Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 4/25/2017
-
No Insights in EPA Notices on 19 New Chemicals on Market
Apr 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Two EPA notices to be published April 25 say the agency has allowed 19 new chemicals onto the market, but neither offers insight into why a logjam of requests to make new chemicals continues to build or how the agency will clear it. -
UN Regulators Meet to Seek New Limits for Chemicals, Wastes
Apr 24, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bryce Baschuk
Delegates from nearly 200 countries hope to stake new ground in curbing the global proliferation of harmful substances when they gather in Geneva. -
Air Force opposes Michigan push for PFC cleanup
Apr 24, 2017 | Inside EPA
The Air Force is telling Michigan officials that it is unable to comply with a recent state law aimed at addressing groundwater contaminated with perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) near the former Wurtsmith Air Force Base because the law is “discriminatory” against federal entities, in violation of the Superfund law, according to mlive.com. -
Lumber Liquidators Loses Bid to Escape Class Suits
Apr 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Martina Barash
Consumers suing Lumber Liquidators Inc. on behalf of would-be classes in several states may proceed toward trial over formaldehyde in the company's composite wood flooring, the court overseeing the litigation ruled April 21 (In re Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Prods. Mktg., Sales Practices & Prod. Liablity Litig., 2017 BL 132122, E.D. Va., MDL No. 1:15-md-2627 (AJT/TRJ), 4/21/17). -
EU Commission Dismisses Lead Chromates Authorisation Challenge
Apr 24, 2017 | Chemcial Watch
The European Commission has defended its Decision to authorise uses of two lead chromates, dismissing a case brought by Sweden seeking to annul the authorisation. -
West Virginia Fracking Fouls Streams, But Not Aquifer: Study
Apr 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas
Fracking in West Virginia has not contaminated groundwater, but frequent wastewater spills may have polluted some streams, a new peer-reviewed study from scientists at Duke University has found. -
EPA Wins Chance to Rethink Power Plant Toxic Discharge Limits
Apr 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
The EPA bought itself four months to reconsider limits on power plant discharges of water contaminated with toxic pollutants after a federal appeals court granted the agency's request to halt ongoing lawsuits over the rule. -
Raymond James: Tide of U.S. LNG Exports Rising, But Don’t Get Too Excited
Apr 24, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
Next year will be a “breakout year” for U.S. exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG), with cargos expected to emanate from four terminals. But don’t expect much help from that for natural gas prices, Raymond James & Associates Inc. said Monday. -
Federal Investigation: Overheated Pump Led To Fatal Fla. Explosion
Apr 24, 2017 | Chem.Info
By Andy Szal
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board this week said that an overheated pump likely led to a fatal explosion in Florida last summer — and that industrial gas distributor Airgas could have done more to prevent the incident. -
(ACC Mentioned) Texas Moves To Raise Truck Weight Limits For Resins, Other Cargo
Apr 24, 2017 | JOC
By Joseph Bonney
Texas legislators are moving closer to approving higher truck weight limits that would allow shippers of synthetic resins and other commodities to pack several tons of additional cargo into export containers delivered to Port Houston. -
Industry Groups Take Aim At NAAQS Stringency, Other Air Programs
Apr 25, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA's Office of Air & Radiation (OAR) held a three-hour April 24 teleconference to gather comments on existing rules and policies the agency should consider repealing or modifying but many industry groups have already submitted detailed comments to a separate Commerce Department docket that previews comments the agency is likely to receive ahead of its May 15 comment deadline. -
Clear EPA's Regulatory Haze, Industry Groups Plead
Apr 24, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
Industry groups are flooding the EPA with suggestions for air regulations they say should be revised or repealed, hoping to capitalize on the deregulatory bent of the agency's new leaders. -
Reports Detail Improving Air Quality But Diverge On Future Policy Goals
Apr 24, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Two recent reports on air pollution -- one from a group of state regulators, the other from public health advocates -- both show improvements in U.S. air quality but they diverge on future emissions policy goals, with the health groups calling for stricter EPA air standards while the states counter there is no need for tougher rules. -
Senators Ready Ambitious Climate Bill In Contrast To Trump's Rollback
Apr 25, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smit
Two progressive senators are poised to introduce a broad climate change legislative package that could serve as a counterpoint to the Trump administration's rollback of EPA and other agencies' rules, though some liberal groups say the proposal is not ambitious enough and it has little chance of gaining traction in the Republican-controlled Congress. -
Democrats Gear Up For March
Apr 25, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Hess
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) introduced major climate adaptation legislation yesterday, kicking off a week of global warming activism in Washington. -
POLITICO-Harvard Poll: Majority Opposes EPA Cuts, Paris Pullout
Apr 25, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Anthony Adragna
A majority of Americans oppose President Donald Trump's plan to slash EPA's budget and the possible withdrawal from the Paris climate change agreement, but his agenda continues to get high marks from Republicans, according to a new poll released Tuesday from POLITICO and the Harvard T.H. School of Public Health finds.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
No Insights in EPA Notices on 19 New Chemicals on Market
Apr 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Two EPA notices to be published April 25 say the agency has allowed 19 new chemicals onto the market, but neither offers insight into why a logjam of requests to make new chemicals continues to build or how the agency will clear it.
Since the Toxic Substances Control Act was amended in June 2016, nearly 800 requests to make new chemicals or microbes—called premanufacture notices and microbial commercial activity notices—have piled up at the Environmental Protection Agency's new chemicals office. But, the Federal Register notices set to run April 25 aren't a signal that the agency is beginning to address that backup, Herbert Estreicher, a partner with Keller and Heckman LLP, told Bloomberg BNA.
The EPA is set to announce that it allowed 19 new chemicals to be made in or imported into the U.S., between Dec. 1, 2016, and Feb. 28, 2017. The agency determined that the 19 chemicals were “not likely to present an unreasonable risk,” which is the lowest risk statement it can make under the possible decisions authorized under the TSCA amendments.
All 19 chemicals that the agency reviewed and approved are biologicals and polymers, which tend to have few risks, Estreicher added.
Manufacturers, Public Notified
The EPA has notified the manufacturers that asked to make the new chemicals of the approvals and announced the decisions on its public website, Richard Engler, a senior chemist with Bergeson & Campbell, P.C., who spent 17 years working with EPA, told Bloomberg BNA.
Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, acting assistant administrator of the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, said the agency is working on ways to make its new chemical reviews more efficient, but has yet to reveal the solutions it is contemplating.
Since June 22, 2016, the EPA has allowed at least 63 new chemicals and microbes to be made in or imported into the U.S. That 10-month clearance rate compares to the agency's typical clearance of about 1,000 new chemicals annually prior to the TSCA amendments.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=110082060&vname=dennotallissues&fn=110082060&jd=110082060
-
UN Regulators Meet to Seek New Limits for Chemicals, Wastes
Apr 24, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bryce Baschuk
Delegates from nearly 200 countries hope to stake new ground in curbing the global proliferation of harmful substances when they gather in Geneva.
From April 24 to May 5, parties to the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm (BRS) conventions will work toward setting new limits and United Nations-backed guidelines for chemicals and wastes.
Participants in the annual conferences of the parties hope to make “important strides” toward a less toxic future by listing additional chemicals into the annexes of the Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions; establishing a new partnership on the environmentally sound management of household waste under the Basel Convention; and improving all three conventions through legal and technical decisions, BRS secretariat spokesman Charlie Avis told Bloomberg BNA.
More than 1,000 delegates and 80 ministers are expected to attend the conventions. Any progress made over the next two weeks would build momentum toward the December meeting of the UN Environment Assembly in Nairobi, Kenya, which this year is focused on pollution, Avis said.
E-Waste Guidelines
Parties to the Basel Convention—which defines limits on the cross-border movement of hazardous waste and its disposal—will discuss improvements to their technical guidelines to curb the hazardous effects of electronic waste.
Two years ago, Basel parties adopted guidelines aimed at curbing trade in electronic waste from discarded mobile devices and computer equipment, which often contains harmful toxic materials like mercury, cadmium, asbestos and lead.
This year environmental advocates will urge parties to close a loophole in the current e-waste guidelines that allows broken electronic equipment to be exported without regard to the hazards they may pose.
Participants will also consider a joint Basel and Stockholm convention effort to set hazardous waste limits aimed at bringing greater clarity to whether certain wastes can be dumped in developing countries.
Rotterdam Listings
Parties to the Rotterdam Convention—which requires countries to verify their trading partners’ consent to receive restricted chemical exports—will consider listing eight additional chemicals in Annex III of the convention.
That annex requires members to notify a receiving country when they plan to export restricted chemicals and participate in a “prior informed consent” procedure for hazardous chemicals and pesticides.
In September 2016, the Rotterdam Convention's Chemical Review Committee recommended that parties include two highly toxic pesticides in Annex III—carbofuran and carbosulfan—which are used to control insects on a variety of crops.
Carbofuran is a highly toxic carbamate pesticide marketed as Furadan and sold by companies like the Philadelphia-based FMC Corp. Carbosulfan is another carbamate insecticide that is banned by the European Union.
New Voting Procedure?
Rotterdam parties plan to increase transparency for international exports of paraquat dichloride, fenthion, chrysotile asbestos, trichlorfon and tributyltin compounds.
Rotterdam parties may also consider an amendment to their convention to sanction a majority vote if all efforts to find a consensus on a particular issue or listing have failed.
Though the BRS conventions have traditionally adopted any decisions or amendments to the treaties on a consensus basis, Stockholm parties in 2015 voted to ban pentachlorophenol despite opposition from the Indian delegation.
Introducing a new voting process could circumvent India's efforts to block the Annex III listing of paraquat dichloride, an herbicide considered toxic to humans and animals, and chrysotile asbestos, also known as “white asbestos.”
DecaBDE Listing
Parties to the Stockholm Convention—which bans the production, use and trade of certain persistent organic pollutants—will also consider new restrictions for several chemicals.
Specifically, participants will consider including decabromodiphenyl ether (DecaBDE), a flame retardant that is widely used in electronic products, in Annex A of the convention, which requires parties to eliminate the production and use of such chemicals.
Environmental groups said they would oppose the European auto industry's effort to obtain any “open-ended” exemptions for legacy spare parts that contain DecaBDE.
Parties to the Stockholm Convention will also conduct their first evaluation of the treaty's effectiveness, which could lead to “sobering” results, according to Joe DiGangi, a senior science and technical adviser at the International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN).
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=110082049&vname=dennotallissues&fn=110082049&jd=110082049
-
Air Force opposes Michigan push for PFC cleanup
Apr 24, 2017 | Inside EPA
The Air Force is telling Michigan officials that it is unable to comply with a recent state law aimed at addressing groundwater contaminated with perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) near the former Wurtsmith Air Force Base because the law is “discriminatory” against federal entities, in violation of the Superfund law, according to mlive.com.
Earlier this year, the state enacted a law requiring the state or federal government to provide an alternative water supply for water sources that were contaminated by substances originating on state or federal property if the Michigan department of health and human services has issued a public health advisory for drinking water.
While the law's language is broad, sources say it was spurred by the state's concern over PFC contamination that has migrated beyond the boundary of Wurtsmith and the Air Force's refusal to reimburse the state for actions intended to protect residents with private water wells.
But Air Force spokesman Mark Kinkade told mlive.com that the military is “not authorized” to comply with the new law because the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) only compels the U.S. government to comply with state law if it is not discriminatory.
"The Michigan law does discriminate as it only applies to federal and state agencies, not to all entities and persons," Kinkade said.
As result, the "Air Force is not authorized to comply with the mandates of Act 545 to provide an alternative water supply or to reimburse the state of Michigan when it provides an alternative water supply," he said.
Kinkade's response echoes concerns the Defense Department (DOD) raised last year in a Nov. 16 letter to state Rep. Lee Chatfield (R-MI) during debate on the legislation that became Public Act 545.
“The proposed legislation singles out the DOD and its components for disparate treatment; therefore, it does not fall within the federal waivers of sovereign immunity in pertinent federal environmental law and would not be enforceable against DOD,” DOD Regional Environmental Coordinator James R. Hartman wrote.
The waivers in the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Solid Waste Disposal Act and CERCLA “all require the United States be treated in the same manner as any other person or entity. Because the proposed legislation discriminates against DOD, we would not be able to expend funds to comply with it if it became law,” Hartman said.
He added that passage is unnecessary because the Air Force has committed to providing bottled water and working with landowners to implement long-term alternate water supplies for drinking water wells affected by PFC levels above EPA's health advisories for two PFCs -- perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonate.
But state officials remain concerned about exposure to other kinds of PFCs that have been detected in groundwater, mlive.com says. While only two properties have tested for PFOA or PFOS at concentrations about the EPA advisory level of 70 parts per trillion (ppt), detections of total PFCs has been at 20,000 ppt in some wells and the groundwater under large parts of the community of Oscoda south and east of the base is testing between 50 and 300 ppt, mlive.com reports.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/air-force-opposes-michigan-push-pfc-cleanup
-
Lumber Liquidators Loses Bid to Escape Class Suits
Apr 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Martina Barash
Consumers suing Lumber Liquidators Inc. on behalf of would-be classes in several states may proceed toward trial over formaldehyde in the company's composite wood flooring, the court overseeing the litigation ruled April 21 (In re Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Prods. Mktg., Sales Practices & Prod. Liablity Litig., 2017 BL 132122, E.D. Va., MDL No. 1:15-md-2627 (AJT/TRJ), 4/21/17).
Lumber Liquidators persuaded the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to toss some of the claims against it. But implied-warranty claims, some fraud-based claims and some consumer-protection claims survived the company's effort to obtain summary judgment.
A CBS “60 Minutes” report in 2015 sparked public outrage when it alleged Lumber Liquidators’ China-made laminated wood flooring exceeded California's formaldehyde limits. The company stopped selling the products in May 2015 and agreed to pay $2.5 million as part of an administrative settlement with the California Air Resources Board in March 2016.
Lumber Liquidators also settled with the Consumer Product Safety Commission in June 2016 without conducting a recall.
Consumers in the proposed class actions, which are consolidated in multidistrict litigation, alleged the California agency told Lumber Liquidators that some of its products failed formaldehyde emissions testing as early as October 2013.
Yet the company said on its website that the products contained “NO formaldehyde” and complied with the state's environmental standards, they alleged.
The consumers sued under California, Florida, New York and Texas law.
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and others represented the plaintiffs.
McGuire Woods LLP, Morrison & Foerster LLP and others represented Lumber Liquidators.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=110082073&vname=dennotallissues&fn=110082073&jd=110082073
-
EU Commission Dismisses Lead Chromates Authorisation Challenge
Apr 24, 2017 | Chemcial Watch
The European Commission has defended its Decision to authorise uses of two lead chromates, dismissing a case brought by Sweden seeking to annul the authorisation.
The Commission claimed in its defence filing that the implementing Decision is "correct," a spokesperson from the Swedish environment ministry told Chemical Watch. Sweden has until 2 May to respond.
Stockholm is challenging the authorisation granted to Canadian company Dominion Colour Corporation (DCC), for the pigments Red 104 and Yellow 34. These cover a wide range of uses in industrial coatings, plastics and road markings. According to their mandatory classifications, both substances are carcinogenic, reprotoxic and toxic to aquatic life.
Sweden – supported by Denmark, Finland and the European Parliament – has argued that it was known to the Commission that the use of lead chromates had been "almost entirely" phased out in several member states and that "plenty" of alternatives are available.NGO case
The case is linked to a 2016 request by a group of NGOs for the Commission to conduct an internal review of the Decision. The NGOs, including ClientEarth and the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), contested the authorisation using powers granted to them under the UN Aarhus Regulation on access to information, public participation in decision making and access to justice in environmental issues.
The Commission was due to respond to the NGOs' request by 1 March. It told ClientEarth its reply would be late, but did not indicate when, ClientEarth lawyer Alice Bernard said. She added that the delay is in "violation" of the Aarhus Regulation, and the NGO is considering its options.
The NGOs had said previously that if the Commission's response were "unsatisfactory", they would take the case to the European Court of Justice.
The Commission did not comment on the delay, but a source close to the case told Chemical Watch it was "on track" to finalise and send the response to NGOs "shortly".
https://chemicalwatch.com/55404/eu-commission-dismisses-lead-chromates-authorisation-challenge
-
West Virginia Fracking Fouls Streams, But Not Aquifer: Study
Apr 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas
Fracking in West Virginia has not contaminated groundwater, but frequent wastewater spills may have polluted some streams, a new peer-reviewed study from scientists at Duke University has found.
“We found no indication of groundwater contamination over the three-year course of our study,” Avner Vengosh, a professor of geochemistry and water quality at Duke's Nicholas School of the Environment, said in a statement upon the study's release.
The study is unique in that it compares the exact same drinking water wells near unconventional gas sites both before and after fracking began. The study is also different in that it measured a wide range of indicators, rather than just a few, Vengosh told Bloomberg BNA in a telephone interview April 24.
Over a three-year period, the study measured subtle changes in contaminants such as salts, trace metals, and hydrocarbons such as methane, propane and ethane; then analyzed whether they occurred naturally, came from fracking or were caused by other activities.
The outcome of the West Virginia study is similar to what researchers found in previous studies in Arkansas, yet different from Pennsylvania and Texas, Vengosh said. In northeastern Pennsylvania, for example, the same team of scientists found that drinking water had been affected by leaks from a shale gas well, Vengosh told Bloomberg BNA.
Vengosh attributed the varied results from different studies to geological differences from region to region. He added that the results in West Virginia could change in time, since the impact on groundwater isn't immediate.
Streams Showed Contamination
Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is the process of extracting natural gas from rock by injecting high-pressure mixtures of water, sand or gravel and chemicals.
In West Virginia, the tests found methane and saline in the groundwater both before and after drilling, indicating that the contaminants occurred naturally or had been there before fracking began.
“It has nothing to do with the fracking, it's naturally occurring,” Vengosh told Bloomberg BNA.
Streams near all three spill sites, however, showed clear signs of contamination, with high levels and salinity and metals associated with fracking wastewater.
Northwestern West Virginia is an area that has seen a rapid rise in unconventional oil and gas development, with more than 3,000 unconventional wells drilled since 2008, according to the paper.
With more than 130,000 active, plugged or abandoned conventional oil and gas wells in West Virginia, scientists also theorized that 100 years of coal mining “could be a major influence on water chemistry and contamination,” the study said.
To determine how fracking impacted the groundwater, 20 water wells were sampled before hydraulic fracturing begin to provide a baseline. Wells were then sampled in Doddridge, Harrison, Ritchie, Tyler and Wetzel counties between 2012 and 2014 after hydraulic fracturing began. More the half—55 percent—of the wells sampled were within a kilometer of a shale gas well, according to the study.
Researchers focused on a mountainous region in the northwestern part of the state with bedrock that contains sandstone, siltstone, shale, limestone and coal, the study said. They collected and analyzed water samples from 112 drinking wells and streams over a three-year period, analyzing both groundwater and surface water near storage and wastewater disposal areas.
Researchers also collected samples of surface water near three known spill sites, both at the site as well as upstream and downstream.
The data collected showed that “surface processes like spills have immediate effects, while groundwater quality is not impacted, even in a time scale of three years.”
The study was done in collaboration with Ohio State University, Pennsylvania State University, Stanford University and the French Geological Survey. It was published this month in Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, a European journal.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=110082070&vname=dennotallissues&fn=110082070&jd=110082070
-
EPA Wins Chance to Rethink Power Plant Toxic Discharge Limits
Apr 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
The EPA bought itself four months to reconsider limits on power plant discharges of water contaminated with toxic pollutants after a federal appeals court granted the agency's request to halt ongoing lawsuits over the rule.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit April 24 granted the Environmental Protection Agency's motion to hold the legal action until Aug. 12 while it reconsiders parts of the wastewater effluent limits (RIN:2040-AF14) on 1,080 electric utilities, more than half of which are fueled by coal (SW. Elec. Power Co. v. EPA, 5th Cir., No. 15-60821, 4/24/17).
The agency's motion was filed after it agreed April 12 to a petition by the Utility Water Act Group; Southwestern Electric Power Co, a subsidiary of American Electric Power; and Union Electric Co., an Ameren Corp. subsidiary; as well as the Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy to reconsider the rule. The power industry's main concern was the EPA underestimated the time, cost and equipment needed to treat wastewater.
The electric power industry has been successful in getting the EPA to not only reconsider the effluent limits placed on 1,000 mostly coal-fired power plants, but also to postpone the deadlines associated with these limits.
The environmental groups were disappointed with the Fifth Circuit's decision to grant the stay. “This legal battle is far from over,” Earthjustice attorney Thomas Cmar told Bloomberg BNA in an April 24 email. Cmar is one of the attorneys representing the Waterkeeper Alliance, Environmental Integrity Project and Sierra Club that were largely supportive of the rule.
The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg, founder of Bloomberg L.P. Bloomberg BNA is an affiliate of Bloomberg L.P.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=110082059&vname=dennotallissues&fn=110082059&jd=110082059
-
Raymond James: Tide of U.S. LNG Exports Rising, But Don’t Get Too Excited
Apr 24, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
Next year will be a “breakout year” for U.S. exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG), with cargos expected to emanate from four terminals. But don’t expect much help from that for natural gas prices, Raymond James & Associates Inc. said Monday.
“...[W]e project LNG exports averaging 2.5 Bcf/d in 2018 -- up from 0.5 Bcf/d in 2016 and 1.2 Bcf/d in 2017 -- en route to about 9 Bcf/d in 2021,” the firm said in a note. “...While every bit of gas demand helps, it is unlikely that LNG exports will support a long-term increase in domestic gas prices beyond our $2.75 price deck.”
Cheniere Energy’s Sabine Pass terminal kicked off the Lower 48 LNG export era. It is expected to be followed by Dominion’s Cove Point, Kinder Morgan’s Elba Island, and Sempra Energy’s Cameron LNG, as well as increasing exports from more trains at Sabine Pass. Then coming in 2019 will be the Freeport LNG terminal as well as Cheniere Energy’s Corpus Christi terminal.
“All of these six projects (with about 10 Bcf/d of aggregate nameplate capacity) are under construction, so there is good visibility on completion timing,” Raymond James said. “However, the pace at which the projects gradually ramp toward full capacity is more uncertain.”
Totaling up all of the announced projects, not counting canceled efforts, Raymond James arrives at about 75 Bcf/d of theoretical export capacity at full buildout of all the projects in the United States and Canada. Obviously, they won’t all come to pass. “...[P]lenty of developers have been trying to jump on this rather full (and overhyped) bandwagon,” the analysts said, adding that they still expect 12-15 Bcf/d of export capacity to be developed.
The United States is way ahead of Canada in developing export capacity. This is partly because early U.S. projects are at brownfield sites where import capacity had previously been developed. It’s cheaper and quicker to add liquefaction to an existing import site than it is to build a greenfield project, like those proposed in Canada, Raymond James said.
Efforts to expedite LNG export regulatory approvals in the United States are likely to not mean much as there are already projects in the Lower 48 that have been permitted that are being delayed for economic reasons. Tax reform that favors U.S. exports would be another story, though, the analysts wrote.
For now, the major export market for U.S. natural gas still is Mexico, with about 3.7 Bcf/d traveling there via pipeline. LNG exports won’t surpass gas sales to Mexico until 2019, Raymond James predicted.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/110220-raymond-james-tide-of-us-lng-exports-rising-but-dont-get-too-excited
-
Federal Investigation: Overheated Pump Led To Fatal Fla. Explosion
Apr 24, 2017 | Chem.Info
By Andy Szal
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board this week said that an overheated pump likely led to a fatal explosion in Florida last summer — and that industrial gas distributor Airgas could have done more to prevent the incident.
The CSB investigation into the August blast at the Airgas plant in Cantonment, Fla., found that the pump used to transfer nitrous oxide from a storage tank into a shipping container became too hot and triggered an explosive chemical reaction, the Pensacola News Journal reports.
Nitrous oxide — or "laughing gas" — is harmless at room temperature but can be combustible if it becomes hot enough to break down into nitrogen and oxygen.
Jesse Folmar, who was filling the tanker at the plant in Cantonment, Fla., was killed in the August 2016 blast. He was 32.
The explosion also led to the continued shutdown of the Cantonment plant — one of just a handful in the U.S. that produce nitrous oxide for the medical, chemical manufacturing and food sectors — and prompted worries of a shortage of the gas.
"Our top priority is the safety of our associates, customers, and the communities in which we operate," the company said in a statement, according to the News Journal. "We deeply regret the tragic loss of life, damage and disruption caused by the incident."
The CSB report said that Airgas failed to apply standards designed to prevent nitrous oxide explosions, implemented safeguards that were likely ineffective and did not consider an alternative system that would eliminate the need for the potentially dangerous pump.
Officials, however, noted that Airgas was cooperating with the investigation and already implemented some of the agency's recommendations.
"Safety management systems standards are critical to identify, evaluate and control process safety hazards," said CSB Chairwoman Vanessa Allen Sutherland. "This tragedy in Cantonment should not be repeated."
http://www.chem.info/news/2017/04/federal-investigation-overheated-pump-led-fatal-fla-explosion
-
(ACC Mentioned) Texas Moves To Raise Truck Weight Limits For Resins, Other Cargo
Apr 24, 2017 | JOC
By Joseph Bonney
Texas legislators are moving closer to approving higher truck weight limits that would allow shippers of synthetic resins and other commodities to pack several tons of additional cargo into export containers delivered to Port Houston
The state House of Representatives is considering that Senate-passed legislation would allow companies to purchase $5,000 annual permits for heavier truck container combinations on designated corridors within 30 miles of a port of entry or international bridge.
The bill passed the Senate on a 26to5 vote, and has cleared the House Transportation Committee. Backers say they’re optimistic the bill will win final approval before lawmakers end their 140day biannual session on May 29.
The legislation is a top goal of resin producers and packagers that are expected to increase annual containerized exports of synthetic resins from the Gulf region by some 500,000 twentyfootequivalent units during the next few years.
The increase is driven by more than $100 billion in new or expanded plants in coastal Texas and Louisiana in order to take advantage of cheap natural gas feedstocks. The American Chemistry Council has warned that transportation inefficiencies could undercut the cost advantage of US producers.
Supporters of heavier weights include petrochemical companies such as ExxonMobil and Lyondell Basell and shippers of agricultural and refrigerated commodities. Opponents include railroads, organized labor, owner-operator drivers, and several communities around Port Houston.
Current gross weight limits on Texas highways are 80,000 pounds, or 84,000 with a permit. The proposed permits would allow gross weight limits of up to 93,000 pounds with six axles, or 100,000 pounds with seven axles, for sealed containers carrying nonhazardous material.
Proponents of the change note that other Gulf and East Coast states allow portarea permits for gross weights of up to 100,000 pounds, and say weight limits put Port Houston at a disadvantage.
Arguments over Texas truck weights have come into sharper focus with increased production of resins for exports. Higher weight limits would enable producers to load as much as 27 tons into a 40-foot container, instead of the 22 to 23 tons permitted under current weight restrictions.
Several warehouses in the region transfer bulk rail shipments of resin pellets into bags that are stuffed into containers and forwarded to ports outside Texas. Some drayage companies and thirdparty logistics providers have acquired lightweight chassis in order to dray heavier containers to Houston.
Separate from the legislation to allow heavyhaul permits near ports and international crossings is a bill that would allow 95,000pound loads within five miles of Texas borders with other states.
Tom Howard, vice president of government affairs at forest products producer Domtar, said this bill would solve a problem that Domtar has had with exports of fluff pulp, a dense, heavy material used in production of sanitary products, from its plant at Ashdown, Arkansas.
Trucks leaving Domtar’s Ashdown plant must travel about two and a half miles of Texas highways before reaching Arkansas, which has a 95,000pound weight limit, for delivery to Memphisarea intermodal yards for rail shipment to South Atlantic ports. Current Texas weight limits make it impossible to fully load a 40foot container, Howard said.
Texas law authorizes heavy-haul corridors in several areas, such as one used primarily for steel shipments between the Mexican border and the Port of Brownsville and near Port Freeport. Just east of Houston, Chambers County will roll out a permit system next month for 100,000pound gross weights on designated roads.
The Chambers County Freight Mobility Corridor will enable petrochemical producers to fully load 40foot containersfor delivery to barge terminals that shuttle containers to and from Port Houston’s Bayport and Barbours Cut container terminals.
“Shale gas and the resins business is what’s driving this,” said Chambers County Commissioner A.R. “Rusty” Senac. “A lot of people like to talk about this ‘Texas Miracle,’ but it’s not a miracle until you can get a product to market and paid for.”
He said moving containers by barge will take trucks off streets, lower emissions, improve safety, and reduce congestion at container terminal gates. The corridor will cover 16 miles on Texas Highway 565 and FM 1405, and that an additional section on Texas Highway 99 pay be added.
Fees for heavyweight permits will be start at $46 for chassis with regular tandem axles and $30 for containers with triaxles, with 85 percent of the funds designated for a special fund for maintenance of heavyhaul corridors. Senac said the fees may be adjusted later.
http://www.joc.com/breakbulk/texas-moves-raise-truck-weight-limits-resins-other-cargo_20170424.html
-
Industry Groups Take Aim At NAAQS Stringency, Other Air Programs
Apr 25, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA's Office of Air & Radiation (OAR) held a three-hour April 24 teleconference to gather comments on existing rules and policies the agency should consider repealing or modifying but many industry groups have already submitted detailed comments to a separate Commerce Department docket that previews comments the agency is likely to receive ahead of its May 15 comment deadline.
Some of the loudest calls to the Commerce Department are for the administration to overhaul EPA's new source review (NSR) program but many of the comments, submitted last month, also target EPA's air quality standards program, its Title V and other permit requirements, air toxics rules and others.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
The Air Permitting Forum, a coalition of Fortune 100 companies focused on Clean Air Act implementation issues, charged in its comments that changes that EPA makes to its NAAQS “can significantly affect companies' ability to obtain permits, the costs of which are never even evaluated.” It cites this as reason for recommending that the cost of permitting requirements on new construction, competitiveness and jobs be considered in cost-benefit analysis.
Additionally, the Aluminum Association says in its comments that the process for determining whether an area meets or exceeds the NAAQS for a particular pollutant should use “physical measurement data, not speculative dispersion modeling” that are “consistently inaccurate.”
It also argues for maintaining the designation of “attainment/unclassifiable” for areas whose measurement data is not available, and it wants a multiple-hour averaging interval for the sulfur dioxide (SO2) NAAQS that “provides the same level of public health protection as a one-hour interval but increases the viability of an attainment demonstration” in response to a 2010 change to a 24-hour and annual standard only.
And the group calls for guidance to ensure monitoring and modeling for determining attainment of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is accurate. “Monitoring/modeling actions required for the ambient 1-hour SO2 NAAQS are triggered primarily by annual emissions from a facility or 'nearby' facilities. What is considered a 'nearby' facility is extremely vague yet can have significant consequences for individual facilities working to maintain compliance with the standard,” the group says.
Several groups urged the administration to review NAAQS every 10 years, rather than every five years as the law currently requires.
“States have not fully implemented one standard before another is being executed. Industry expense for emission control quickly becomes stranded capital as new standards are implemented that require more stringent emission controls,” refiner Valero said in its comments.
“When this difficulty is coupled with an activist agency that contends the NAAQS should definitively be lower each 5 years . . . the burden that falls upon the U.S. economy is not sustainable. The NAAQS review cycle should be lengthened to no more frequently than every 10 years. This change will relieve considerable regulatory stress for the refining industry and the nation as a whole."
The American Forest & Paper Association notes in a footnote in its comments that EPA “should not revise current NAAQS unless evidence shows a significant public health concern and previous NAAQS revisions have been fully implemented. Moving these multiple regulatory goal posts every five years creates significant business investment uncertainty when the air quality in the U.S. is some of the best in the world and will continue to get better under current programs and trends. A ten-year review cycle would be much more appropriate.”
Despite the industry calls, the Clean Air Act requires EPA to review each NAAQS every five years and the Supreme Court in a unanimous 2001 ruling held that EPA cannot consider costs when setting such a health-protective standard with an adequate margin of safety.
This was also pointed out by one of the speakers on the April 24 OAR call, Henry Frey of North Carolina State University who said he was speaking as a private citizen and noted that EPA is required under the Clean Air Act to develop and implement standards, and cannot simply repeal them.
Frey pushed back against some on the call who urged EPA to repeal the 2015 ozone NAAQS or eliminate standards for carbon monoxide and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). For example, James Enstrom, a professor at the University of California Los Angeles, touted his recent peer-reviewed study that he said undermines a critical study EPA has long relied on that shows mortality risks from PM2.5 exposure.
But Frey said NAAQS are “explicitly science based” and that the rules “do not rely on a single study” but are based on “overall weight of the evidence on the body of the scientific literature.”
Title V
The Air Permitting Forum in its comments also seeks significant changes to the Title V operating permit program, arguing that while the program is not supposed to create new requirements or boost stringency of existing requirements, it has done so, and the cost of the program is “far more than was ever anticipated and no one has asked the question whether the benefits being obtained are worth the investment.”
The comments say the forum is not advocating for the repeal of Title V but that the program should be changed to streamline permitting to minimize costs. “These core issues are exacerbated by the fact that members of the public can view modification to incorporate new construction permit requirements or renewal of a Title V permit as an opportunity to reopen permits that have already been decided on.”
The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers had similar complaints about the Title V renewal process, calling it “contentious and holds the potential for litigation from those opposed to the operation of the facility.”
The National Environmental Development Association/Clean Air Project (NEDA/CAP), which represents major manufacturers in a number of sectors, suggests in its comments that EPA should drop the use of conservative modeling to demonstrate compliance. It says modeling predicts new manufacturing projects in attainment areas will cause or contribute to violations “even when data from nearby monitoring stations indicate no air pollution problems,” resulting in manufacturers being required to “install unnecessary expensive pollution controls to pursue a proposed project” or force them to “pull the plug” because the economics do not work.
In nonattainment areas, it is almost impossible to build or expand because of a lack of availability of required emissions offsets.
Air Toxics
The Air Permitting Forum also wants major changes to how hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are regulated under section 112 of the air law, including national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPs) and maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards.
For example, the group's comments seek a repeal of the “once in/always in” policy that does not allow a major source subject to a MACT standard to become a minor source for the HAP. “This policy is not mandated by the statute and creates a significant disincentive for companies to reduce emissions,” the comments say.
These views were echoed by some of the callers to OAR. For example, Ron Sober of Tulsa, OK-based RFS Consulting, said that the MACT's once in/always in policy “undermines incentives to reduce HAPs to below” the trigger point and provide no incentives for operators to reduce emissions to become a minor pollution source.
The Aluminum Association also focused on improvements to the NESHAP program, writing that EPA's “lack of responsiveness to manufacturing's real world permitting needs results in a reduced rate of capital investment” and said the NESHAP for secondary aluminum production, which went into effect in September 2016, “unnecessarily required that new round top furnaces either pursue an impracticability determination or accept a 20 percent diminished capacity.”
Regional Haze Requirements
The association also criticized regional haze requirements as “not realistic given that it is not possible to achieve natural conditions by 2064 with current industrial and human activity. Therefore, these requirements need to be revised and accompanied by a logical explanation for any change proposed.”
Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction
And the aluminum group says that EPA's latest rule barring permit limit exceptions for startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM) periods should be revoked.
“These revised interpretations can present multiple compliance and litigation exposures to facilities managing air emission sources under technology based requirements and the Association encourages the Department of Commerce to fully investigate the current permitting and compliance burdens presented by the re-interpretations being implemented by EPA in this area,” the group says.
“In terms of opportunities for correcting deficiencies with revised interpretations, the Association suggests considering the development of alternates such as a judicially sound affirmative defense concept, a broadly applicable work practices or compliance exclusion concept, and/or re-promulgating technology based emissions standards sufficient to cover emissions associated with SSM events.”
The Trump administration is already considering such a step. In an April 18 motion, Justice Department lawyers asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to delay litigation over the rule because it wants time to review the positions taken by the prior administration and to weigh any possible changes.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/industry-groups-take-aim-naaqs-stringency-other-air-programs
-
Clear EPA's Regulatory Haze, Industry Groups Plead
Apr 24, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
Industry groups are flooding the EPA with suggestions for air regulations they say should be revised or repealed, hoping to capitalize on the deregulatory bent of the agency's new leaders.
Groups representing electric utilities, oil refiners, motorcycle manufacturers and even paint makers all weighed in during an April 24 Environmental Protection Agency listening session devoted to the economic impact of air regulations. Their comments were largely devoid of any unifying theme as each industry group pinpointed granular, often obscure rules that have specific impacts on their respective companies.
Fulfilling all, or even most, of these deregulatory requests would impose a significant workload on the EPA, one the agency may not be able to meet as it plans for major staff reductions later this year.
Targeted Regulations
In addition to industry groups, environmental activists and other members of the public also chimed in to the EPA's listening session, the first of eight it's planning to hold in the coming weeks.
While the message from activist groups was largely consistent—that the agency's air quality measures have important public health benefits—the industry groups’ demands were far more varied.
Several criticized the burden placed on them by greenhouse gas reporting requirements. Others asked the EPA to allow industrial facilities to avoid continued emissions regulations if they can reduce their air pollution below an annual threshold. Still others said the agency should prioritize a rollback in its ozone pollution standards.
In one instance, two different groups contradicted each other. The American Petroleum Institute (API) said the agency should repeal its biofuel blending requirements, while the Renewable Fuels Association asked it to do the opposite and called API's claim about technical limitations on fuel blending “a fiction.”
Reduced Bandwidth
To repeal almost all of the measures cited by the industry groups, the EPA will need to go through the formal federal rulemaking process that routinely takes agencies years to complete. After formally proposing a repeal measure, the EPA will then have to solicit comments from the public, then analyze and respond to those comments before finalizing any measure.
An error at any stage of this process could leave the repeal open to a court challenge. A loss in one of these challenges could effectively negate all the work the EPA had previously put into repealing a regulation.
Meanwhile, as industry groups make their disparate requests, the EPA is preparing to cut its budget and reduce its payroll by historic amounts.
A preliminary budget proposal from the White House for the coming fiscal year would eliminate 3,200 positions from the agency, which currently has a workforce of about 15,000. Additionally, the EPA announced earlier this month that it would extend a planned 90-day hiring freeze indefinitely and also begin a program of early retirements and buy outs.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=110082069&vname=dennotallissues&fn=110082069&jd=110082069
-
Reports Detail Improving Air Quality But Diverge On Future Policy Goals
Apr 24, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Two recent reports on air pollution -- one from a group of state regulators, the other from public health advocates -- both show improvements in U.S. air quality but they diverge on future emissions policy goals, with the health groups calling for stricter EPA air standards while the states counter there is no need for tougher rules.
In its annual 'state of the air' report for 2017, the American Lung Association (ALA) cites a long-term trend toward improving air quality, with ozone and particulate matter (PM) declining. However, the group stresses short-term spikes of pollution have actually increased in some areas, and calls for a renewed commitment by the federal government and states to enforcement of the Clean Air Act.
Some of the same trends are identified by an April report from the Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies (AAPCA), titled, “The greatest story seldom told.” AAPCA represents 20 mostly Southern, Midwestern or Western state air agencies, and many of its member states have historically been skeptical of stricter federal air regulations, advocating for a greater role for states under the air law's system of “co-operative federalism.”
AAPCA's report focuses on correcting alleged public misconceptions that air quality is worsening around the country. It further focuses on the achievements of its member states in reducing pollution more than the national average, and on the United States' superior performance in curbing emissions relative to other countries, such as China and India, where air pollution levels are far higher.
The free-market group Center for Regulatory Solutions (CRS) April 21 asserted that the AAPCA report is an explicit attempt to preempt the “activist fear campaign” of ALA. State regulators, CRS suggests, “are fed up with the ALA's scare campaign, and won't let the group get away with it anymore.” ALA, in response, has softened its rhetoric in this year's report and been forced to admit “massive improvements in the nation's air quality,” CRS claims.
Although the reports share similar conclusions on improving air quality, the dueling conclusions over the need for stricter federal regulation hint at battles ahead over the future of EPA's air policy.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt litigated a host of Obama-era Clean Air Act rules when he was Oklahoma's attorney general (AG), and President Donald Trump's overall deregulatory agenda means the agency is not expected to pursue any major aggressive air or climate rules. Nevertheless, environmentalists and some non-AAPCA states argue that there remains a need for strict federal air rules to help continue the downward trend in pollution.
ALA Report
ALA in its April 19 report finds “continued improvement in air quality in 2013-2015 in ozone and year-round particle pollution, but an unrelenting increase in dangerous spikes in particle pollution.”
Twenty of the 25 cities with the worst ozone pollution reduced the number of high ozone days they experience each year, and 12 experienced their best ozone seasons -- generally in the summertime -- during the study period of 2013-2015. Four cities saw their ozone pollution worsen: San Diego; Houston; Salt Lake City; and Baton Rouge, LA.
“Cities in the West and Southwest continue to dominate the most ozone-polluted list,” ALA says, noting the disproportionate number of areas in California and other Western states that experience high ozone.
For PM pollution, 15 of the 25 cities with the worst annual PM levels saw improvements. However, ALA is concerned about short-lived spikes of PM pollution. Western areas again saw concerning short-term PM levels, driven by events such as wildfire, and also wood burning and wind-borne dust. Further, while much of the middle and eastern part of the country improved its PM levels, “the western states’ burden of so much wildfire smoke and high inversions seems to have moved from just being a short-term problem to adding to the burden year-round.”
Cities in California’s San Joaquin valley “were hit hard,” as were other locations where particle pollution is usually limited to short spikes, including Fairbanks, AK, and Medford-Grants Pass, OR, ALA says. Atmospheric inversions, often seen in winter in mountain areas, trap colder, polluted air at lower elevations beneath hotter, cleaner air above.
In response, ALA says “Stopping or retreating cannot be an option. Our nation’s historic, legal commitment to protect the health of millions of Americans requires more work to reduce the burden of air pollution.” The group calls on the federal government and states to continue the fight against air pollution.
Specifically, ALA urges the Trump administration to reverse course and retain Obama-era rules limiting greenhouse gases -- and as a co-benefit, conventional air pollution -- from power plants; to retain Obama EPA vehicle emissions limits; and to proceed with Obama-era plans to gather data on oil and gas drilling methane emissions as a preliminary step toward regulating such emissions. The Trump EPA has withdrawn the methane data request, and indicated it also will review and potentially modify the power plant and vehicle rules.
ALA further says that the Trump administration's proposed 31 percent budget cut for EPA will hamper air emissions monitoring necessary to ensure public health. Funding for air monitoring has already fallen across the country, and such a large budget cut will further compound the situation, ALA says. “Communities that have expanded oil and gas extraction operations need more monitoring,” given a relative absence of monitors in these areas, ALA says.
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), ranking member of the House science panel, in an April 19 statement praised the ALA report, saying, “Now more than ever, we must reject policies that seek to take us back to a time when environmental health, and therefore the health of our people, came second to the needs of special interests.”
AAPCA Report
In contrast, an AAPCA source says that group in its report is not pressing any particular policy positions, and is merely seeking to “correct misinformation about where we are at."
However, the report places heavy emphasis on the role played by states in reducing pollution, touting its member states' achievements. That position appears to fit with the Trump administration's expected shift toward a more state-led approach to air quality management, as sought by Pruitt when he was the GOP AG of Oklahoma.
In a foreword to the report, AAPCA President Sean Alteri, director of the Kentucky Division for Air Quality, says “Through efficient air quality management practices, AAPCA Member States lead the way in reductions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, ozone, and particulate matter, while maintaining robust and growing economies.”
To illustrate this point, Alteri points to statistics showing that from 2005 to 2015, reported toxics air releases fell 56 percent nationally, and “AAPCA Member States accounted for nearly two-thirds of the total reduction.” AAPCA states reduced their emissions of ozone-forming nitrogen oxides (NOx) and greenhouse gases by more than the national average reduction, he says. Further, AAPCA states were more efficient than their counterparts in issuing Clean Air Act Title V operating permits to industry. Alteri says, however, that there is “more work to continue.”
AAPCA in the report says, “Recent public opinion suggests that these trends, despite being supported by active public participation and market forces, have gone under the radar for most Americans. With media more likely to report bad news combined with often apocalyptic framing by advocates and limited understanding of technical air quality information, it is no wonder that the public is often confused about air quality.” AAPCA discusses opinion polling that shows the public is not perceiving air quality as improving, even when it is.
The group cites EPA data showing that emissions of the key “criteria” pollutants -- NOx, PM, ozone, sulfur dioxide, lead and carbon monoxide -- have “plummeted” over the past several decades.
States' Doubts
One East Coast air regulator from a non-AAPCA state points to some inconsistencies in the group's report. Many AAPCA states sued the Obama EPA to stop air rules they disliked, and in fact the air quality improvements cited in AAPCA's report largely predate its establishment as an interstate group in 2013, the source notes.
The group's president Alteri has testified in Congress in support of measures that would undermine the review process for national ambient air quality standards by allowing consideration of costs, by extending the review cycle from five years to 10 years and by creating new exemptions for weather-related events, the East Coast source says.
AAPCA member states “have opposed EPA at every turn,” the source says. The progress reported “shows why the Clean Air Act should not be tampered with” the source says.
The source also questions an assertion in the AAPCA report that “like politics, all air is local.” AAPCA uses the expression to highlight a tendency among survey respondents to view air quality in their state or city as better than they view air quality nationally. But the statement also ignores the reality that much of the air pollution in East Coast states is in fact transported from elsewhere by the wind -- and much of that from the AAPCA states -- the source says.
One Northeastern air quality expert also disputes AAPCA states' claim to be at the forefront of emissions reduction progress. “AAPCA is spinning its member states' roles in promoting air quality progress to place them in a more favorable light than an objective historian would. It's a standard approach often seen from industry: After having opposed efforts to reduce pollution, take credit for doing what you were forced to do after the fact,” the source says.
“A number of these states fought long and hard against requirements to reduce their air pollution, and only 'lead the way' after being forced to through EPA requirements, while lagging efforts already underway in other states,” the source adds. While East Coast states have pioneered emissions reductions from stationary sources such as power plants, California “is clearly the leader on setting more stringent tailpipe standards” because of its unique air law capability to introduce standards tougher than federal limits, which other states can then adopt.
Arguing that the AAPCA states “are actually laggards, not leaders,” the source says “many of the most polluting power plants are in the AAPCA states, hence of course they had the largest reductions -- they had most of the pollution” to start with, the source says. -
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/reports-detail-improving-air-quality-diverge-future-policy-goals
-
Senators Ready Ambitious Climate Bill In Contrast To Trump's Rollback
Apr 25, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smit
Two progressive senators are poised to introduce a broad climate change legislative package that could serve as a counterpoint to the Trump administration's rollback of EPA and other agencies' rules, though some liberal groups say the proposal is not ambitious enough and it has little chance of gaining traction in the Republican-controlled Congress.
The so-called “100 by '50 Act,” to be introduced April 25 by Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) would give EPA the lead role in implementing a climate policy agenda, including establishing an EPA-led cap-and-trade program for the electricity sector, along with a suite of programs to decarbonize the sector and transition to widespread use of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs).
An April 17 draft of the bill would create the EPA-led cap-and-trade program to shift to a non-fossil fuel electric grid by 2050 and a similar program to create an all-ZEV fleet by 2040.
The electric sector program would cap fossil fuel use at 50 percent starting in 2030 and mandate a gradual decline annually to zero percent in 2050.
The legislation would also form a National Climate Change Council consisting of EPA and several other Cabinet agencies, along with top White House environment and science advisory positions, as well as set up a “Climate Fund” that would offer several competitive clean energy grants.
Merkley and Sanders are offering the bill during a week of climate advocacy ahead of the April 29 “People's Climate March” that could draw tens of thousands to Washington, D.C.
The legislation will “help answer the call from millions of people like you who are demanding bold solutions to address the climate crisis,” Merkley wrote in a recent letter on 350.org, the grassroots climate group founded by Bill McKibben.
“This legislation isn't designed to solve the crisis on its own, but to put forward a clear way to end the primary driver of global warming: our addiction to fossil fuels.”
Some environmental groups are backing the bill, which they say offers a concrete vision and a comprehensive alternative to Trump's climate agenda. Merkley and Sanders will be joined by representatives from 350.org, Environment America, League of Conservation Voters and several other climate groups for the bill's launch event April 25.
“There are many ways to resist Trump, and being clearer about our North Star is one. We think, in the Trump era, the best defense is a good offense,” 350.org's policy director Jason Kowalski told the Huffington Post.
McKibben in an April 19 op-ed called the bill “the new standard for sensible people to rally around.” And Environment America's Rob Sargent told the Huffington Post that while the bill's prospects “aren't great,” the legislation is “putting us on the trajectory we need to be on in order to address the environmental challenges we face. And I actually think if you step outside the Beltway for a second, it reflects where the country is headed.”
Even so, Ezra Silk of the group The Climate Mobilization questions “the strategic logic” behind the groups' support for a bill “that will not solve the climate crisis and has no chance of passage.”
Silk writes in an April 23 column, “Encouraging Sanders to introduce this weak climate bill and hailing it as 'action actually commensurate with the problem' marginalizes those calling for realistic emergency action. And it tragically positions this mish-mash of half-measures and market-based mechanisms as the 'far left' climate position in Congress.”
'Why Not Go Big?'
Silk says Merkley and Sanders' bill does not go nearly far enough, particularly because it will gain little traction in the Republican-controlled Congress. He urges the senators back to the “drawing board.”
“If the bill stands little chance of passage and is meant as a rallying cry for the climate movement, why not go big and try to actually solve the climate crisis?” Silk writes.
According to Silk, the “100 by '50 Act” would not phase out fossil fuels quickly enough, citing several studies that find a transition away from fossil fuels could occur more rapidly.
One 2009 study in Scientific American argued a global shift to 100 percent renewables by 2030 is “technically and economically feasible,” Silk says. Another study by former Greenpeace International head Paul Gilding found the world could abolish fossil fuels “within a decade” if countries ramped up action to the equivalent of a “war footing.”
Silk also says that ahead of the Paris climate negotiations in 2015, “a substantial number of environmental leaders and experts called on the U.S. to adopt a zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2025 target.”
He also criticizes the ambition of the bill's Climate Fund, which would be authorized for annual appropriations of $150 billion. Silk notes that equates to just under 1 percent of the overall $18.5 trillion U.S. economy.
“The resounding defeat of the Democratic Party and the rollback of the Obama administration's tepid climate regulations presents us with a critical opportunity to level with the American people about what it will really take to restore a safe climate,” Silk says.
And he argues that Sanders could be an effective “messenger” for a bolder climate approach, quoting Sanders in a 2016 Democratic presidential primary debate as saying, “We have a crisis of historical consequence here, and incrementalism, and those little steps are not enough.”
Silk calls for a “true [World War II]-scale mobilization bill” that would spur a rapid energy system transformation.
“If we ever build enough power to pass a comprehensive climate bill, we had better be prepared to do what is necessary to overcome the climate emergency. If we can't even muster the will to introduce a symbolic climate bill that, if passed, would actually fix the problem, we are in bigger trouble than we ever understood,” Silk writes.
Democratic Alternative
Despite support from several progressive environmental groups, it is unclear yet how many other Democrats will endorse the Merkley-Sanders legislation.
Nonetheless, the bill offers a first look at a progressive alternative to Trump's climate deregulatory policies, largely by enacting market-based mechanisms to prompt a shift to clean energy.
The draft version of the bill would establish a cap-and-trade program that would require electric utilities to phase out use of fossil fuels by 2050. That program would begin in 2030, setting a 50 percent cap for fossil fuel use that would gradually decline each year until it reached zero in 2050.
The legislation would establish a similar program to promote a shift to ZEVs, setting a 50 percent minimum requirement for new ZEV sales in 2030, which would increase 5 percent each year until 100 percent in 2040.
The bill would also take steps to ban new fossil fuel extraction and development, including by placing a moratorium on new fossil fuel plants and pipelines starting in 2021 and prohibiting new fossil fuel leasing on federal lands.
In addition, the legislation would establish a National Climate Change Council “to coordinate all activities and programs of the Federal Government relating to the transition from fossil fuels by January 1, 2050.” The council would develop sector-specific plans to shift from fossil fuels that would be submitted to Congress, and would revisit and update those plans every five years.
Members of the council would include secretaries of the Energy, Education, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, Transportation and Treasury departments; EPA administrator; chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality; director of the National Economic Council; and the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
The bill's new Climate Fund would provide funding for a series of competitive grants to boost clean energy resources, including ZEVs and energy storage. -
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/senators-ready-ambitious-climate-bill-contrast-trumps-rollback
-
Apr 25, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Hess
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) introduced major climate adaptation legislation yesterday, kicking off a week of global warming activism in Washington.
The measure would create an "Adapt America Fund" administered by the secretary of Commerce and used to finance climate change adaptation and infrastructure resiliency projects.
It would also authorize the Department of the Treasury to issue up to $200 million annually in "Climate Change Bonds" to be purchased by Americans concerned about climate change. Proceeds would be directed to the Adapt America Fund and support investments that help states and local communities prepare for the impacts of climate change.
Later this week, two of the Senate's most progressive members, Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), will roll out legislation that would completely phase out fossil fuels by 2050.
Organizers of Saturday's Peoples Climate March in Washington shared an agenda yesterday for the week of action leading up to the protest that includes the launch of the 100 percent clean energy bill and other political events.
Merkley and Sanders will join other progressive movement leaders in the Senate Swamp on Thursday at 11 a.m. "to call for bold solutions to the climate crisis," according to the schedule.
Earlier that morning, the Peoples Climate Movement will join members of the House Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition (SEEC) for a rally on Capitol Hill.
Members of SEEC will be publicly endorsing both the march and a six-point action plan called the "Pledge for Jobs, Justice & the Climate."
After the 9 a.m. rally, people in town for the march will visit their members of Congress to lobby them to stand up for climate justice.
That afternoon, Reps. Don McEachin (D-Va.), Nanette Diaz Barragán (D-Calif.) and Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) will announce a new group dubbed the "United for Climate Task Force." As members of the Congressional Black Caucus, Congressional Hispanic Caucus and Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, respectively, the Democrats want to address the "disproportionate environmental impact on communities of color, low-income families and other marginalized groups," according to organizers.
Democrats and their allies say they will use rage over President Trump's climate policies as a rallying cry all week (Greenwire, April 24).
The march is being billed as a follow-up to the 2014 People's Climate March, which organizers have described as the largest demonstration on the issue ever, in New York City. Participants plan to "directly confront" Trump on the White House grounds Saturday afternoon (E&E News PM, April 18).
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/04/25/stories/1060053513
-
POLITICO-Harvard Poll: Majority Opposes EPA Cuts, Paris Pullout
Apr 25, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Anthony Adragna
A majority of Americans oppose President Donald Trump's plan to slash EPA's budget and the possible withdrawal from the Paris climate change agreement, but his agenda continues to get high marks from Republicans, according to a new poll released Tuesday from POLITICO and the Harvard T.H. School of Public Health finds.
Sixty percent of people surveyed, including 65 percent of Independents and 81 percent of Democrats, do not support Trump's proposed 31 percent funding cut to EPA. But 68 percent of Republicans are in favor of the reduction to the agency's coffers.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has spoken repeatedly during his first months of returning the agency to its original mission, but the drastic proposed gutting of the agency's budget has received a cool reception from Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill. Signs of public discontent emerged during the two-week congressional recess as GOP lawmakers faced angry questions from citizens about whether they'd support the cuts to EPA.
Similarly, the Paris agreement, which has divided members of Trump's innermost circle, drew support from 62 percent of people, with 87 percent of Democrats and 61 percent of Independents in favor of the U.S. remaining in the landmark 2015 international agreement.
But those views were flipped among Republicans, with 56 percent backing the withdrawal from the deal, and just 39 percent saying the world's second largest emitter should stick with it.
That's in line with broader divisions inside the GOP about how to handle Paris. Some coal companies and former Trump energy adviser Rep. Kevin Cramer have suggested the U.S. stay in the agreement but ramp back the Obama administration's emissions reduction pledge. A final decision from the White House on Paris is expected by late May.
The polling also finds that the general public isn't buying one of the most common GOP talking points: That regulations aimed at addressing climate change cost American jobs. A majority of voters surveyed (51 percent) think those sorts of rules have no impact on U.S. jobs.
In fact, 54 percent of Republicans said climate change regulations don't make much difference for employment, while just 31 percent said they cost jobs.
"This suggests that Republican support for cutting the EPA’s budget is based on other issues beyond loss of U.S. jobs, and likely more about attitudes regarding government regulation more generally," the polling concluded.
The survey was conducted in two phases by telephone among 2,036 adults in late March and early April.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/04/polling-finds-majorities-oppose-epa-cuts-paris-pullout-155745
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested