolific shale plays.
"We're actively working on fuel supply. Being on top of two basins is really a good thing," Barry said of the Marcellus and Utica. "There are pipelines in the area. There's a range of options that we're doing the economic evaluation on now and receiving proposals from folks at different places on the value chain...We're bullish on industrial development in the area and in terms of what seems to already be happening."
The site is near the Clarington hub and both Columbia Gas Transmission and Dominion Transmission are nearby. FTAI has already hired Black & Veatch as the project engineer, and it has enlisted Tetra Tech Inc. as the project's regulatory consultant. Third parties would be contracted to operate and manage the facility.
Barry said the company estimates that the plant would cost between $500 million and $600 million. The target in-service date is 2020.
FTAI joins a growing list of developers that have flocked to the region to take advantage of low-cost natural gas and build power plants. In Ohio, there are 10 other projects that have either been proposed or that are under construction. Roughly double that have been proposed or are being built in Pennsylvania, while developers currently hope to advance three gas-fired facilities in West Virginia.
While questions remain about how many of those facilities ultimately will be built or how viable they'll remain in the future in the face of stiff competition from other power sources, the development is good for the region, Spirtas said.
"Power begets industry," he said. "And any one of those NGL, GTL, refineries or crackers would need power, would need energy, would need steam. All of those things are being created.”
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/110118-ohio-attracts-another-natgas-fired-power-project-potentially-more-industry
-
Fracking Chemical Disclosure Requirement Approved in Montana
Apr 14, 2017 | BNA Daily
By Tripp Baltz
Drillers would be required to disclose the chemicals they use in hydraulic fracturing under a bill approved by the Montana Legislature.
The state Senate on April 13 approved House amendments to the measure 34-16 and forwarded it to Gov. Steve Bullock (D). The bill (S.B. 299) requires public disclosure of fluids used in fracking and other oil and gas operations on the FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry website.
The bill directs the Montana Board of Oil and Gas to conduct a rulemaking establishing the chemical information to be disclosed and to create a process whereby well owners, oil and gas operators, and field companies can exempt trade secrets from the disclosure process, Jim Halvorson, administrator of the board, told Bloomberg BNA April 13.
Not Enough, Groups Say
Although environmentalists are pleased the bill requires disclosure, the legislation did not go far enough, Derf Johnson, clean water program director for the Montana Environmental Information Center, told Bloomberg BNA April 13. “We like part of the bill, but we're concerned it will be used by the industry to pre-empt a better rule.”
The rules envisioned by the bill would not require companies to disclose the specific fracking chemicals they are using prior to drilling, he said, depriving landowners of the opportunity to conduct baseline water sampling.
“Landowners need to be able to test to see what the water quality is before and after fracking,” he said. Baseline testing is required by Wyoming rules, which are touted as the model for Montana, he said.
It was unknown whether Bullock would sign or veto the bill, but Democrats oppose the bill, and the “no” votes against it in the House and Senate are sufficient to sustain a veto, Johnson said.
A spokeswoman for Bullock did not return calls seeking comment.
Groups’ Petition Denied
The Montana Environmental Information Center, the Natural Resources Defense Council and a handful of property owners petitioned the board in July 2016 to close the gaps in existing disclosure rules and ensure that Montana residents living near drilling operations “have access to chemical information they need to safeguard their property rights, health, and environment.”
Fracking involves the high-pressure injection of water, sand and chemicals into tight shale formations deep underground to release natural gas and oil that would otherwise be uneconomical to produce. Environmentalists say the practice threatens groundwater resources and air quality, while the industry maintains it is safe.
Specifically, the petition requested state rules be developed not only to require operators to disclose specific chemical information before fracking occurs but to justify their trade secret claims. On Sept. 23, 2016, the board denied the petition in a one-page decision. The groups sued in the Montana District Court in January Montana Environmental Information Center, Mont. Dist. Ct., CDV 2017-50, 1/13/17).
The groups agreed to push back the timeline for the lawsuit while the bill was pending. Johnson said they had not decided what to do now that the bill has emerged from the legislature without requiring baseline testing, one of their “line in the sand” demands.
“Getting the chemical information after they have already started fracking is not very helpful to landowners,” Katherine O'Brien, an attorney in Bozeman, Mont., for Earthjustice, said. Earthjustice represents the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
Johnson said the sponsor of the bill, Sen. Tom Richmond (R), is a former administrator of the Montana Board of Oil and Gas and has been “very favorable to the industry.” Richmond did not return Bloomberg BNA's calls for comment.
Apply for Exemption
Halvorson said he could not comment on the pending litigation. He said companies seeking to use the trade secret exemption from disclosure would have to apply to the board for permission to do so, as they do in Wyoming.
Wyoming's trade secret rules were tightened up after a January 2015 settlement of a lawsuit by environmental groups charging that the state was “too liberal” in granting exemptions from disclosure, O'Brien said. The stricter rules established new criteria for operators to meet when attempting to protect proprietary chemical information from public release (Powder River Basin Resource Council, D. Wyo., No. 94650-C, 1/14/15).
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109361188&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109361188&jd=109361188
-
Cove Point Asks DOE for Commissioning LNG Cargo Authorization
Apr 14, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
Dominion Cove Point (DCP) has asked the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for authorization to begin exporting commissioning cargos from its liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facilities on the Chesapeake Bay in Lusby, MD.
According to the company’s website, the export project was 84% complete last month and is expected to enter service late this year. DCP asked DOE for short-term blanket authorization to export commissioning volumes that would be sourced from domestically produced natural gas and/or from LNG previously imported by vessel at the Cove Point LNG terminal from foreign sources.
“DCP commits that the commissioning volumes to be exported under the requested authorization, when added to any volumes exported under DCP's long-term export authorizations, will not exceed 250 Bcf in any annual (12 consecutive month) period, so that the quantity exported in any year shall not exceed the level previously authorized by DOE…” the company told the regulator, according to a notice in the Federal Register.
The request is now open for a 30-day public comment period.
“All of the major equipment has been set in place and now the focus is on completing the installation of piping, cable trays, cables and cable terminations,” DCP said in a March project update on its website. A spokesman told NGIThursday that no additional information was available about terminal progress or the commissioning cargo authorization request at DOE.
The liquefaction project’s marketed capacity is fully subscribed under 20-year service agreements. Pacific Summit Energy LLC, a U.S. affiliate of Japan’s Sumitomo Corp.; and GAIL Global (USA) LNG LLC, a U.S. affiliate of GAIL (India) Ltd., each have contracted for half of the marketed capacity. Sumitomo has said it has agreements to serve Tokyo Gas Co. and Kansai Electric Power Co. Inc.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/110120-cove-point-asks-doe-for-commissioning-lng-cargo-authorization
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Steel Plant in Indiana Spills Contaminated Wastewater into Lake Michigan
Apr 14, 2017 | World Socialist Website
By Benjamin Mateus
On Tuesday, April 11, US Steel’s plant in Portage, Indiana, reported a spill of wastewater into the Burns Waterway just 100 yards from Lake Michigan. The Environmental Protection Agency confirmed that the wastewater contained hexavalent chromium, a known carcinogen.
Other agencies alerted of the leak on Tuesday morning included the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM), National Park Services (NPS), the Coast Guard, and the Porter County Sheriff.
It is not clear for how long the spill occurred or how much wastewater spilled. Initial reports claim that the cause for the spill was a failed expansion in the rinse water pipe used to treat strip steel after electroplating. US Steel reported that it shut down all production processes, isolated the affected piping for repairs, and added sodium trithiocarbonate to the wastewater to convert and aid in removing the toxic compound.
Indiana American Water, which provides drinking water in northwestern Indiana, shut down its Ogden Dunes water-processing facility, which has an intake adjacent to Burns Waterway, and is using water reserves from Gary, Indiana, until further notice. NPS closed three local beaches on Tuesday and a fourth one on Wednesday citing precautions to protect residents in a three-mile perimeter from the spill.
Save the Dunes Executive Director Natalie Johnson questioned a delay in alerting the community, which came many hours after the spill occurred through the report first issued by the NPS on the beach closures. “The State of Indiana’s emergency spill response actions and associated responsibilities are quite lax. While the law requires communication with the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) within two hours of a spill’s discovery, it is not clear how quickly residents and property owners downstream should be reached,” Johnson noted in a statement.
The Chicago Tribune reported Tuesday evening that low levels of hexavalent chromium were detected in the Burns Waterway, but none were detected in Lake Michigan. Also, initial tests at the Indiana American Water intake showed chemical levels were slightly above the detection limit, though repeat testing suggested levels had dissipated below detection limits.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stated that no further spill is occurring, though it will collect sediment samples to determine if residual chemicals have settled.
Hexavalent chromium, made infamous by the film Erin Brockovich, is a carcinogen used in many industrial process such as textile dyes, wood preservation and anti-corrosion products. It can also be produced in welding on stainless steel or melting chromium. The high temperatures involved in the process result in oxidation that converts the chromium to the hexavalent state.
Current EPA maximum containment level (MCL) is 100 parts per billion (ppb) in drinking water. This level was set in 1991 based on potential for adverse dermatologic effects from long-term exposure.
However, more-recent reports have consistently demonstrated that chromium was associated with various health issues. Animal studies showed that chronic oral exposure to hexavalent chromium in rats produced oral and gastro-intestinal tumors.
A recent epidemiologic study noted statistically elevated mortality due to primary liver cancer, genitourinary organs in women, and kidney and lung cancer. Additionally, elevated levels of breast, oral, stomach, and prostate cancer and leukemia were present in the affected population in Greece where chronic industrial wastewater pollutes the local rivers.
However, the EPA is still waiting on the release of a final human health assessment to begin the process of adjusting its policy on chromium levels in drinking water; this assessment is most likely stalled due to chemical industry challenges, such as from the American Chemistry Council, which contends tat studies “show no adverse health effects” at the current 100-ppb limit.
However, the influential California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment concluded that hexavalent chromium is a dangerously hazardous compound. It recommended that only a health goal of 0.02 ppb or less in tap water would pose sufficient risk reduction in developing cancer over a lifetime of consumption.
The Environmental Working Group, a non-profit organization that specializes in research and advocacy in areas of toxic chemicals and human health, indicates that more than 200 million citizens in all 50 states drink water contaminated with the compound.
Chicago drinking water contains levels of hexavalent chromium at 0.23 ppb, which are 11 times higher than the more stringently recommended maximum contaminant level. The current controversial regulatory limit of 10 ppb was based on “other” considerations including the added cost of water treatment.
There are more than 12 million people living along the shores of Lake Michigan predominately in the Chicago and Milwaukee metropolitan areas. The economies of many of the communities on the shore are supported by tourism and recreational activities, while the lake serves as the primary source of drinking water for most residents.
The southern tip of the lake near Gary where the latest spill occurred is extensively industrialized and contaminated, and industrial mishaps have been quite common.
Currently, three industrial plants dominate the region—ArcelorMittal, US Steel Gary Works-Midwest plant and the Northern Indiana Public Services Baily coal-fired power plant. US Steel’s Gary Works is considered the largest polluter on the Great Lakes. According to federal records, the Portage plant is one of six facilities on the Southern shore of Lake Michigan that legally released a combined 1,696 pounds of the metal during 2015.
The Political Economy Research Institute ranked US Steel as the eighth worst corporate producer of air pollution in the US with a long history of environmental contamination. The company released more than 2 million pounds of toxins in 2008, chiefly ammonia, hydrochloric acid, ethylene, zinc, methanol, and benzene, but including manganese, cyanide and chromium compounds.
In 1993, the EPA issued an order to US Steel to clean up a site in Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, on the Delaware River where the soil was contaminated with arsenic, lead and other heavy metals. The ground water at the site was found to be polluted with carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
US Steel’s facility in Gary has been repeatedly charged with dumping polluted wastewater into Lake Michigan and the Grand Calumet River. In 1998, it agreed to a $30 million settlement to clean up contaminated sediments from a five-mile stretch of the river.
In 2005, the EPA and US Department of Justice reached a settlement requiring US Steel to pay almost $400,000 in fines and reparations for illegally releasing pollutants into Ohio waterways. And in November 2016, US Steel agreed to pay a $2.2 million fine and clean up pollution in Indiana, Michigan and Illinois.
However, with revenue in 2015 of $11.574 billion, such fines are a mere slap on the wrist for US Steel and are considered by corporations as part of the cost of doing business.
Despite persistent concerns over pollutants in drinking water and the need for diligent oversight, the Trump administration is proposing to eliminate the EPA office working on hexavalent chromium standards in drinking water and drastically reduce funding for scientific studies of toxic chemicals and the enforcement of environmental laws.
Furthermore, Trump’s budget proposes to cut $300 million per year from the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, which is used in part to address current and past damages caused by US Steel and other industrial polluters in northwest Indiana.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/04/14/usst-a14.html
-
Chicago Agency Finds High Level of Spilled Chemical in Lake
Apr 13, 2017 | Washington Post
By Associated Press
A water sample from Lake Michigan near a wastewater spill at a U.S. Steel plant in Indiana contained an elevated level of a potentially carcinogenic chemical but well below federal safety standards, the Chicago Department of Water Management said Thursday.
A sample containing 2 parts per billion of hexavalent chromium was taken in the lake about a mile north of the spill in Portage, Indiana, about 30 miles east of Chicago, the agency said.
That’s “a level higher than would be expected to be found in raw lake water,” the department said in a news release, but it’s just a fraction of the Environmental Protection Agency’s drinking water standard of 100 parts per billion for all forms of chromium.
A second sample taken nearby contained 1.6 parts per billion of hexavalent chromium, but 10 other samples taken in the same general area contained levels no higher than 0.21 parts per billion, agency data showed.
The EPA expects to start receiving results Friday from about 200 water samples it has collected following the Tuesday spill, spokeswoman Rachel Bassler said.
“Preliminary data suggests that hexavalent chromium from the spill is not present near drinking water intakes,” Bassler said.
The EPA has said hexavalent chromium — a toxic byproduct of industrial processes — might be carcinogenic if ingested. The toxic heavy metal is used in a variety of industrial processes, including steelmaking and corrosion prevention, and as a pigment in dyes, paints and inks. It’s also found in ash from coal-fired power plants.
A case involving the chemical was made famous by the 2000 film “Erin Brockovich,” which was based on a utility’s disposal of water laced with hexavalent chromium in unlined ponds near Hinkley, California. That disposal method polluted drinking water wells and resulted in a $333 million settlement.
U.S. Steel has said its release of the chemical was stopped at the source. It’s not known yet how much was spilled, Bassler said.
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel condemned the company’s “careless conduct.”
“U.S. Steel must immediately explain how they allowed a dangerous chemical into a Lake Michigan tributary where it could harm millions of people in Indiana and Illinois, and what they are doing to ensure this never happens again,” Emanuel said in a statement Thursday.
U.S. Steel issued a statement Thursday evening saying it’s identified the source of Tuesday’s spill and “has made the necessary repairs.”
“We are reviewing a potential restart plan to best serve our customers, employees and the community,” the company said.
U.S. Steel previously said that an expansion joint failed in a pipe, allowing wastewater to flow into the wrong treatment plant at the Portage complex. That wastewater eventually flowed into the Burns Waterway, a lake tributary, at a point about 100 yards from Lake Michigan.
A water utility stopped drawing water from the lake and three beaches at Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore and one in adjacent Ogden Dunes have been closed as a precaution.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/chicago-agency-finds-high-level-of-spilled-chemical-in-lake/2017/04/13/713f2186-20a8-11e7-bb59-a74ccaf1d02f_story.html?utm_term=.db5c033b4f7c
-
Chemical Safety Board Shutdown Plan Left Officials ‘Shocked’
Apr 14, 2017 | BNA Daily
By Sam Pearson
Called to a meeting with the White House Office of Management and Budget March 15, Chemical Safety Board leaders came prepared to explain how the agency could trim its $11 million budget in the upcoming fiscal year.
What they learned there left board members “shocked,” CSB Chairperson Vanessa Sutherland said at a business meeting April 13. The White House wanted to shut down the agency instead.
OMB made it official by including the move to stop funding CSB and 18 other independent agencies and public corporations in a “skinny budget” published the next day.
“It is a truly impactful body of work we have done,” Sutherland said, “and it would be a shame if we didn't continue.”
CSB leaders, who have said they had little interaction with the Trump administration's presidential transition team, also say the agency plans to keep working just as before to finish reports, issue recommendations and send investigators to new incidents as needed. The board has also heard from commenters from community organizations in various regions of the country wanting tips on how to pressure industrial facility operators and lobby congressional appropriators.
Industry officials, public interest groups and others have expressed confusion over the proposed closure of CSB in the past month. The White House “skinny budget” does not explain the reason for the decision.
Board Member Rick Engler said the board was also in the dark.
“We haven't been told exactly why the CSB does not perform a necessary function,” Engler said.
He added he assumes the White House believes CSB is “duplicative” of other agencies, but that is a mistaken belief. Once CSB started operating in 1998, its investigations were more comprehensive than past attempts by the Environmental Protection Agency and Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Engler said.
The board has been in touch with congressional committees to “express the value of what we do, our work, and to provide more context about our budget,” Sutherland said.
Sutherland said CSB intends to submit a budget request to Congress later this year “that we think would be able to allow us to operate effectively in [fiscal year 2018] to carry out the mission.”
Under CSB's authorizing legislation, the agency is permitted to send a budget request to Congress without the approval of OMB—latitude most federal agencies lack.
Multiple Investigations Near Close
Despite the threat of shutting down, the CSB plans to release this spring its finding from several pending investigations, Sutherland said.
The agency will release a series of final reports in the next few months at local press conferences:
• April 20 on an AirGas nitrous oxide manufacturing facility in Pensacola, Fla.
• May 3 on a former Exxon Mobil refinery in Torrance, Calif., where an explosion occurred in February 2015, at a press conference in Torrance
• In late May on the Delaware City Refining Co. refinery in Delaware City, Del., at a press conference in the area
Completing the projects will leave CSB with seven other pending investigations:
• April 2017: Loy-Lange Box Co. explosion
• February 2017: Packaging Corporation of America welding explosion
• November 2016: ExxonMobil Corp. Baton Rouge, La. chemical release and fire
• October 2016: MGPI Processing Inc. Atchison, Kan. chemical release
• August 2016: Sunoco Logistics Partners Nederland, Texas terminal facility fire
• June 2016: Enterprise Pascagoula Gas Plant Pascagoula, Miss., explosion and fire
• November 2014: DuPont LaPorte facility, LaPorte, Texas, chemical release
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109361196&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109361196&jd=109361196
-
Unions Set to Defend Chemical Safety Plant Rule
Apr 14, 2017 | BNA Daily
By Marissa Horn
Unions say they are willing to fight for the EPA's chemical safety rule in court if the Trump administration won't.
The AFL-CIO and other worker safety groups jointly filed a motion April 12 to intervene in a lawsuit filed by fossil fuel groups last month, which asked the Environmental Protection Agency to consider delaying new chemical facility regulations (Amer. Chemistry Council v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 17-1085, 4/12/17).
The delay would move the effective date of the final rule (RIN:2050-AG82) to Feb. 19, 2019, leaving companies nearly two years to avoid compliance.
Already, the rule had been delayed 90 days from March 21 to June 19.
In a statement late last month, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said the agency wants “to prevent regulation created for the sake of regulation by the previous administration.”
Pruitt had opposed the rule as attorney general of Oklahoma, listing his concerns for “bad actors” and national security in a letter to former agency Administrator Gina McCarthy in 2016.
“The safety of these manufacturing, processing and storage facilities should be a priority for us all, but safety encompasses more than preventing accidental releases of chemicals,” Pruitt wrote in the letter. “It also encompasses preventing intentional releases caused by bad actors seeking to harm our citizens.”
The rule also could be killed if Congress passes a joint resolution to overturn it under the Congressional Review Act, a procedure that lets legislators block the rule using a simple majority vote.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109361192&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109361192&jd=109361192
-
PHMSA Leadership Void Puts 'Mega Rule' in Limbo
Apr 14, 2017 | Politico Pro
By Ben Lefebvre
The Trump administration's failure to fill vacancies at the federal pipeline regulator is stalling work on a major overhaul of safety regulations that's been six years in the making — and putting new pipeline projects at risk.
Like many other federal agencies, the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration is still waiting for the White House to name appointees to key leadership posts. For now, career staff are still filling in for the former Obama-appointed head administrator who left earlier this year, and three other political appointment roles are still vacant.
That's forcing pipeline companies to decide whether to proceed with projects even though major rule changes are in limbo, according to Interstate Natural Gas Association of America spokesperson Cathy Landry.
“What if the regulation is different than what you do and it requires re-work? We are at a critical stage. We want action, and we need permanent leadership to get it,” Landry said.
PHMSA most recently moved three of its five regional directors to work in “critical” national office positions that had been empty, according to an internal agency email obtained by POLITICO.
The musical chairs are expected to disrupt PHMSA’s ability to conduct pipeline inspections in the short term, sources said. But the vacancies — along with a lack of a quorum at FERC that has already stalled approvals for up to $17 billion in new projects — are major drags for an energy industry that President Donald Trump has promised to unshackle from Obama administration rules.
“We've unleashed a lot of companies, especially right now in the energy sector,” Trump told an April gathering of chief executives at the White House. “It was impossible for people to do what they had to do, and now they can do it.”
But without leadership staff in place at PHMSA, they may not want to, say people in the industry.
That’s because of a complex update to natural gas safety standards that is often referred to as “the mega rule.” One former PHMSA employee called it the largest rulemaking the agency has undertaken, and industry sources said it is something they want clarity on before going ahead with new projects.
The proposed rule is a complicated work that is being guided by four congressional mandates, one GAO recommendation and six NTSB recommendations. It would require the industry to verify the safety of pipelines in rural areas, provide safety data for older pipelines and increase inspections of lines after floods, among other things.
Congress tasked PHMSA with updating its natural gas pipeline rules in the wake of the 2010 pipeline explosion in San Bruno, Calif., that killed eight people and destroyed 38 homes. The rule is awaiting a second review from a technical committee and must then go to PHMSA’s administrator and Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao.
The lack of a permanent head director and other key political positions has caused PHMSA to postpone meetings on the rule, industry sources said. PHMSA sent an email on April 12 to interested parties saying it was considering a public meeting on the rule for an as-of-yet unspecified time in June. That would be the first such meeting since winter.
To be sure, PHMSA is not normally an early priority for incoming administrations. Former President Barack Obama did not nominate a PHMSA head until nearly eight months into his first term. George W. Bush didn’t name the first permanent PHMSA leader until January 2006, two years after the agency was first created.
“It’s not a super premier cabinet position,” said Keith Coyle, an energy lawyer at Babst Calland. “And there’s always a lag when significant work is in progress but there’s not the political staff in order.”
The White House had been considering several candidates for the top PHMSA job, including Alaska energy lawyer Drue Pearce and Howard “Skip” Elliott, a former executive at rail company CSX, multiple industry sources said.
Elliott is thought to be the current front-runner. The recently retired vice president of public safety, who now describes himself as a “freelance former executive” in Florida, oversaw hazardous materials transportation safety and homeland security initiatives at the company during his 12 years there.
CSX expanded its crude-by-rail activities during that time, and also won accolades from the EPA for for developing long-term climate change strategies.
Elliott did not respond to calls and emails seeking comment.
A White House spokesperson said they did not have any announcements to make regarding the vacancies.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/04/phmsa-leadership-void-puts-mega-rule-in-limbo-155303
-
(ACC Mentioned) Supply Chains Must Collaborate with Cities to Improve Logistics
Apr 13, 2017 | Supply Chain Dive
By Edwin Lopez and Jennifer McKevitt
Dive Brief:
With urban freight delivery growth expected to expand 40% by 2050, municipal and business leaders must collaborate to develop smart logistics infrastructure and ensure congestion does not get out of hand, according to the 2017 MHI Annual Industry Report.
Current planning initiatives to help curb congestion include using shopping malls as logistics hubs, establishing off-hour delivery hours, autonomous or low-emission urban delivery vehicles, establishing smaller, city distribution centers, facilitating curbside deliveries with sensors and delivering traffic information by mobile app.
Yet, of the more than 1,000 survey respondents, 50% had not heard of a smart city. Of those who had, however, 36% said they had either begun to collaborate, plan or invest, while only 8% indicated no willingness to collaborate in the project.
Dive Insight:
Smart cities require more than just strong urban planning teams and high use of technology, but also an active and willing stakeholder participation that includes logistics professionals. In fact, supply chains may be among the industries with the highest gains from increased smart city infrastructure.
For one, recent reports and historical experience show logistics congestion can stifle any industry's growth. A recent report by the American Chemistry Council found the industry projects over $40 billion in costs from side effects of congestion, which include excess inventory from transportation delays as well as capital expenditures to renew equipment or infrastructure.
Recent examples, such as the Atlanta I-85 bridge collapse, also show how pivotal traffic management is to avoid severe transportation delays in key arteries. And of course, few could forget how the West Coast port strikes and congestion from numerous events led to severe business losses and even GDP drops at the national level.
Smart technology promises to help address some of these inefficiencies. Some port authorities boast their status as a 'smart port,' routing or scheduling truck driver access through mobile apps, or fully automating terminals to avoid in-port congestion.
However, a significant amount of congestion is due to the supply chain's last mile infrastructure, which requires small package or less than truckload delivery throughout urban zones.
To facilitate this, some researchers are calling upon the Department of Transportation to more actively share traffic, road repair and other data with trucking companies so they can more effectively plan routes and diminish transport times. Similarly, startups are proposing drones could help take trucks off small roads, and manufacturers are beginning to equip their vehicles with sensors to receive traffic data from local infrastructure (where applicable).
The age of vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communication is not far. But ahead of such technology-based initiatives, the Deloitte and MHI report reveal city planners can work directly with businesses to establish less capital-intensive methods to avoid congestion.
Delivery hours can be arranged with trucking companies, warehouses and local businesses to receive shipments outside of rush hour. Similarly, working on regulations to pilot autonomous delivery projects or incentivize smaller, spread out warehouses (rather than big box zones) could help spread traffic. Solutions abound for those willing to engage stakeholders, and at least in the supply chain, logistics professionals seem more than willing to collaborate.
http://www.supplychaindive.com/news/smart-city-logistics-congestion-strategies/440371/
-
Environmentalists Sue EPA for Data to Back Pruitt Climate Remarks
Apr 14, 2017 | BNA Daily
By Rachel Leven
Environmentalists sued the EPA on April 13 to provide documents that back Administrator Scott Pruitt's assertion that human activity isn't the largest factor driving global climate change, a statement that contradicts a scientific consensus and the agency's own website.
The Environmental Protection Agency violated the Freedom of Information Act when it failed to produce relevant agency documents within 20 working days, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility said in its complaint. The group filed its document request with the EPA on March 10, a day after Pruitt made the climate change comments, it told the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Pub. Emps. for Envtl. Responsibility v. EPA, D.C. Cir. App., No. 17-cv-652, 4/13/17).
Pruitt “stated that as to carbon dioxide created by human activity ‘I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see,’” the complaint said, citing Pruitt's comments on CNBC. “Plaintiff is seeking to educate the public about whether, during a speech in his official capacity, the EPA Administrator has relied upon or disregarded the scientific research of his Agency, and Defendant is frustrating that purpose.”
The public employees’ group requested the federal court say the EPA acted inappropriately in not meeting statutory deadlines for releasing the documents.
The EPA didn't immediately respond to Bloomberg BNA's request for comment.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109361176&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109361176&jd=109361176
-
U.S. ‘Needs to Exit’ Paris Climate Pact, EPA Chief Says
Apr 14, 2017 | BNA Daily
By Dean Scott
The U.S. “needs to exit” the Paris climate pact, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said April 13, siding with those in the Trump administration who want complete withdrawal from the 2015 agreement reached among nearly 200 nations.
“Well, Paris is something we need to really look at closely, because it's something we need to exit in my opinion,” Pruitt said during an interview on Fox & Friends, calling the pact a “bad deal” for the U.S.
The EPA head's comments come amid continued signs of an internal struggle in the administration over whether President Donald Trump should, as he vowed during the campaign, withdraw the U.S. from the accord.
Pruitt skirted questions on what the U.S. should do with the Paris deal in the run-up to his Senate confirmation in February. In written responses to Democratic senators in January he repeatedly stressed it was not his decision to make and that the fate of the Paris Agreement rested with the State Department.
“Should the Administration decide to continue to participate” in the deal, Pruitt wrote, “I will collaborate with all involved agencies to ensure that commitments made on behalf of the United States are achievable and consistent with requisite legal authorities delegated by Congress.”
Trump has yet to decide whether the U.S. will stay in the Paris Agreement. But Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley are among those who have called for Trump to stay at the table in international climate talks.
‘Frontloaded’ U.S. Requirements?
Pruitt in March questioned whether humans are a “primary contributor” to rising global temperatures and suggested there is still “tremendous disagreement” over to what extent climate change is manmade.
In his April 13 remarks on Fox & Friends, the EPA administrator also said the climate pact, the first to include actions from developed and developing nations alike, “was a bad deal for America” because it “frontloaded” U.S. actions to cut its emissions while giving China and India until 2030 to act.
“China and India had no obligations under the agreement until 2030, we frontloaded all of our costs,” Pruitt said. The EPA head also suggested the U.S. has made more progress than China and India—or even the European Union—in cutting its emissions over the last two decades.
Staying in the Paris pact would mean “contracting our economy to serve and really satisfy Europe and China and India. They are polluting far more than we are,” Pruitt said, noting that U.S. emissions have been cut to levels not seen since the early 1990s.
Since 1990, Only Slight U.S. Progress
It's true the U.S. emissions have been declining in recent years even as emissions in India and China increase; the U.S. for example cut its emissions 5 percent between 2010 and 2015, according to the EPA.
But since 1990, the EU has made far deeper cuts than the U.S.
EU emissions declined 24.4 percent between 1990 and 2014, according to the European Environment Agency. By contrast, U.S. emissions in 2015 are actually slightly higher than they were in 1990, according to the EPA's greenhouse gas inventory released in February.
“Since 1990, U.S. emissions have increased at an average annual rate of 0.2 percent,” according to the EPA report.
Ahead of the Paris deal, the U.S. pledged to cut its greenhouse gas emissions 26 percent to 28 percent by 2025 from 2005 levels. But Trump's recent rollback of various climate policies—including the centerpiece of its Paris pledge, the EPA's power plant carbon pollution limits—has raised doubts about whether the U.S. can meet that pledge.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109361198&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109361198&jd=109361198
-
Apr 14, 2017 | Washington Post
By Glenn Kessler
“It [the Paris Accord] was an America second, third, or fourth kind of approach. China and India had no obligations under the agreement until 2030.”
— Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, interview on “Fox and Friends,” April 13, 2017During an appearance on Fox and Friends, the EPA administrator denounced the Paris Accord, the global agreement on curbing climate change, as a “bad deal for America.” Asked his biggest objection to the accord, he claimed that China and India had no obligations until 2030, even though “they are polluting far more than we are.”
Despite our queries, we did not get an explanation for Pruitt’s remarks from the EPA, but we have good news for him. If that’s his biggest problem, it’s solved! His objection is based on a misunderstanding of the agreement: China and India are already hard at work at meeting goals set for 2030.
The Facts
Pruitt appears to be stuck in a time warp. His concerns might have made more sense if he had been referring to the 1992 Kyoto Protocol, which did not require developing nations such as China and India to face legally binding requirements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That agreement was rejected by President George W. Bush.
The Paris agreement, reached in 2015 and effective in 2016, took a different approach, with all of the nearly 200 signatories agreeing to lower emissions, based on plans that they submitted. The goal is to keep average global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels until 2100. Global temperature has risenabout 1 degree Celsius in the last half-century.
The plans are not legally binding, but there is a distinction made between developing and developed countries in that developed countries are expected to reduce actual emissions, while developing countries would lower emissions based on units tied to measures such as gross domestic product or economic output.
“Developed country Parties should continue taking the lead by undertaking economy-wide absolute emission reduction targets,” the text says. “Developing country Parties should continue enhancing their mitigation efforts, and are encouraged to move over time towards economy-wide emission reduction or limitation targets in the light of different national circumstances.”
The distinction is made because developed countries, on a per capita basis, often produce more greenhouse gases than developing countries. Pruitt claimed that China and India and are polluting more than the United States, but that’s misleading.
China (but not India) does produce more carbon dioxide than the United States, but it has nearly 1.4 billion people compared to 325 million for the United States. So, on a per capita basis, the United States in 2015 produced more than double the carbon dioxide emissions as China — and eight times more than India. While some small countries have higher per capita pollution rates than the United States, the United States is by far the largest emitter of carbon dioxide among the 10 most populous countries.
So what did China and India pledge to do in their plans?
China, in its submission, said that, compared to 2005 levels, it would cut its carbon emissions by 60 to 65 percent per unit of GDP by 2030. India said it would reduce its emissions per unit of economic output by 33 to 35 percent below 2005 by 2030.
Note that both countries pledge to reach these goals by 2030, meaning they are taking steps now to meet their commitments. India, for instance, seeks to have renewable power make up 40 percent of its power base by 2030, so it is investing heavily in solar energy. The country is now on track to become the world’s third-largest solar power market in 2018, after China and the United States. China is also investing heavily in renewable energy.
The United States, under President Barack Obama, pledged to reduce emissions by 26 to 28 percent by 2025, compared to 2005 levels. It was an ambitious program, but President Trump is rapidly abandoning the regulations and programs that Obama hoped would help the U.S. meet the goal.
The Climate Action Tracker, an independent science-based assessment which tracks emission commitments and actions of countries, rates China and India as making “medium” efforts toward addressing climate change, not entirely consistent with achieving the Paris goal of limiting warming below 2 degrees Celsius.
The U.S. is also rated as medium. But the group has said that if Trump follows through on an executive order that seeks to roll back Obama administration efforts, the United States would be rated as making “inadequate” efforts. Under the Trump approach, U.S. emissions would be roughly the same in 2025 and 2030 as today, the group said.
The Pinocchio Test
Pruitt clearly needs to brush up on the Paris Accord, as it’s false to claim that China and India have “no obligations” until 2030.
China and India, just like the United States, have made commitments that are supposed to be fulfilled by 2030, meaning they have to take action now in order to meet those goals. The United States made more substantial commitments — which the Trump administration is abandoning — because the United States, on a per capita basis, is a much bigger polluter than either country.
Pruitt earns Four Pinocchios.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/04/14/epa-administrator-scott-pruitts-claim-that-china-and-india-have-no-obligations-until-2030-under-the-paris-accord/?utm_term=.6c6d731332ce
-
Northeast Regulators Urge EPA to Expand Ozone Reduction Zone
Apr 13, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA should reverse itself and agree to a historic expansion of a regional ozone reduction zone as a matter of basic fairness, several Northeastern state regulators said at an agency public hearing today.
"The message here is simple: EPA needs to ... act favorably," said Robert Klee, head of Connecticut's Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. He argued for approval of a petition to add all or part of nine states to the Ozone Transport Region, a step that could lead to stricter curbs on emissions that waft downwind.
All of Connecticut is currently in nonattainment for EPA's 2008 ground-level ozone standard, with most of that pollution blowing in from elsewhere, Klee said. "That's not fair to the people of Connecticut," he said. He added that the state is at an economic disadvantage because the nonattainment designation forces industries to adopt more costly emissions controls.
The gist of Klee's argument was seconded by regulators from New York and Delaware; all three states are among the nine that asked EPA in late 2013 for the dramatic increase in the size of the Ozone Transport Region. In their petition, the nine states said pollution from nonmembers such as Illinois and Kentucky was undercutting their efforts to meet the 2008 ground-level ozone limit of 75 parts per billion.
In a proposed response released in the final days of the Obama administration, then-EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy in January rejected the petition on the grounds that there are more efficient means of addressing downwind ozone drift (E&E News PM, Jan. 13). Under a lawsuit settlement reached last year, the agency must make a final decision by late October.
Three EPA employees were present at today's hearing at agency headquarters, held after an earlier date was scrubbed because of bad weather. The agency has also extended the deadline for written comments until May 15 (Greenwire, March 27).
Ozone, a lung irritant that is the main ingredient in smog, is created by the reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in sunlight. It can aggravate emphysema symptoms and help trigger asthma attacks.
The Ozone Transport Region, created by the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, currently encompasses the District of Columbia and all or part of a dozen states, including all of New England and Maryland.
As members of the Ozone Transport Commission, based in D.C., the states are supposed to strive to reduce the movement of ozone and the chemicals that create it across state lines. Those measures include mandatory inspections to ensure that car pollution controls are working and requirements that polluting industries adopt "reasonably available control technology."
Of some 16 participants who spoke today before a lunch break, all but two supported expansion of the Ozone Transport Region. Opposed were the American Petroleum Institute and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. While much of northern Virginia is already part of the zone, Thomas Ballou, the agency's air data analysis and planning manager, questioned the effectiveness of adding the rest of the state.
Like Ballou, Ted Steichen, a senior policy adviser at the petroleum institute, said air quality is improving regardless. Expanding the zone's size "could potentially burden refineries and other oil and natural gas development with millions of dollars in additional costs without any environmental benefits," Steichen said in a prepared statement.
Among the alternatives to expansion, McCarthy had highlighted the agency's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) update — put in place last fall to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides from power plants in 22 states — and a separate petition process through which states can ask EPA to crack down on specific pollution sources outside their border.
But Ali Mirzakhalili, air quality chief of the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, called EPA's record of handling those petitions "abysmal," noting that his state is still waiting for a response to one dating back to 2008.
Although the American Lung Association backs the CSAPR update, it is only a partial solution and faces both legal challenges and "an uncertain political future," said Laura Hale, a program specialist with the advocacy group's Mid-Atlantic office, alluding to the Trump administration's stance toward new environmental regulations.
In an interview afterward, Mirzakhalili said he saw little hope that EPA officials will change course on their own and predicted that the only chance for expansion rests with another lawsuit.
"That's what it's going to take," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/04/13/stories/1060053082
-
Obama-Era Ozone Rule Remains in Place, for Now
Apr 14, 2017 | BNA Daily
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Trump administration's review of the 2015 ozone standards hasn't changed looming implementation deadlines and existing permitting requirements for industry, at least not yet.
The Environmental Protection Agency, in a successful motion to halt litigation over the regulation, announced it is assessing whether to proceed with a formal reconsideration of the 70 ppb standards. But unlike the Clean Power Plan and some other major Obama-era environmental regulations being reopened by the Trump administration, the ozone standards haven't been stayed by a court. That means the rule, which includes state planning deadlines and additional permitting requirements for new industrial facilities, is still on the books.
An EPA spokeswoman told Bloomberg BNA in an email that the agency is engaged in a process to determine if the ozone standards are “in line with the pro-growth directives” of the Trump administration. The agency's court filing also said it is assessing the ozone rule to see if it is subject to a March executive order directing the agency to weigh reconsideration of all rules that potentially burden domestic energy production.
The EPA review of the ozone rule won't immediately change anything states are doing to implement the stricter standards, according to Bill Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies. That association represents air regulators in 40 states, the District of Columbia and over 100 metropolitan areas.
“We have to assume that the standard is in place until EPA or the courts determine that it is not in place,” Becker told Bloomberg BNA. “We haven't seen any evidence of that changing.”
The EPA hasn't said how long its review of the ozone rule—which might not result in a full rulemaking process on reconsideration—may take. The Obama administration undertook a similar effort to review and eventually reconsider the 2008 ozone standards, a process that lasted two and a half years and resulted in the EPA scrapping its reconsideration.
Permitting Requirements to Continue
While the EPA isn't required until later this year to identify which regions of the U.S. meet the standards and which don't, the Obama-era ozone standards are already factored into Clean Air Act permits granted to industrial facilities.
The EPA's new source review permitting program requires power plants, factories and other new and modified industrial facilities to obtain preconstruction permits, with different requirements in areas that do and don't meet national ambient air quality standards. Prior to the designations process, the permitting program still requires new and modified industrial facilities to conduct certain analyses that take the new standard into account, according to Megan Berge, a partner at Baker Botts LLP.
“That will continue regardless of what's going on in a rulemaking,” Berge told Bloomberg BNA.
Berge said that the Trump administration's ongoing review leaves industry with two options on permitting: moving ahead on the permitting of new facilities with the additional requirements under the 2015 ozone standards or potentially wait several years for the Trump administration to complete a review and reconsideration process that could ultimately result in a less stringent regulation. Berge, based in Washington, D.C., has a regulatory practice that includes work for utilities, refineries and cement plants,
EPA Has Decisions to Make
Implementing the 2015 ozone standards also includes various deadlines for the EPA and states to take action to reduce pollution levels, all of which are still in place despite the ongoing administration review.
Public health and environmental advocates will “vigorously oppose” any effort by the Trump administration to weaken the ozone standards, according to John Walke, director of the climate and clean air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. Walke, in an interview conducted after the EPA asked the court to delay oral arguments on the standards, told Bloomberg BNA that advocates also would insist that the agency continue to fulfill its legal obligations in implementing and enforcing the ozone regulation.
The process for implementing the ozone standards calls for the EPA to make an important decision later this year: identify “area designations” of places that do and don't meet the standards. Regions that don't meet the standards are subject to strict permitting requirements on new industrial development.
Last year, parts of at least 22 states were identified as unlikely to meet the standards, according to a 2015 Bloomberg BNA survey of state environmental agencies. In order for the EPA to complete the designations process as scheduled by Oct. 1, the EPA would need to inform states by June of any intended modifications to those state recommendations, according to Clint Woods, executive director of the Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies. That association represents 20 state air pollution control agencies.
The EPA declined to comment on whether it was still working to complete the designations process as scheduled. The Clean Air Act includes language in Section 107 that could offer the EPA an opportunity to extend the designations deadline by one year, until October 2018.
Plans Due in 2018
Even if the EPA did extend the designations process by a year, that wouldn't affect a key 2018 deadline for submitting state plans for implementing the new ozone standards and addressing emissions that cross state lines, according to Berge.
Woods told Bloomberg BNA that state agencies were expecting various kinds of assistance from the EPA over the next year to help them implement the standards and meet their statutory planning deadlines. Those include a final implementation rule that Woods described as “critical” for states tasked with implementing the standards and guidance on assessing emissions from new transportation infrastructure projects.
States also were interested to see if the EPA would issue updated national modeling data on ozone transport—emissions that cross state lines and affect the ability of downwind areas to meet air quality standards, Woods said. The development of state plans to address their obligations on interstate transport can take more than a year, so states would need more information from the EPA by summer 2017 if they hoped to meet the Oct. 1 deadline for submitting a plan, according to Woods.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109361189&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109361189&jd=109361189
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested