Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 6/15/2017
-
UK Chemical Trade Bodies: 'Soft' Brexit Now More Likely
Jun 15, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
UK prime minister Theresa May’s failure to secure a majority for her Conservative party at the general election last week could mean a ‘soft’ Brexit is more likely, according to chemical industry associations. -
EPA Submits Guidance on Draft Risk Evaluations under TSCA to OMB
Jun 15, 2017 | National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham
On June 13, 2017, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) received a notice from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) submitting its draft Guidance to Assist Interested Persons in Developing and Submitting Draft Risk Evaluations... -
US EPA Round-Up
Jun 15, 2017 | Chemical Watch
TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C) determinations...The US EPA has published section 5(a)(3)(C) determinations for two polymers that were the subject of pre-manufacture notices (PMNs). -
Lead in Food – An Overlooked, But Meaningful, Source of Children’s Exposure to Lead
Jun 15, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tom Neltner
By now, it is well known that lead exposure is a significant human health concern, especially for young children. -
EU Commission Adds 12 Substances to REACH Authorisation List
Jun 15, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission has added 12 SVHCs to REACH Annex XIV – the authorisation list. -
EU Commission Publishes Regulation to Restrict PFOA
Jun 15, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission has published its amending Regulation to restrict the manufacture, marketing and use of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), its salts and PFOA-related substances. -
Echa Launches EU Nanomaterials Observatory
Jun 15, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
Echa has launched its EU observatory for nanomaterials (EUON), a public website aimed at increasing transparency of information on nanomaterials on the EU market. -
Dancet Dismisses ‘Naming and Shaming’ of Poor REACH Dossier Companies
Jun 15, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Publicly naming companies that submit poor quality REACH registration dossiers is not the best way forward, Echa head Geert Dancet has told Chemical Watch. -
Echa Round-Up
Jun 15, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa has published online support for anyone preparing review reports for authorisation. And the agency has also released updated application formats for use in them and authorisation applications. -
(ACC Mentioned) Sen. Capito Introduces Legislation to Expedite Permitting of Appalachian Natural Gas Hub
Jun 15, 2017 | Daily Energy Insider
U.S. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) introduced legislation this week that would expedite federal permitting for a natural gas energy hub in the Appalachian region. -
(ACC Mentioned) Grant Awarded for Pilot Program at Hazleton Mining Operation
Jun 15, 2017 | Hazleton Standard-Speaker
U.S. Rep. Lou Barletta today announced that the U.S. Department of Energy has awarded grant funding for a pilot program to extract rare earth elements from soil overburden from Jeddo Coal Co.’s anthracite mining operation in Hazleton. -
Trump Admin Falling Behind on Rule Reconsideration
Jun 15, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Trump administration failed to meet its own target date for kicking off a review of an Obama-era rule for hydraulic fracturing on public and tribal lands. -
Enviros Eye Multiple Legal Battles as Trump Admin Freezes Regs
Jun 15, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
In a one-two punch this week, U.S. EPA and the Interior Department announced delays to separate regulations designed to reduce the amount of heat-trapping methane released into the atmosphere from oil and gas wells and related infrastructure. -
Dems to Zinke: Arctic Exploration Too Risky
Jun 15, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Kellie Lunney
House Democrats are urging Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke once again to keep oil and gas drilling away from the Arctic Ocean. -
EPA Delays Chemical Facility Safety Regulations Inspired by West Fertilizer Plant Explosion
Jun 15, 2017 | Texas Monthly
By Leif Reigstad
Environmental Protection Agency head Scott Pruitt signed an order earlier this week delaying new safety regulations for chemical facilities. -
Guest Commentary: Railroads Must Learn from Amtrak Tragedy, Implement Safety Technology
Jun 15, 2017 | Progressive Railroading
By Keith Millhouse
Former Amtrak engineer Brandon Bostian was arraigned last month on charges of involuntary manslaughter in the 2015 Philadelphia Amtrak disaster that claimed eight lives and injured 200. This was Amtrak’s failure as much as Bostian’s; it didn’t have to happen. -
Brawl Begins over Spokane Bid to Regulate Coal, Oil Trains
Jun 15, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Dylan Brown
A ballot push by activists in Spokane, Wash., to impose local regulations on trains carrying coal and oil through the city has spurred strong opposition from the rail industry. -
House Panel Advances Yucca Mountain, Ozone Bills
Jun 15, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A House panel approved three environmental bills on Thursday, including controversial measures on nuclear waste storage and ozone pollution. -
OIRA Works Quietly on Updating Social Cost of Carbon
Jun 15, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Hess
Not far from the White House, some of the federal government's most influential number crunchers are still working on the social cost of carbon. -
Energy Department Closes Office Working on Climate Change Abroad
Jun 15, 2017 | New York Times
By Brad Plumer
The Energy Department is closing an office that works with other countries to develop clean energy technology, another sign of the Trump administration’s retreat on climate-related activities after its withdrawal from the Paris agreement this month. -
Carbon Emissions Grow at Lowest Levels Since Early 1980s, BP Says
Jun 15, 2017 | Houston Chronicle (In Real Clear Energy)
By Collin Eaton
In the past three years, carbon emissions have risen at the slowest pace worldwide since the early 1980s, a development bolstered last year by an oil bust, declining coal and rapidly growing renewable energy, BP says.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
UK Chemical Trade Bodies: 'Soft' Brexit Now More Likely
Jun 15, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
UK prime minister Theresa May’s failure to secure a majority for her Conservative party at the general election last week could mean a ‘soft’ Brexit is more likely, according to chemical industry associations.
A ‘soft’ Brexit, they say, might mean the UK retains access to the EU single market, the Customs Union and free movement of skilled labour. This contrasts with the ‘hard’ Brexit Ms May set out prior to the general election, in which she said the UK would leave the market and not pursue full membership of the Customs Union.
Despite the unexpected election result, Ms May says the government will begin Brexit negotiations this month as planned.
The UK chemicals industry has consistently said that it prefers to be in the EU single market, and especially to remain a part of the EU’s REACH Regulation. Peter Newport, CEO of the Chemical Business Association (CBA), says that stance has not changed following the election result.
"Relatively speaking the likelihood of a softer Brexit has grown," he says. However, it will now become a "more complex negotiation because there is no clear mandate for a 'hard' Brexit any more". And it means there will be bilateral negotiations within the UK, as well as with the EU 27, he says.
Steve Elliott, chief executive of the Chemical Industries Association (CIA), says a soft Brexit "is possible" and that the association "hopes" that will be the case, "but there are many significant political voices still pushing for the 'hard' approach".
Industry has been quite clear, Mr Newport says, that under the so-called Great Repeal Bill it wants to align with existing EU legislation. "Companies that serve the markets in the EU want to align as closely as possible on an ongoing basis."
It is in the interests of both the UK chemical industry and the EU, he says, to come to an acceptable solution. "We have never subscribed to a punitive approach from Europe because it is in their interest to come up with a solution as much as it is ours."
In the coming months, Mr Elliot says he would like to see "greater certainty" over where talks are going and "more recognition of the business arguments about attracting investment and trading successfully with Europe".
Brexit panel
The CBA has set up a panel to respond to government questions about chemicals during Brexit negotiations.
It was formed shortly before the UK’s general election and will feed into an existing government mandate for more information from the national chemicals industry.
Comprised of CBA members representing various parts of the industry, the panel will be a "rapid response sounding board", Mr Newport says.
"We have a new cabinet and [...] there will be a series of questions as the negotiations progress that we will need to be able to answer as quickly as possible."
In pre-election meetings, Mr Newport says government departments have been "very clear" and "consistent" in what they are looking for. He says he expects their questions to start coming next week, when formal Brexit negotiations are slated to begin.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56861/uk-chemical-trade-bodies-soft-brexit-now-more-likely
-
EPA Submits Guidance on Draft Risk Evaluations under TSCA to OMB
Jun 15, 2017 | National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham
On June 13, 2017, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) received a notice from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) submitting its draft Guidance to Assist Interested Persons in Developing and Submitting Draft Risk Evaluations Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (RIN 2070-ZA18) for review and approval. Under Section 26(l)(5), EPA is required, “[n]ot later than 1 year after the date of enactment … [to] develop guidance to assist interested persons in developing and submitting draft risk evaluations which shall be considered by the Administrator.” While the “framework rules” have been the subject of considerable focus since last June, this guidance is as important, subject to the one year deadline, and likely to provide significant insights into EPA’s thinking on risk evaluations. EPA must publish the final rule in the Federal Register by June 22, 2017.
More information on the final rule on Procedures for Evaluating Existing Chemical Risks under TSCA is available in our memorandum EPA Releases Proposed Chemical Risk Evaluation Process under New TSCA.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-submits-guidance-draft-risk-evaluations-under-tsca-to-omb
-
Jun 15, 2017 | Chemical Watch
TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C) determinations
The US EPA has published section 5(a)(3)(C) determinations for two polymers that were the subject of pre-manufacture notices (PMNs).
They are:
· generic alkyl methacrylate, polymer with alkyl acrylate and polyesters; and
· generic alkyl methyacrylate polymer with styrene, amino acrylate and acrylic acid, ammonium salt.
In each case, the substances were determined not likely to present an unreasonable risk based on low human health and environmental hazard. Both include a polymer exemption flag, which says the substance must be manufactured such that it meets exemption criteria.
The agency issued its determinations on 30 May for reviews that began 22 September and 22 June last year.
Computational Toxicology Communities of Practice webinar
The EPA's Computational Toxicology Communities of Practice is holding a webinar on 22 June on read-across.
The webinar, Navigating Through the Minefield of Read-Across Tools and Frameworks: An Update on Generalised Read-Across (GenRA), will be accessible remotely or in person in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
The Communities of Practice is a stakeholder group which have an interest in using advances in computational toxicology and exposure science to evaluate the safety of chemicals.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56771/us-epa-round-up
-
Lead in Food – An Overlooked, But Meaningful, Source of Children’s Exposure to Lead
Jun 15, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tom Neltner
By now, it is well known that lead exposure is a significant human health concern, especially for young children. While most of the discussion about lead exposure has involved paint, drinking water, and contaminated soil or dust where young children live, play, and learn, EDF's new report shows reason to pay more attention to another source: our food.
Until recently, we have known very little about the contribution of food to children’s lead exposure. In January 2017, an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) draft report indicated that food is a meaningful source of children’s exposure to lead. Using EPA’s data, we estimated that over 1 million young children consume more lead than what the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considers acceptable for children to eat every day. From EPA’s analysis, we calculated that that if lead in food were eliminated, millions of children would live healthier lives, and the total societal economic benefit would exceed $27 billion a year in increased lifetime earnings resulting from the impact of lead on children’s IQ.
To better understand the issue of lead in food, EDF evaluated over a decade’s worth of data collected and analyzed by the FDA as part of the agency’s Total Diet Study (TDS). Since the 1970s, the TDS has tracked metals, pesticides, and nutrients in up to 280 types of food yearly.
What did we find?
Overall, 20% of 2,164 baby food samples and 14% of the other 10,064 food samples had detectable levels of lead. At least one sample in 52 of the 57 types of baby food analyzed by FDA had detectable levels of lead in it. Lead was most commonly found in the following baby foods:
· Fruit juices: 89% of 44 grape juice samples contained detectable levels of lead, mixed fruit (67% of 111 samples), apple (55% of 44 samples), and pear (45% of 44 samples)
· Root vegetables: Sweet potatoes (86% of 44 samples) and carrots (43% of 44 samples)
· Cookies: Arrowroot cookies (64% of 44 samples) and teething biscuits (47% of 43 samples)
In addition, we found that lead was more frequently detected in samples of the baby food versions of apple juice, grape juice, and carrots than their regular versions.
These findings raise important questions that need further investigation:
· Are foods marketed for infants and babies more likely to have lead contamination when compared with similar products not marketed to infants and babies?
· If there is a significant difference, what are the contributing factors? These might include the source of the crop, growing conditions, varieties, food and juice processing and preparation.
Opportunities to reduce lead contamination in food
Lead in food is a problem that FDA and food manufacturers can and must address. EDF has identified actions for FDA and the food industry to take to reduce lead contamination in food.
EDF recommends that FDA:
· Ensure lead is not added to any food contact material where it is reasonably expected to get into food;
· Make clear that the international standards for fruit juice are inadequate;
· Update its limits and food safety guidance to reflect current scientific understanding of lead risks that better protect children; and
· Encourage manufacturers to reduce lead levels in food, and take enforcement action when limits are exceeded.
Manufacturers need not wait for FDA to act. EDF recommends companies:
· Set a goal of less than 1 ppb of lead in baby food and other foods marketed to young children;
· Continue to prioritize lead contaminant minimization when sourcing ingredients;
· Test more frequently during processing to identify additional sources of lead, and take appropriate corrective actions; and
· Publicly commit to consumers to drive down lead levels through health-protective limits and robust product stewardship.
Parents should consult with their pediatricians to learn about all the ways to reduce lead exposure. They should check with their favorite brands to ask whether the company:
· Regularly tests their products for lead; and
· Ensures that, especially for baby food, there is less than 1 ppb in the food they sell.
Healthy eating requires safe, nutritious food. We can and must do more to reduce and eliminate lead in our food supply.
Read the full report here.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2017/06/15/lead-in-food-an-overlooked-but-meaningful-source-of-childrens-exposure-to-lead/
-
EU Commission Adds 12 Substances to REACH Authorisation List
Jun 15, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission has added 12 SVHCs to REACH Annex XIV – the authorisation list.
They are the first substances to be included in Annex XIV, which now contains 43 substances, since the Commission adopted a moratorium on such additions in August 2014.
Of the 12, eight are category 1B substances toxic for reproduction with a sunset date of 4 July 2020:
· 1-bromopropane (n-propyl bromide) (used in washing and cleaning products, and in the manufacture of electrical and electronic equipment);
· diisopentylphthalate (found in cosmetics);
· 1,2-benzenedicarboxylic acid di-C6-8-branched alkyl esters C7-rich (used in the manufacture of dyes, medicine and perfume);
· 1,2-benzenedicarboxylic acid, di-C7-11-branched and linear alkyl esters;
· 1,2-benzenedicarboxylic acid, dipentylester, branched and linear;
· bis(2-methoxyethyl) phthalate (found in cosmetics);
· dipentylphthalate; and
· n-pentyl-isopentylphthalate.
Two substances are carcinogenic (category 1B) and have PBT and vPvB properties with a sunset date of 4 October 2020:
· anthracene oil (used in dyes); and
· pitch, coal tar, high temperature.
And two substances have endocrine disrupting properties for the environment and have a sunset date of 4 January 2021:
· 4-(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)phenol, ethoxylated (used in paints and coatings); and
· 4-nonylphenol, branched and linear, ethoxylated (used as an intermediate in the manufacture of substances used in detergents, paints and personal care products).
Member states voted to approve their inclusion at the REACH Committee meeting in December last year.
NGOs have criticised the authorisation process, saying not enough substances have been added in ten years of REACH and that Echa is ignoring safer alternatives.
Speaking at the Helsinki Chemical Forum last week, European Commissioner Elżbieta Bieńkowska said it should be simplified for those applications that "do not raise major concerns" and the Commission must ensure the procedures are "fit for purpose".
https://chemicalwatch.com/56889/eu-commission-adds-12-substances-to-reach-authorisation-list
-
EU Commission Publishes Regulation to Restrict PFOA
Jun 15, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission has published its amending Regulation to restrict the manufacture, marketing and use of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), its salts and PFOA-related substances.
The restriction will apply to the use of PFOA and its salts at concentrations above 25 parts per billion (ppb); or 1,000ppb of one, or a combination of, PFOA-related substances.
Some uses are exempt, these include:
· photographic coatings, applied to films, papers or printing plates;
· implantable medical devices;
· substances or mixtures used in semi-conductor and photo lithography processes.
· fire-fighting foams, already placed on the market before the date of application of the restriction; and
· semiconductor manufacturing equipment.
As advised by Echa's Socio-economic Analysis Committees (Seac), the application is deferred for a period of three years, and for longer periods in relation to specified sectors, in order to enable stakeholders to comply.
This Regulation will enter into force on the twentieth day following its publication in the EU's Official Journal.
NGOs have criticised the proposed restriction as meaningless, saying it would not reduce global consumption and emissions of PFOA.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56909/eu-commission-publishes-regulation-to-restrict-pfoa
-
Echa Launches EU Nanomaterials Observatory
Jun 15, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
Echa has launched its EU observatory for nanomaterials (EUON), a public website aimed at increasing transparency of information on nanomaterials on the EU market.
The agency signed an agreement with the European Commission last year to develop and host the observatory. This came after the Commission opted not to create an EU nano register, given delays in the introduction of new REACH information requirements for nanomaterials.
The EUON will be developed in three phases. In the first, Echa has collected existing data on nanomaterials on the EU market, such as where they are used and their potential health and safety issues. The platform also hosts information on how they are regulated in the EU and other jurisdictions, and on some relevant ongoing research projects.
In the next two phases, planned for release in 2018 and 2019 respectively, Echa will work on better integrating data from various sources, and on improving search functions on the observatory website, the agency said.
At the same time, it will be scanning external sources for more information, such as European research data and consumer choice studies. New data will be added to the observatory piece by piece "during the next year or two", according to an agency spokesperson.
The agency is also about to launch two studies that will contribute to its next phase.
One of these is a literature review of potential use risks of well-known nano-pigments in consumer products and for workers. The second study will focus on parameters used to produce market studies and their relevance and reliability, aimed at gathering more information on nanomaterials on the market.
Public consultation this month
On 30 June, Echa will host a stakeholder consultation in Brussels where industry and NGOs can discuss the next steps EUON should take. The agency said it will ask for ideas on content and promotion of the observatory. It also wants input on other platforms the EUON could connect with and how to assess the project's success three years from now.
Echa said it is "keen to get the views of all stakeholders, which will be critical to the development".
The Nanotechnology Industries Association (NIA) will contribute actively to this, said its director of regulatory affairs, David Carlander. "NIA is very supportive of EUON as it provides balanced and science-based information on nanomaterials for Europe," he added.
But the Center for International Environmental Law (Ciel) has repeated disappointment shared by NGOs that the European Commission has opted for listing existing information, rather than demanding new data.
The observatory "will not help fill the ongoing knowledge gap in relation to nanomaterials; and in relation to exposure in particular," said director of the environmental health programme for Ciel, David Azoulay.
"Resources would have been better used in developing an EU-wide register that could have replaced national initiatives, and in investing in upgrading and enforcing existing regulatory framework as the current situation just cannot guarantee the safety of nanomaterials on the market," he added.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56883/echa-launches-eu-nanomaterials-observatory
-
Dancet Dismisses ‘Naming and Shaming’ of Poor REACH Dossier Companies
Jun 15, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Publicly naming companies that submit poor quality REACH registration dossiers is not the best way forward, Echa head Geert Dancet has told Chemical Watch.
In an interview during Echa’s tenth anniversary conference in Helsinki last week, Mr Dancet said this ‘naming and shaming’ approach can "create anger" and "bring about legal challenges".
NGOs endorse the method as a way to increase pressure on companies to improve the quality of their registration dossiers and bring them into compliance.
But Mr Dancet said that instead of this, Echa should continue its approach of convincing industry to take voluntary action through agreements, such as one made last year between the agency and metals trade body Eurometaux.
Erwin Annys, Cefic’s director of chemicals policy, told Chemical Watch that naming and shaming is a difficult issue due to "different cultures and mindsets". In some parts of Europe, he said, it is considered acceptable while in others it is not.
He added that further discussion is needed to reach a joint conclusion.
NGOs up pressure
NGOs and Echa failed to reach an agreement on how to tackle non-compliant applications, during a roundtable discussion the day before the Echa conference.
European Environmental Bureau (EEB) secretary general Jeremy Wates said at the conference that the agency is "reticent and over cautious".
"That is why, over the heads of Echa, I would like to speak to member states and industry representatives to appeal for a name and shame approach," he said. "Why should you defend those industries which are failing to submit responsibly completed registration applications?"
The agency has been providing registration numbers – and therefore access to the market – to all registration dossiers "by default, even when these are incomplete, inadequate or irrelevant", he said.
The principle of ‘no data, no market’ is not being applied, he added, and the burden of proof towards industry has not been shifted. Instead, member state authorities "have to fill in the missing information in dossiers".
Echa should significantly step up revocations, he said, adding that there is a lack of a "comprehensive system for knowing how bad the non-compliant dossier situation is".
Revocations
Mr Dancet said that Echa's call for voluntary action "does not take away the fact" that it can and should withdraw registration numbers from companies that are not complying.
"This kind of thing travels quickly – we have taken away registration numbers and people suddenly can no longer sell. This is a much more powerful instrument."
Three registrations have been revoked to date as part of a campaign requesting companies meet the level of the enhanced completeness check launched in June 2016. Echa has sent letters to companies and "a few cases" of potential revocations are pending.
Mr Dancet said Echa has sent "hundreds of such letters threatening" this. Within six months, 90% of companies brought their dossiers into compliance.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56867/dancet-dismisses-naming-and-shaming-of-poor-reach-dossier-companies
-
Jun 15, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Support for authorisation review reports
Echa has published online support for anyone preparing review reports for authorisation. And the agency has also released updated application formats for use in them and authorisation applications.
It has also published a format for the explanatory note that goes with review reports.
Authorisation holders prepare these reports when they need to use a listed substance of very high concern (SVHC) beyond the time limit of the agreed review period.
In such cases the Commission can extend the authorisation decisions, when it is shown that:
· risks are adequately controlled, or the benefits of authorisation outweigh the remaining risks; and
· suitable alternatives are still unavailable.
Review reports must be submitted at least 18 months before the expiry of the authorisation period.
Rac and Seac opinions on applications for authorisation
The agency says the consolidated opinions of the Committees for Risk Assessment (Rac) and Socio-economic Analysis (Seac) for uses of the following substances are available:
· one use of chromium trioxide (EC 215-607-8; Cas1333-82-0) by Euro Cryospace France;
· one use of 1,2-dichloroethane (EDC) (EC 203-458-1; Cas 107-06-2) by Akzo Nobel Chemicals SpA; and
· two uses of 1,2-dichloroethane (EDC) (EC 203-458-1; Cas 107-06-2) by Orgapharm.
New intentions to identify SVHCs
Echa has received the following new intentions for identification as an SVHC:
· cadmium carbonate (EC 208-168-9, Cas 513-78-0);
· cadmium hydroxide (EC 244-168-5, Cas 21041-95-2);
· cadmium nitrate (EC 233-710-6, Cas 10325-94-7); and
· tricobalt tetraoxide containing ≥ 0.1 % w/w nickel oxides (EC 215-157-2, Cas1308-06-1).
The expected submission date for these is 7 August.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56789/echa-round-up
-
Jun 15, 2017 | Daily Energy Insider
U.S. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) introduced legislation this week that would expedite federal permitting for a natural gas energy hub in the Appalachian region.
The Appalachian Energy and Manufacturing Infrastructure Revitalization Act of 2017 would direct the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with other relevant federal agencies, to designate an Appalachian regional energy hub as a “critical energy infrastructure” project. This would make the project eligible for expedited federal permitting.
“The benefits of establishing a regional energy hub in Appalachia cannot be overstated,” Capito said. “This important infrastructure project would help create much-needed jobs for West Virginians and grow our state’s economy in meaningful ways. By reducing regulatory burdens, the Appalachian Energy and Manufacturing Infrastructure Revitalization Act will bring us one step closer to making the Appalachian energy hub a reality.”
The secretaries would also work the liaisons of relevant federal and state agencies to facilitate coordination and collaborate with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on the approval process.
The legislation would also direct the federal agencies that manage federal grant and loan programs to accelerate consideration of those applications.
The American Chemistry Council conducted a study in May, which concluded that the project would create an estimated $36 billion in capital investment and more than 100,000 permanent jobs in Appalachia by 2025.
https://dailyenergyinsider.com/news/5818-sen-capito-introduces-legislation-expedite-permitting-appalachian-natural-gas-hub/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Grant Awarded for Pilot Program at Hazleton Mining Operation
Jun 15, 2017 | Hazleton Standard-Speaker
U.S. Rep. Lou Barletta today announced that the U.S. Department of Energy has awarded grant funding for a pilot program to extract rare earth elements from soil overburden from Jeddo Coal Co.’s anthracite mining operation in Hazleton.
The possibility of future, large-scale REEs production from anthracite coal could boost job creation and economic growth in Northeast Pennsylvania and present an opportunity for the U.S. to move away from its reliance on China for these minerals, a news release from Barletta’s office states.
Barletta, R-11, Hazleton, was the first member of Congress to send a letter in support of this pilot program.
“The Department of Energy’s studies have shown that the Appalachian coal fields throughout Northeastern Pennsylvania contain some of the highest concentrations of rare earth elements,” Barletta said in the release. “These elements are critical components of everyday electronics and equipment used in the health care, transportation and defense industries. With our abundance of anthracite, we have the potential to create and support good-paying jobs, not just in the coal industry, but in manufacturing and related industries that rely on these elements.”
REEs are a set of 17 metals found in the Earth’s crust. Due to their unique chemical properties, REEs are used in the production of various high-tech products, including cellphones and computers, and are instrumental in U.S. defense weapons systems.
According to the American Chemistry Council, REEs support more than $329 billion of economic output in North America.
The U.S. gets 100 percent of its REEs supply from China, which currently produces more than 85 percent of the world’s REEs.
“It is critical for our national security that we turn to a domestic source of these minerals,” Barletta said. “Our military should not have to rely on China or any other country for the resources necessary to keep us safe, especially when those resources are readily available right here in Pennsylvania.”
DOE awarded the $1 million grant to a consortium comprised of Penn State University, Texas Mineral Resources Corp., Indenture Renewables and K Technologies through the department’s “Production of Salable Rare Earth Element Materials from Coal and Coal By-Products” funding opportunity announcement.
http://standardspeaker.com/news/grant-awarded-for-pilot-program-at-hazleton-mining-operation-1.2206698
-
Trump Admin Falling Behind on Rule Reconsideration
Jun 15, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Trump administration failed to meet its own target date for kicking off a review of an Obama-era rule for hydraulic fracturing on public and tribal lands.
The Interior Department told a federal court last month that it would publish a proposed rulemaking to consider scrapping or revising the embattled fracking rule by June 13. The agency has yet to roll out any such notice.
The proposed rulemaking would kick off the formal reconsideration period for the Obama administration's rule, which set new standards for well construction, wastewater management and chemical disclosure for fracked wells.
A federal court in Wyoming tossed the rule last year, ruling that the federal government has no authority over the oil and gas production technique. The Obama administration appealed the decision to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but the case was sidetracked earlier this year when the Trump administration announced plans to rethink the rule.
The fracking rule is one of several being rolled back or reconsidered in light of President Trump's executive order on "energy independence," which prioritizes domestic energy production.
A spokeswoman for Interior's Bureau of Land Management said she did not have a time frame for when the official rulemaking process would begin. Representatives from the Interior Department did not respond to requests for more information.
The Trump administration has a supplemental brief due next Tuesday at the 10th Circuit, where it is arguing for the court to hold the case in abeyance while the litigation plans out. The agency will likely issue its proposal by then.
Earthjustice attorney Mike Freeman said the agency's delay in starting the rulemaking process on schedule illustrates broader problems with putting the litigation on hold while Interior works through its reconsideration.
"The agency has been saying for three months now that it was about to propose to rescind the rule, and yet we're still waiting for them to even formally start that process," he said. "That delay just underscores our concerns that by holding the appeal in abeyance, it could be allowing BLM to stall this whole issue for literally years."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/06/15/stories/1060056070
-
Enviros Eye Multiple Legal Battles as Trump Admin Freezes Regs
Jun 15, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Trump administration will likely end up in court defending recent decisions to postpone Obama-era requirements for slashing greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas industry.
In a one-two punch this week, U.S. EPA and the Interior Department announced delays to separate regulations designed to reduce the amount of heat-trapping methane released into the atmosphere from oil and gas wells and related infrastructure.
Interior's Bureau of Land Management yesterday rolled out plans to indefinitely postpone key provisions of its Methane and Waste Prevention Rule while a related legal battle plays out. The rule took effect in January after a federal court rejected state and industry requests for a preliminary injunction that would have halted it.
But the Trump administration is rethinking the rule. After a Congressional Review Act effort failed to sink the Obama-era standard, industry pressed the agency to move quickly to bring relief from upcoming requirements that many oil and gas companies consider costly and excessive.
The newly announced stay affects January 2018 deadlines for measuring flared gas, upgrading equipment, capturing vapors from storage tanks, and implementing leak detection and repair programs. Other provisions of the rule, including general restrictions on methane venting and flaring, are already in effect.
In a Federal Register notice published today, acting Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management Katharine MacGregor said Interior is pausing the rule under an Administrative Procedure Act provision that allows agencies to postpone the effective date of rules that are challenged in court.
"Postponing these compliance dates will help preserve the regulatory status quo while the litigation is pending and the Department reviews and reconsiders the Rule," the notice says.
The APA provision, Section 705, states, "When an agency finds that justice so requires, it may postpone the effective date of action taken by it, pending judicial review." Critics of the agency's decision say Section 705 cannot be applied to the methane rule because, while various compliance deadlines are phased in over time, the rule itself has already taken effect.
"[Section] 705 gives them some authority to stay rules before they go into effect," Earthjustice attorney Robin Cooley told E&E News. "This rule went into effect in January of this year. If they want to change the rule, whether that's the substantive provisions or the compliance dates, they have to go through a notice-and-comment rulemaking and involve the public in that decisionmaking. So this is kind of an end run around that process."
Cooley noted that the APA provision's use of "effective date" clearly applies to a rule itself, not individual compliance deadlines.
"It just makes sense because if all rules that went into effect were suddenly just up in the air — rules have all kinds of different compliance dates at different periods — it would inject this real uncertainty into any rulemaking if the agency could come back at any time and say, 'Oh, we didn't mean that,' and stay particular provisions," she said. "That was not the intent of Section 705."
Earthjustice and other groups that support the methane rule could file suit as soon as this week.
Nearly identical arguments are playing out in a legal battle over BLM's decision to use Section 705 to pause the agency's valuation rule for calculating royalties on fossil fuels produced on federal lands. That rule took effect Jan. 1 of this year.
California and New Mexico sued over the stay, arguing that "an agency cannot 'postpone' the effective date of a rule when that effective date has already come and gone." The case is moving forward in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
EPA's rule
Separate legal battles are brewing over EPA's unveiling Tuesday of a proposed two-year freeze of the agency's New Source Performance Standards for the industry.
The proposal, along with a proposed three-month buffer postponement, must go through a 30-day public comment period before taking effect (Energywire, June 14). Environmentalists have promised to go to court once EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt finalizes the delay.
"We have to file comments first, but when [Pruitt] finalizes this puppy, we'll see him in court," Natural Resources Defense Council attorney David Doniger said on Twitter after EPA announced the proposed two-year freeze.
A coalition of environmental groups is already in court fighting for the Obama EPA standards, which require industry to check for and repair methane leaks on new and modified sources. The groups quickly intervened in litigation last year to defend the rule against attacks from industry and several states. That case has since been put on ice while the Trump administration rethinks the rule.
The groups were back in court with a new lawsuit last week, challenging a separate 90-day administrative stay of the rule that took effect earlier this month. They made an emergency request for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to block EPA from pausing the standards. EPA's response to the request is due today.
Environmental groups say they're ready to push forward with additional legal action.
"We have already challenged the unlawful 90-stay on the EPA methane rule, and will continue to oppose attempts by this Administration to delay or destroy important health protections needed by Americans," the Clean Air Task Force's Sarah Uhl said in a statement.
The oil and gas industry, meanwhile, is backing the Trump administration's rollback efforts. Several oil and gas industry groups yesterday lined up in support of the agency in litigation over the existing stay (E&E News PM, June 14).
Industry supporters maintain that both the EPA rule and the BLM rule were unlawful, stretching beyond each agency's authority. Western Energy Alliance President Kathleen Sgamma said yesterday that BLM's rule strayed into state and EPA territory by attempting to regulate air quality, while EPA's standards lacked the necessary legal underpinning: a formal finding that methane from the oil and gas industry endangers public health. Rule supporters counter that the Obama administration's 2009 endangerment finding for greenhouse gases covers methane.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/06/15/stories/1060056068
-
Dems to Zinke: Arctic Exploration Too Risky
Jun 15, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Kellie Lunney
House Democrats are urging Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke once again to keep oil and gas drilling away from the Arctic Ocean.
Citing the Arctic region's unique wildlife and local communities' reliance on natural resources, nearly 80 lawmakers sent Zinke a letter yesterday, saying "there is simply no reason to put these ocean waters and all they support at risk."
President Trump's April 28 executive order reversed an Obama administration ban on drilling in much of the Arctic and opened the door for the Interior Department to allow offshore oil and gas leasing along Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic coasts (Greenwire, April 28).
The 2017-22 leasing program developed as part of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act shielded those areas from oil and gas leasing until 2022.
Oil and gas industry groups have argued that President Obama's decision to pre-emptively limit options for exploration and drilling undermined the country's energy production. They support a new plan, as well as a reversal of Obama's withdrawal of offshore areas.
The Trump order has alarmed environmentalists, coastal residents and members of Congress from both parties who represent the regions. Lawmakers have sent several letters to Zinke since the executive order asking him to keep offshore drilling in the OCS off the table.
"An oil spill anywhere in this region would be both devastating and impossible to clean up," wrote the Democrats, including Reps. Jared Huffman of California and Raúl Grijalva of Arizona, the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee. "And [the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management] itself identified a 75 percent likelihood of such a spill occurring."
They added: "The risks are simply too high, and the consequences too severe."
The lawmakers also noted that the process for establishing the 2017-22 program took place over three years, involving more than 3.4 million comments and 13 public meetings across the country.
"In recognition of the strong opposition of local residents, citizens, scientists, and reflecting exhaustive analysis, BOEM did not include any lease sales in the Arctic oceans in the final program," they wrote.
Zinke has said little on the topic since the executive order but has tasked BOEM with coming up with a new five-year plan for oil and gas drilling leasing in the region.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/06/15/stories/1060056106
-
EPA Delays Chemical Facility Safety Regulations Inspired by West Fertilizer Plant Explosion
Jun 15, 2017 | Texas Monthly
By Leif Reigstad
Environmental Protection Agency head Scott Pruitt signed an order earlier this week delaying new safety regulations for chemical facilities. The regulations, which were originally set to go into effect on June 13, were drawn up under the Obama administration after a fertilizer plant in the Central Texas city of West exploded in 2013, killing fifteen people. In addition to pushing back the effective date to February 2019, Pruitt’s order blocks amendments that strengthened a rule requiring facilities that use highly hazardous substances to develop a risk management plan, which would require them to revise and resubmit it to the EPA every five years, according to the EPA’s website.
According to an EPA press release when the agency first announced the new rules in December, the amendments were meant to “prevent catastrophic accidents by improving accident prevention program requirements.” Additionally, the amendments aimed to increase coordination between facilities and the communities surrounding them and strengthen third-party audits. The new rules were an immediate reaction to the disaster in West. In August 2013, just four months after the explosion, President Obama signed an executive order calling on the EPA to strengthen safety regulations in order to prevent similar incidents in the future.
But there were concerns that the new regulations were too little and too late. According to the Center for Public Integrity, some environmental advocate groups felt that the rules did not go far enough, and were worried that the incoming Trump administration would rip the rules to shreds. Those fears likely multiplied when Trump plucked Pruitt from Oklahoma, where he served as attorney general and had made a reputation for himself as a pro-industry, anti-regulatory kind of guy, filing a bunch of lawsuits challenging a variety of EPA regulations. According to Bloomberg, Pruitt was also one of the most vocal opponents of these new chemical facility regulations, writing a letter in July 2016 objecting to the proposed rules, arguing that the transparency improvements would basically provide roadmaps to terrorists.
“The safety of these manufacturing, processing, and storage facilities should be a priority for us all,” Pruitt wrote in the letter, which was signed by ten other attorneys general. “But safety encompasses more than preventing accidental releases of chemicals, it also encompasses preventing intentional releases caused by bad actors seeking to harm our citizens. Your proposed rule seeks to make readily-available to the public information that you believe might be useful to the public in the event of an accidental release of chemicals. . .compiling that information and making it easily accessible also aids those who might seek to cause an intentional release for nefarious purposes, by providing those bad actors with information that would help them both select a target and exploit any security vulnerabilities their target might have.”
Pruitt didn’t directly touch on the safety concerns in a brief statement about his order. “We are seeking additional time to review the [Risk Management Program], so that we can fully evaluate the public comments raised by multiple petitioners and consider other issues that may benefit from additional public input,” Pruitt said in a press release Monday. In February, Pruitt’s office received a petition from the “RMP Coalition,” a group of chemical industry advocates, lobbyists, and trade organizations, requesting Pruitt delay the regulations. Eleven states, including Texas, filed a similar petition in March. Opponents of the rules have argued that they would put an unfair burden on the industry and on state agencies tasked with enforcing the regulations. There had been several short-term delays enacted on these rules since Trump took office, but Pruitt’s latest order almost certainly means Obama’s tougher regulations will be scrapped entirely in place of newer, industry-friendly rules.
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board completed its investigation into the West explosion in January of last year, uncovering multiple safety failures and regulatory gaps that led to the disaster. “The CSB’s investigation of the West Fertilizer accident found significant gaps in information critical to first responders,” CSB Communications Manager Hillary Cohen said in an emailed statement in Wednesday. “The EPA’s proposed rule was in part a response to our findings and recommendations. In the final analysis, facility employees, communities and first responders should have adequate information to understand the risks inherent in such facilities, to ensure everyone’s safety.”
The timing of Pruitt’s decision comes as West continues to recover and rebuild after the explosion destroyed much of the surrounding neighborhood, including schools and a nursing home. Work began last month on a memorial to honor those killed in the blast. According to the Austin American-Statesman, the Fallen Heroes Memorial in West will feature a reflecting pool with an eternal flame, encircled by plaques honoring the twelve first responders and three residents who died during the disaster. The memorial is expected to be completed by the end of the summer. “There’s always been a big interest, not only from the community, in letting it be known what those first responders did for the town,” memorial committee chairman Joe Pustejovsky said. Pustejovsky lost his son, Joey, who was responding to the fire. “In a situation like this where it’s such a tragedy, where so many people rushed to the defense of the town, we don’t want that to be forgotten.”
http://www.texasmonthly.com/energy/epa-delays-chemical-facility-safety-regulations-inspired-west-fertilizer-plant-explosion/
-
Guest Commentary: Railroads Must Learn from Amtrak Tragedy, Implement Safety Technology
Jun 15, 2017 | Progressive Railroading
By Keith Millhouse
Former Amtrak engineer Brandon Bostian was arraigned last month on charges of involuntary manslaughter in the 2015 Philadelphia Amtrak disaster that claimed eight lives and injured 200. This was Amtrak’s failure as much as Bostian’s; it didn’t have to happen.
“It’s widely understood that every person, no matter how conscientious and skilled, is fallible, which is why technology was developed to backstop human vulnerabilities,” said National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Chairman Christopher Hart at a public meeting held in May 2016.
Amtrak failed to implement a decades-old safety technology that would have prevented the incident. Positive train control (PTC) combats human error by automatically stopping a train that’s on course to collide with another, on a track it shouldn’t be on or going too fast.
On May 12, 2015, Bostian had whipped the Amtrak 188 around a bend at 106 mph where the speed limit was 50. An investigation found that he was distracted.
The investigation of the 2008 Metrolink crash in Chatsworth, Calif., determined that the Connex engineer, Robert Sanchez, was texting when he ran through a red signal and collided head on with a freight train. Twenty-five people died and over 130 were injured. The tragedy was gruesome and preventable. Had PTC been in place, it would have stopped the train.
Amtrak’s long delay isn’t unique, but the crash in Philadelphia could have been prevented, if the company had followed Metrolink’s lead. I was elected chairman of Metrolink’s board shortly after the 2008 train collision. The disaster rocked our community.
Under my leadership, Metrolink became the first commuter-rail operator to implement PTC. If Amtrak had moved with the speed Metrolink had, the Philadelphia accident wouldn’t have happened.
To prevent this type of tragedy elsewhere, Congress enacted the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, which required many freight and commuter railroads to implement PTC by 2015’s end. In late 2015, Congress extended the deadline to Dec. 31, 2018 (and to Dec. 31, 2020, in certain cases) after the Government Accountability Office determined that Amtrak and some Class Is weren’t on schedule to meet the initial deadline.
There was no reason that Amtrak couldn’t have learned from the Chatsworth tragedy. The company shouldn’t have needed a tragedy of its own before it implemented the technology.
Railroads are now hustling to meet the end-of-2018 deadline. And in wake of the Amtrak crash, the company has implemented PTC on its Northeast Corridor.
Amtrak and other companies have also been sluggish to adopt another safety technology that could save lives: inward-facing cameras. Amtrak only moved to install the cameras two weeks after the Philadelphia accident. There are still Amtrak lines without the technology now. Metrolink’s inward-facing cameras have been operational since 2010; even a cursory following of the aftermath of Chatsworth should have forced every rail operator in the country to install these cameras immediately.
“Recorders are readily available, easily installed, and largely affordable,” according to the NTSB’s latest “Most Wanted List of Transportation Safety Improvements.” The NTSB recommends all controlling cabs have crash-proof, inward-facing cameras that “can verify that train crew actions are in accordance with essential safety rules and procedures…”Yet, Amtrak’s train in the Philadelphia crash wasn’t equipped with an inward-facing video recorder. That information would no doubt have helped investigators determine exactly what happened in the accident; it may also have altered the conduct of the engineer and heightened his awareness; the key factor in the accident according to the NTSB.
Bostian said he “doesn’t remember” what happened prior to the accident. While this may be true, it’s an often-repeated phrase by engineers in accidents, and if there were inward-facing camera we would know if protocol had been followed. If an engineer is following protocol, but still causes an incident, the videos can help administrators implement policies so it doesn’t happen again.
Often companies don’t implement inward-facing cameras due to fierce resistance from unions, which want to protect their members from unfair snooping by rail administrators. After the Chatsworth collision, the unions challenged Metrolink’s right to implement inward-facing cameras. They lost in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, and then again in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. They didn’t pursue an appeal to the United States Supreme Court , which arguably would have opened up the cameras to nationwide use — which is what needs to happen immediately.
Companies can’t bend to the unions at the expense of safety. Besides, unions should embrace the technology. Oftentimes, engineers aren’t at fault for incidents and a video recording can absolve them from any undeserved consequences.
Amtrak and other companies need to be proactive rather than reactive in implementing safety technology that can save lives, and all railroads need to learn from the tragedies of others and not wait to have their own.
Keith Millhouse, the founder of Millhouse Strategies, is an attorney, government relations and transportation/infrastructure consultant based in Southern California. While chairman of Metrolink, he enacted what’s considered one of the strictest rail safety standards in the nation.http://www.progressiverailroading.com/safety/article/Guest-Commentary-Railroads-must-learn-from-Amtrak-tragedy-implement-safety-technology--51907
-
Brawl Begins over Spokane Bid to Regulate Coal, Oil Trains
Jun 15, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Dylan Brown
A ballot push by activists in Spokane, Wash., to impose local regulations on trains carrying coal and oil through the city has spurred strong opposition from the rail industry.
The Safer Spokane campaign turned in a petition this week to let voters decide whether to fine owners of rail cars carrying uncovered coal or oil that hasn't been treated to reduce its flammability.
The 5,200 signatures on the petition must be verified, and the Spokane City Council must agree to put the issue on the ballot (Energywire, May 23).
But with twice as many signatures as required for making the ballot, campaigns for and against the measure have already begun.
The stakes are high. Spokane is a critical juncture between Western coal mines, Bakken oil rigs and Pacific export terminals.
The Association of American Railroads warned Spokane last month to abandon the measure. The trade group represents the railroads with lines in Spokane — BNSF Railway Co. and Union Pacific Railroad.
"Enactment of a ban would accomplish nothing more than wasting public (and railroad) resources on litigation with a foregone conclusion," Michael J. Rush, AAR's senior vice president of safety and operations, wrote in a recent Spokane Spokesman-Review op-ed.
The federal government has sweeping control over American railroads under laws enacted to keep trains rolling across local and state lines.
The Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act gives the Surface Transportation Board exclusive jurisdiction over trains, and the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act also grants federal pre-emption.
That law was behind the Spokane City Council's withdrawal of a rail ordinance last year.
Spokane hearing examiner Brian McGinn, an administrative law judge appointed by the City Council, told officials that the ordinance's primary goal was "precluded by federal law" and no minor changes could "cure the legal shortcomings."
But Safer Spokane and city Councilman Breean Beggs pressed on, with concerns lingering less than a year after an oil train derailment and spill in Mosier, Ore.
The proposed ballot initiative, Initiative No. 2016-6 would impose a fine for transporting "uncontained coal and some types of oil by rail through the downtown Spokane core, or within 2,000 feet of a school, hospital, or the Spokane River."
The new proposal focuses on the Federal Railroad Safety Act, which allows states to impose their own regulations until the federal government specifically addresses an issue, and the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution that allows local governments to address local dangers.
In Spokane, trains cross above interstate highways, run along and over the Spokane River, and close to hospitals and schools. Accidents are not unprecedented. In 1991, a train derailed over Interstate 90.
"Transporting highly flammable oil trains over elevated railways that are covered with uncontained coal dust through the most densely populated locale between the Bakken oil fields and Interstate 5 and also adjacent to the sole source drinking water aquifer for over 200,000 individuals is an essentially local hazard for which the Secretary of Transportation has not yet implemented safety rules," the petition states.
The initiative would mandate that coal cars be covered and that oil be conditioned to reduce its volatility. Another key change is that the owner of the car — increasingly the oil or coal company, not the railroad — would be the one fined.
According to the petition, costs associated with the requirements would not be an undue burden, but critics are unconvinced.
"This is opening up the taxpayers of Spokane to a huge legal fight, one that will ultimately cost them tax dollars better used for other city services," Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich said.
Railroads say they have invested heavily in safety and that derailments have trended downward, with less than 1 percent involving crude oil.
Michael Cathcart, president of the business group Better Spokane, said environmental antagonism to fossil fuels, not safety, is motivating the initiative.
"Rail remains the safest, most efficient means of moving these commodities," he said. "Yet because of the politics around fossil fuels, we're willing to jeopardize a major trade network for our city, our state and our region."
Safer Spokane President Jim Lee said public safety, not environmental concerns, are paramount in the ballot push. He praised safety measures taken voluntarily by BNSF, such as adopting a 35 mph speed limit and increased track inspections, but he said his group's measure is still needed.
"We have a big education job to do," Lee said. "And I'm sure we're going to have large investments in our opposition."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/06/15/stories/1060056104
-
House Panel Advances Yucca Mountain, Ozone Bills
Jun 15, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A House panel approved three environmental bills on Thursday, including controversial measures on nuclear waste storage and ozone pollution.
Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce’s environment subcommittee opposed a bill from Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas) that would delay the implementation timeline for federal ozone standards.
The legislation would ask the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to update its standards for ozone pollution every 10 years rather than every 5 years, the timeline currently set by federal law.
Supporters of the measure — including most Republicans and many industry groups that oppose stricter ozone standards — say the measure will make it easier for cities and localities to come into compliance with federal ozone limits.
“This bill creates a path to move forward on air quality,” Olson said.
“It fixes the mess of the last eight years by giving long overdue reforms to the process of how EPA sets new ozone standards. … This is about improving air quality in a manner that doesn’t allow states to duplicate paperwork requirements.”
The House passed Olson’s bill last year, but the Senate never took it up.
Democrats warned that the bill would have an adverse impact on public health.
The bill “puts the public health and safety of the American people at risk, and virtually guarantees that people living in areas with poor air quality will continue to breathe unhealthy air indefinitely,” said Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (N.J.), the top Democrat on the full Energy and Commerce Committee.
Democrats also pushed back on a GOP bill to advance a nuclear waste depository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
Republicans crafted a bill to speed up the permitting process for the Yucca site by giving the federal government the power to issue air permits, bypassing Nevada’s longstanding opposition to the project.
“Nuclear waste management policy is not a partisan issue and there is an urgent need for Congress to address this challenge as taxpayer liability continues to skyrocket due to the federal government’s unfulfilled obligations,” Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) said.
Democrats said they want to address the issue of nuclear waste storage and find a long-term solution to the problem. But they objected to the Republicans’ bill, saying it doesn’t take Nevada’s wishes into consideration.
The bill “would essentially override the state of Nevada’s objection over its water rights,” Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) said.
“States, especially western states, are incredibly protective of these rights and I would recommend caution before going down this road.”
The panel also approved a bipartisan draft bill to reauthorize the EPA's Brownfields program. The three bills next go the full committee for approval.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/337959-house-panel-advances-yucca-mountain-ozone-bills
-
OIRA Works Quietly on Updating Social Cost of Carbon
Jun 15, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Hess
Not far from the White House, some of the federal government's most influential number crunchers are still working on the social cost of carbon.
President Trump's executive order on energy independence effectively signaled "pencils down" on federal work to estimate the monetary damage of greenhouse gas emissions, disbanding the interagency working group that calculated the dollar value on the effect of greenhouse gas emissions on the planet and society.
But his order didn't eliminate the metric entirely.
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs' Jim Laity, a career staffer who leads the Natural Resources and Environment Branch, said yesterday his office is "actively working on thinking about the guidance" Trump gave in March.
With the Trump agenda focused on regulatory rollback, federal agencies haven't yet issued rules that require valuations of carbon emissions, "although they are working on something coming in the not-too-distant future," Laity told an audience attending the National Academy of Sciences' seminar on valuing climate change impacts.
Employees from U.S. EPA, the Interior Department and the Department of Energy were in the crowd, along with academics and prominent Washington think tank scholars.
Greens fear the Trump administration could wipe out the social cost of carbon valuation, currently set around $40 per metric ton of carbon dioxide, as part of what they portray as a war on climate science. Revisions to the White House estimates have raised hackles among Republicans and conservatives, who allege they are part of a secret power grab.
Laity would play a key role in that effort as top overseer of energy and environmental rules.
Addressing the summit via webcast yesterday, Laity walked the audience through a decade of actions related to the calculation and influential feedback, including from a 13-member panel of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. He stressed the outcome is still uncertain.
The Trump administration "looked at the work we had done, and they looked at the criticisms, and they decided we needed to have a pause to kind of rethink what we were doing a little bit in this area," Laity said, previewing the executive order that was praised by the oil and gas industry.
The metric flew under the radar during President Obama's first term. However, a significant jump in values in 2013 set the stage for a clash between then-OIRA Director Howard Shelanski and Republican lawmakers who alleged the estimate was the product of a closed-door process (E&E Daily, July 19, 2013).
A few months after the hearing, OIRA announced it would provide opportunity for public comment on the estimate. Critics took issue with the discount rate the government used to account for damage and expressed concern that the finding, though based on peer-reviewed literature, had not been peer-reviewed.
"I think we also realized that we needed to pay more attention to some of these issues than maybe we had in the past," Laity said.
OIRA received 140 unique comments, and some 39,000 letters, which Laity said mostly supported having some kind of cost-benefit analysis of the cost to society of each ton of emissions in property damage, health care costs, lost agricultural output and other expenses.
"We took some of those concerns to heart," he said.
In July 2015, the White House slightly revised its estimate. It also announced that the executive branch would seek independent expert advice from the National Academies to inform yet another revision of the estimate, though federal agencies would continue to use the current figure in their rulemakings until that revision could be made (Greenwire, July 6).
Part one of the two-phase study, released in January 2016, blessed the figure. It found the White House did not need to review its estimates in the short term. Part two, released a few weeks before Obama left office, recommended a new framework for making the estimate and more research into long-term climate damage.
Within three months, the Trump administration formally disbanded the interagency working group that would have implemented those recommendations. The executive order also formally withdrew the technical support documents OIRA had used in the past.
The think tank Resources for the Future recently announced the start of an initiative focused on responding to the scientists' recommendations (Greenwire, June 9).
Guidance for OIRA
Laity noted that the next paragraph of Trump's executive order acknowledged agencies would need to continue monetizing greenhouse gas emissions damage in their regulations, to the extent that the rules affect emissions.
As an interim measure, the order directed OIRA to offer some guidance about how to do that, directing that any values that were used would be consistent with the guidance of a document published by the Office of Management and Budget in September 2003, Circular A-4.
There are two main areas of concern: the discount rate and the global focus of the current estimate.
"A-4 has very specific advice," Laity explained. The document says pretty unequivocally that the main factor in weighing regulations should be cost and benefits to the U.S. If a regulation does have significant impacts outside the U.S. that are important to consider, these should be "clearly segregated out and reported separately," he said.
Economists clashed during a recent hearing of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee on how best to estimate the figure.
Former Obama administration official Michael Greenstone, who attended yesterday's summit and gave a presentation, argues the benefits of emission reductions play out in part in international politics.
Greenstone, chief economist for the Council of Economic Advisers in 2009 and 2010, has warned that reverting to a social cost of carbon that only considers domestic benefits of emission reductions is "essentially asking the rest of the world to ramp up their emissions" (E&E Daily, March 1).
Said Laity: "All I can say right now is that we are actively working on thinking about the guidance that we have been given in the new executive order and, sort of technically, how best to implement that in upcoming ... rulemaking."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/06/15/stories/1060056112
-
Energy Department Closes Office Working on Climate Change Abroad
Jun 15, 2017 | New York Times
By Brad Plumer
The Energy Department is closing an office that works with other countries to develop clean energy technology, another sign of the Trump administration’s retreat on climate-related activities after its withdrawal from the Paris agreement this month.
The 11 staff members of the Office of International Climate and Technology were told this month that their positions were being eliminated, according to current and former agency employees. The office was formed in 2010 to help the United States provide technical advice to other nations seeking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The small office also played a lead role preparing for the annual Clean Energy Ministerial, a forum in which the United States, China, India and other countries shared insights on how best to promote energy efficiency, electric vehicles and other solutions to climate change.
Word of the closing came right before Rick Perry, the energy secretary, attended the latest Clean Energy Ministerial meeting in Beijing on June 6 to 8, agency employees said.
The Energy Department did not respond to a request for comment.
In May, President Trump released a budget for 2018 proposing the “elimination of climate change initiatives” within the Energy Department, including the international climate office. While the budget will require congressional approval, Mr. Perry has authority to reorganize parts of the Energy Department before lawmakers decide on spending levels.Continue reading the main storyRELATED COVERAGEgraphicA Crack in an Antarctic Ice Shelf Grew 17 Miles in the Last Two Months FEB. 7, 2017Earth Sets a Temperature Record for the Third Straight Year JAN. 18, 2017Large Sections of Australia’s Great Reef Are Now Dead, Scientists Find MARCH 15, 2017
The office is the only one in the Energy Department to have “climate” as part of its name.
The Trump administration has scaled back the federal government’s involvement on global warming on a number of fronts, scrubbing mentions of “climate change” from a variety of agency websites and unwinding climate regulations at the Environmental Protection Agency.
Closing the Office of International Climate and Technology could make cooperation on clean energy with other countries much harder, said Graham Pugh, who headed the office from 2011 to 2014. While both the State and Energy Departments still have separate programs to engage with China, Brazil and other countries, the office being eliminated specialized in applying the agency’s technical expertise to other nations’ efforts to advance clean energy projects.
The office played an important role, for instance, in helping India develop its own lighting efficiency standards and start a program to purchase LED lamps in bulk for consumers. “That program will lead to massive savings in terms of avoided carbon dioxide emissions and air pollution,” said Jonathan Elkind, who was an assistant secretary for the Energy Department’s Office of International Affairs during the Obama administration.
“Unfortunately there is an incredible dissonance between the declared interest of this administration to continue to lead on clean energy, and their actions,” Mr. Elkind said.
Scott Pruitt, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, said a day after President Trump announced the withdrawal from the Paris accord that the United States would continue to engage with other nations on climate change by sharing clean energy technology.
“We need to export the technology and natural gas to those around the globe, India and China, and help them learn from us on what we’ve done to achieve good outcomes,” he said.
It is possible that other ongoing technology-sharing initiatives spearheaded by the Energy Department, like collaboration with China to develop carbon capture for its coal plants, will survive. But Mr. Pugh said the shutdown of this office made it far less likely that new opportunities for cooperation on energy technology would emerge.
The annual Clean Energy Ministerial will continue, as the previous energy secretary, Ernest J. Moniz, transferred responsibility for leading that forum to the International Energy Agency last July.
Other changes to the Energy Department being contemplated by the Trump administration, like sweeping reductions in spending on research into renewable energy, nuclear power and carbon capture, will still require approval by Congress. Even some Republican lawmakers have ex
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/15/climate/energy-department-closes-office-working-on-climate-change-abroad.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&_r=0
-
Carbon Emissions Grow at Lowest Levels Since Early 1980s, BP Says
Jun 15, 2017 | Houston Chronicle (In Real Clear Energy)
By Collin Eaton
In the past three years, carbon emissions have risen at the slowest pace worldwide since the early 1980s, a development bolstered last year by an oil bust, declining coal and rapidly growing renewable energy, BP says.
In an annual report on energy data Tuesday, the British oil company said carbon emissions inched upward by 0.1 percent in 2016, marking the third year in a row in which emissions fell or stayed flat and the lowest three-year average since 1981 to 1983.
In the United States, the world's second-largest emitter after China, carbon emission have fallen from a recent peak of 6.13 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2007 to 5.35 billion last year, amid a surge in natural gas production and a dramatic decline in coal at power plants. China put out 9.12 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide last year, down from a recent peak of 9.22 billion in 2014.
BP attributed the global stagnation in carbon in part to weak energy demand, a transient market force that could change amid faster economic growth. OPEC said Tuesday it expects oil demand to rise by 2 million barrels a day this year.
"While welcome, it is not yet clear how much of this break from the past is structural and will persist," BP CEO Bob Dudleysaid in a statement. "We need to keep up our focus and efforts on reducing carbon emissions."
BP supports the Paris accords, the 2015 agreement between scores of countries to try to keep carbon emissions low enough to prevent a catastrophic rise in global temperatures. President Trump said the United States will exit the agreement earlier this month. BP said it hoped the U.S. president would follow through on his suggestions he would be open to an alternative pact.
Last year, renewable energy sources surged compared to fossil fuels. Low energy prices kept oil and gas production flat, while coal demand dropped for the second year in a row, down 1.7 percent as the United States and China curbed the fuel.
Coal dropped to its lowest percentage of the global energy mix since 2004, at 28.1 percent of the world's fuel sources. Global oil output rose at its slowest pace since 2009, at 0.5 percent, as production outside of OPEC dropped by the most in 25 years.
Meanwhile, the supply of wind, solar and other renewable energy sources grew by a combined 12 percent last year, rising to 4 percent of the global energy mix. Wind grew 16 percent; solar, 30 percent. China surpassed the United States last year as the world's biggest renewable power producer, BP said.
http://www.realclearenergy.org/2017/06/15/carbon_emissions_grow_at_lowest_levels_since_early_1980s_283738.html
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested