Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 8/16/2017
-
Scott Pruitt Is Turning the EPA Into The KGB
Aug 15, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Alex Formuzis
Scott Pruitt, polluters’ puppet and head of the Environmental Protection Agency, knows most Americans are strongly opposed to his anti-public health, anti-kids, anti-science agenda. That’s why he does all he can to hide it. -
(ACC Mentioned) Application of Toxic Substances Control Act Prompts Environmental Groups to Sue
Aug 16, 2017 | Environmental Leader
By Ken Silverstein
Now that President Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency has said that it will evaluate chemicals according to their risk factors in an effort to get new products into the market, several environmental groups have said they are suing the agency. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Declines Industry Call To Delay Nano Reporting Rule But Expands Guide
Aug 15, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA has denied an industry request to delay the effective of date of the Obama administration's Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reporting rule for nanomaterials in commerce, but it has updated implementing guidance to better clarify reportable substances and is promising to answer additional questions in future updates to the guide. -
US EPA Publishes Nano Reporting Guidance
Aug 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has published updated guidance on its nanoscale materials information gathering rule, following a consultation on draft guidance issued in May. -
EPA Publishes Final Guidance as Final TSCA Section 8(a) Rule Takes Effect
Aug 15, 2017 | The National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson Carla N. Hutton
On August 14, 2017, as the final Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(a) information gathering rule on nanomaterials took effect, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published “working guidance” intended to assist stakeholders in complying with the rule. -
Trump’s EPA Weakened Toxic Chemical Rules, So We’re Suing
Aug 15, 2017 | Natural Resources Defense Council
The agency recently finalized two flawed, industry-friendly rules for evaluating the risks of chemicals on our health and the environment. -
EPA Hit With 2 Lawsuits Over Safety Review for Chemicals
Aug 15, 2017 | ColorLines Magazine
By Ayana Byrd
Earthjustice filed two lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California yesterday (August 15) that challenge how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) performs safety reviews on chemicals that harm families and workers. -
Authorization for Freeport LNG Export Facility Upheld by Court
Aug 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
A federal appeals court upheld the Energy Department's authorization of a Freeport LNG Development L.P., liquefied natural gas export facility in Texas, rejecting the Sierra Club's assertion that the department didn't go far enough to assess the indirect environmental impacts of the project. -
Big Oil Follows Silicon Valley into Backing Green Energy Firms
Aug 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anna Hirtenstein
Major oil companies are joining Silicon Valley in backing energy-technology start-ups, a signal that that those with the deepest pockets in the industry are casting around for a new strategy. -
EPA Backs Utilities' Push To Rework Key Provisions Of Power Plant ELG
Aug 15, 2017 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
EPA is preparing to start a rulemaking to rework three key portions of the contested Obama-era Clean Water Act (CWA) effluent rule for power plants, backing utilities' push to soften mandates they say are unjustified -- even while the power companies in litigation defend other parts of the rule against environmentalists' attempts to tighten them. -
Pullback In U.S. Fracking Sand Use Pressures Producers
Aug 16, 2017 | Reuters
By Arathy S Nair and Nivedita Bhattacharjee
U.S. shale oil companies are pulling back on the amount of sand they use to hydraulically fracture new wells, responding to rising prices of the material that are driving up costs. -
Exxon Mobil's $2.6M Fine for Ruptured Pipeline Tossed
Aug 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew M. Ballard
Exxon Mobil will get a break on a $2.6 million fine levied against it for a 2013 pipeline spill in Arkansas. -
Trump Order Seeks To Speed NEPA Project Reviews
Aug 15, 2017 | Inside EPA
A new executive order from President Donald Trump seeks to limit federal agencies' environmental reviews of infrastructure projects under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to two years, while establishing a series of “accountability” measures for federal agencies involved in the permitting process. -
Trump Talks Infrastructure, But $1 Trillion Plan Is As Elusive As Ever
Aug 15, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Lauren Gardner
President Donald Trump on Tuesday rolled out yet another executive order aimed at speeding up approvals for infrastructure projects — the latest in a string of efforts to call attention to his languishing proposal for a $1 trillion initiative to rebuild the nation's roads, tunnels and bridges. -
N.J. Senate Plans Override Of Oil Train Bill That Railroads Opposed And Christie Vetoed
Aug 15, 2017 | NorthJersey.com
By Curtis Tate
The New Jersey Senate is expected to attempt an override of Gov. Chris Christie's veto of an oil train safety bill, which he issued last month after the state's three largest railroads directly urged him to reject the bill. -
Trade Groups Call on U.S. to Investigate CSX Rail Disruptions
Aug 15, 2017 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Nick Carey, Allison Lampert and Michael Flaherty
Dozens of U.S. trade groups have asked federal rail regulators to investigate CSX Corp's "chronic service failures," saying problems at No. 3 U.S. railroad have rippled across the North American rail network, according to a letter seen by Reuters.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News - There are no clips to report at this time.
-
Scott Pruitt Is Turning the EPA Into The KGB
Aug 15, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Alex Formuzis
Scott Pruitt, polluters’ puppet and head of the Environmental Protection Agency, knows most Americans are strongly opposed to his anti-public health, anti-kids, anti-science agenda. That’s why he does all he can to hide it.
A devastating report in The New York Timesdetails the extraordinary and unprecedented steps Pruitt is taking to keep secret his efforts to roll back decades of progress on drinking water and air quality, toxic chemicals in consumer products, and environmental justice. Among the revelations uncovered by reporters Coral Davenport and Eric Lipton:According to current EPA employees, when summoned to meetings with Administrator Pruitt, staff must “have an escort to gain entrance” to his office, are “told to leave behind their cellphones” and “are sometimes told not to take notes.”Wherever he goes, “even at E.P.A. headquarters,” Pruitt is “accompanied by armed guards, the first head of the agency to ever request round-the-clock security.”In an apparent effort to block any trail of communications with industry officials that could be captured in a Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, request, Pruitt “often makes important phone calls from other offices rather than use the phone in his office.”
The inescapable conclusion, says David Roberts of Vox, is that Pruitt’s stealth is “the only approach possible to advance an agenda that is unpopular and intellectually indefensible.”
The Times reports that in the last two months, the EPA “has received more than 2,000 Freedom of Information requests, many of them focused on Mr. Pruitt, asking for every possible record related to his tenure, including text messages, telephone records and even his web browsing history.”
EWG and our colleagues at American Oversight are among the public interest groups that have filed many of the FOIAs seeking details about Pruitt’s communications with polluters.
In April, EWG and American Oversight filed a FOIA with the EPA and the Department of Agriculture, demanding all communications between agency officials, pesticide manufacturers, and outside groups that have advocated for the continued use of chlorpyrifos – a neurotoxic pesticide known to cause brain damage in children – on food crops. This came in response to Pruitt’s alarming decision to summarily reverse a scheduled ban of the pesticide that was set into motion by the Obama administration. In June, EWG and American Oversight filed a lawsuit against Pruitt and the EPA for failing to produce those records.
Pruitt’s action went against the recommendations of the EPA’s own scientists, as well as many public health experts, including leading pediatricians. He said his decision to overrule those experts and the mountain of scientific research documenting the risks chlorpyrifos poses to kids was based on a solitary report by the Department of Agriculture, an agency that consistently supports the interests of industrial agriculture.
EWG and American Oversight will not let up the pressure on Pruitt to turn over those records.
Another EPA initiative targeted in Pruitt’s stealth attack is a rule to reduce agricultural and industrial pollution in the drinking water of millions of Americans. Pruitt is leading the Trump administration’s effort to roll back the Clean Water Rule, which would have extended water protections to smaller water sources, such as streams and wetlands that feed into major water sources like the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River.
EWG analyzed the EPA’s own data showing that 117 million Americans get at least some of their drinking water from the areas that would have seen additional protections under the proposal that Pruitt has targeted for destruction.
An exhaustive economic impact analysis by the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers estimated the proposed rule would bring economic benefits of between $550 million and $572 million. That figure is much larger than the costs to agriculture and real estate, the two leading industries opposed to the initiative, according to the Times.
As Pruitt prepared to pull the plug on the Clean Water Rule, EPA staff were verbally asked (not in writing, of course) to quickly rewrite the analysis and delete the parts that, according to the Times, “stripped away the half-billion-dollar economic benefits associated with protecting wetlands.”
Elizabeth Southerland, who recently resigned as a top water official at the EPA in protest of Pruitt’s agenda after 30 years of service, told the Times:
Typically there are huge written records, weighing in on the scientific facts, the technology facts and the economic facts. Everything’s in writing. This repeal process is political staff giving verbal directions to get the outcome they want, essentially overnight.
There’s more: Under Pruitt’s leadership, the EPA no longer requires the oil and gas industry to report annual pollution emissions information, has deleted volumes of climate change data from the agency’s website, fired outside science advisers, watered down regulations for toxic chemicals and got President Trump to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate pact.
EWG has spent the last 25 years dragging government and industry data into the public square: naming every farm subsidy recipient, the pesticides the USDA finds on produce, and the toxic chemicals used as ingredients in cosmetics, food and cleaners – all of which are rarely disclosed.
“When Scott Pruitt’s time at the EPA ends, he has a bright future lecturing on the anti-democratic art of quashing scientific research, silencing scientists and keeping taxpayers in the dark about battering their health,” said EWG President Ken Cook. “While much of President Trump’s agenda is firmly in the hands of the inept, his EPA chief is mowing down the country’s public health and environmental protections with ruthless abandon. Along the way, he’s doing all he can to shield his actions from the eyes of the American people.”
“The public deserves to know exactly how its government is responding to health threats from pollution,” Cook said. “It is outrageous that Pruitt and President Trump are using taxpayer dollars to protect polluters from the damage they’ve caused, but that’s exactly what’s happening.”
http://www.ewg.org/planet-trump/2017/08/scott-pruitt-turning-epa-kgb#.WZQGcTMjGUk
-
(ACC Mentioned) Application of Toxic Substances Control Act Prompts Environmental Groups to Sue
Aug 16, 2017 | Environmental Leader
By Ken Silverstein
Now that President Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency has said that it will evaluate chemicals according to their risk factors in an effort to get new products into the market, several environmental groups have said they are suing the agency. Spearheaded by Earthjustice, the groups have filed two suits: one is over the methodology EPA will use to set the ground rules for how it will prioritize chemicals for safety review and the second is exactly how it will evaluate those chemicals.
It is all tied to the updated Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which Congress updated in 2016. Under the law, EPA must complete risk evaluations within certain time frames and using certain scientific methods. One of the reasons for the update is because of the backlog of chemicals that had yet to be approved, which manufacturers said was hurting their businesses.
However, Earthjustice said it just filed the complaint in federal court in San Francisco to hold those same manufacturers responsible for protecting workers and families from chemical risks.
“After Congress took bipartisan action to make desperately needed updates to our chemical safety laws, the Trump Administration has turned back the clock, leaving families and workers at risk,” said Eve Gartner, an attorney at Earthjustice. “The EPA’s newly adopted rules—overseen by a former high-level chemical industry official with head-spinning conflicts of interest—will leave children, communities and workers vulnerable to dangerous chemicals. This lawsuit is about one thing: holding the Trump EPA to the letter of the law and ensuring it fulfills its mandate to protect the public.”
In 2016, Congress amended the chemical law, TSCA, for the first time in 40 years. It now requires EPA to conduct comprehensive risk evaluations of chemicals without regard to cost. But Earthjustice said that the Trump administration has “dramatically weakened” the rules. For more than six years, Earthjustice said that it has fought for TSCA reform to ensure the EPA adequately protects the public and environment from harmful chemicals.
But chemical manufacturers say a backlog of chemicals awaiting EPA approval is hurting their ability to compete in a global market, noting that they have asked EPA to help them get product off the shelf and into the market in a more timely fashion: The backlog has doubled from 331 to 658 chemicals, Environmental Leader has reported, which then quotes Bloomberg saying that only 33 new chemicals have been approved since the reform took effect last year.
“EPA must be flexible in its scoping of risk evaluations so it can maintain both pace and quality, and to inform the regulatory decision-making process in the most meaningful way,” the American Chemistry Council (ACC) said in a separate comment to EPA. “EPA should conduct its scoping to include conditions of use that are relevant and meaningful to a fit-for-purpose risk evaluation, and well-tailored to the problems and decisions at hand.
“ACC recommends that EPA apply a tiered approach throughout the risk evaluation process,” it added. “This approach will allow EPA to identify and consider the most relevant and highest risk conditions of use in an efficient and practical manner.”
Under EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, the agency has said that it is committed to “transparency” and to thorough reviews based on scientific methods. Still, that falls short, note the environmental groups suing the agency, which fear that the review process has been softened to favor manufacturers.
“Our union has fought for decades to control harmful worker exposures to chemicals,” Michael Wright, Director of Health, Safety and Environment for the United Steelworkers said. “Since Congress updated TSCA, we continue to hold EPA accountable and ensure that strong regulations protect workers from occupational disease caused by chemical exposures.”
https://www.environmentalleader.com/2017/08/epas-application-toxic-substances-control-act-prompts-environmental-groups-sue/
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Declines Industry Call To Delay Nano Reporting Rule But Expands Guide
Aug 15, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA has denied an industry request to delay the effective of date of the Obama administration's Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reporting rule for nanomaterials in commerce, but it has updated implementing guidance to better clarify reportable substances and is promising to answer additional questions in future updates to the guide.
EPA Aug. 14 issued a “Working Guidance on EPA’s Section 8(a) Information Gathering Rule on Nanomaterials in Commerce” that describes substances covered by the Obama EPA's controversial final rule that took effect the same day.
The final guidance seeks to address industry criticism that a May draft version failed to adequately define key terms in the rule needed to identify reportable substances.
But EPA acknowledges its guide fails to address all concerns. “This general guidance will not provide answers to all of the potential questions that will arise as manufacturers and processors seek to comply with the rule,” the agency says in the final guide, adding that it lacked adequate time and information to address all comments on the draft version.
“EPA will answer these questions on a case-by-case basis,” the agency adds. “EPA intends to add further questions/answers and revisions to this guidance based on questions identified by persons who may be subject to the rule.”
Industry officials have long faulted the Obama administration's development of its Jan. 12 TSCA reporting rule that is intended to inform future policies on nanomaterials. Groups, including the Nanomanufacturing Association and the American Chemistry Council have argued that EPA failed to adequately define “reportable substances” that are subject to the rule's obligations.
While the deadline for filing a lawsuit challenging the rule itself has passed, industry sources have said that if the final guidance fails to adequately clarify reportable substances, companies could challenge the rule's enforcement.
The Obama EPA issued the rule after years of wrangling with the nano industry, including repeated calls for the agency to withdraw its April 6, 2015, draft rule and issue a revised version after further consultation with industry.
The Jan. 12 final rule generally establishes a one-time reporting requirement for manufacturers and processors of certain nanomaterials to provide identifying information on those substances as well as other reasonably ascertainable information, including production volumes, manufacturing methods, and exposure and release information.
The prior administration also retained a controversial proposed requirement for reporting of future processing or manufacturing of discrete forms nanomaterials -- a provision that rankled industry -- but softened its proposed 135-day notification period to add flexibility and not delay production.
EPA took comment through June 15 on its May 16 “Draft Guidance on EPA’s Section 8(a) Information Gathering Rule on Nanomaterials in Commerce” that sought to clarify the scope of reportable materials by defining terms used in the rule, such as “unique and novel properties” or “reasonably ascertainable” information.
Compliance Assistance
But manufacturers and users of nanomaterials in June comments argued that the draft guidance failed to adequately clarify when substances are subject to the rule. And they urged the Trump administration to delay the rule's effective date, or alternatively, focus more on compliance assistance rather than enforcement given uncertainty over covered materials.
For example, industry groups said the draft guidance failed to adequately clarify key concepts such as “processing,” “soluble substances,” and “detailed information,” or when a substance should be considered a solid, a discrete form, or whether manufacturers and processors may cooperate on reporting.
EPA in the final guide generally defines a reportable substance as a combination of particle size and intentional manufacturing or processing of materials to exhibit unique and novel properties as a function of size.
The final guide seeks to further clarify key terms necessary for identifying reportable substances and required data, such as “unique and novel properties,” and also better clarify when data is considered “known or reasonably ascertainable information.”
EPA also expands the prior discussion of the 135-day criteria in the rule's requirement for future reporting. The agency says a company that forms an intent to manufacture or process 135 days or more before conducting such activity should report at least 135 days before starting manufacturing or processing. And companies that form such an intent fewer than 135 days in advance should report as soon as possible, but no later than 30 days after forming the intent.
Additionally, EPA says that its electronic reporting tool will be available when the rule is effective, on Aug. 14. Although the tool does not currently allow manufacturers and processors to jointly report on a single submission, the agency says it will seek to add that option if companies are interested.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-declines-industry-call-delay-nano-reporting-rule-expands-guide
-
US EPA Publishes Nano Reporting Guidance
Aug 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has published updated guidance on its nanoscale materials information gathering rule, following a consultation on draft guidance issued in May.
Presented in a questions and answers format, the document addresses:
· what constitutes a reportable substance;
· who is required to report;
· which information must be reported and when;
· confidentiality; and
· additional areas, like exemptions and the status of articles under the rule.
The guidance was published on 14 August, the same day that the final nano reporting rule took effect. The scheme had previously been slated to take effect on 12 May, but was delayed by more than three monthsfollowing repeated requests from industry for increased guidance.
The EPA says it will add further questions and answers to the document as they are received.
The final rule, issued on 12 January after more than a decade of debate, requires one-time reporting for existing nanoscale materials. It also imposes a standing reporting requirement on manufacturers or processors of a discrete form of a reportable chemical at least 135 days in advance of beginning their activities.
Persons who manufactured or processed a reportable chemical substance during the three years prior to 14 August 2017 must report to the EPA within a year of the enactment date.
https://chemicalwatch.com/58213/us-epa-publishes-nano-reporting-guidance
-
EPA Publishes Final Guidance as Final TSCA Section 8(a) Rule Takes Effect
Aug 15, 2017 | The National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson Carla N. Hutton
On August 14, 2017, as the final Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(a) information gathering rule on nanomaterials took effect, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published “working guidance” intended to assist stakeholders in complying with the rule. The working guidance notes that it “will not provide answers to all of the potential questions that will arise as manufacturers and processors seek to comply with the rule. Commenters to the draft guidance asked several questions that would require more details or information before EPA could respond to their question.” If the guidance does not answer questions about the rule, companies are directed to contact Jim Alwood, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, alwood.jim@epa.gov.
EPA states that it will answer questions on a case-by-case basis. EPA intends to add further questions/answers and revisions to the guidance based on questions identified by persons who may be subject to the rule. As reported in our January 11, 2017, blog item, the January 12, 2017, final rule establishes reporting and recordkeeping requirements for certain discrete forms of chemical substances that are manufactured or processed at the nanoscale. Under the rule, manufacturers and processers, or persons who intend to manufacture or process these chemical substances must report certain information to EPA. The information to be reported includes, insofar as known to or reasonably ascertainable by the person making the report, the specific chemical identity, production volume, methods of manufacture and processing, exposure and release information, and existing information concerning environmental and health effects. Persons who manufacture or process a discrete form of a reportable chemical substance at any time during the three years prior to August 14, 2017, the effective date of the final rule, must report to EPA one year after the effective date of the final rule. There is also a standing one-time reporting requirement for persons who intend to manufacture or process a discrete form of a reportable chemical substance on or after the effective date of the rule. These persons must report to EPA at least 135 days before manufacture or processing of that discrete form. More information regarding the final rule is available in our January 12, 2017, memorandum, “EPA Promulgates Final TSCA Reporting and Recordkeeping Rule for Nanoscale Materials.”
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-publishes-final-guidance-final-tsca-section-8a-rule-takes-effect
-
Trump’s EPA Weakened Toxic Chemical Rules, So We’re Suing
Aug 15, 2017 | Natural Resources Defense Council
The agency recently finalized two flawed, industry-friendly rules for evaluating the risks of chemicals on our health and the environment.
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is meant to keep us safe by requiring the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to assess the potential hazards that chemicals could pose to our health and the environment. But, with Scott Pruitt at its helm, the agency is once again trying to skirt the law and dole out favors to its industry friends.
At the end of June, the EPA issued a set of rules that would make it easier to ignore chemical risks and disregard harmful exposures. They introduce loopholes that would give the agency the power to pick and choose which uses of a chemical it will assess. Such an incomplete analysis could lead the EPA to conclude that a chemical doesn’t pose a health or environmental risk when it actually does.
What’s more, TSCA requires the EPA to consider all “intended, known, and reasonably foreseeable use.” So NRDC, along with the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments and Cape Fear River Watch, has filed a lawsuit challenging the new, weakened rules.
“Most people don’t realize how few protections this country has against toxic chemicals,” says Daniel Rosenberg, a senior attorney in NRDC’s Health & Environment program. “These rules would make it harder to keep people safe. The EPA’s toxics office is now headed by a former top official for the chemical industry’s lobbying group. So it’s no surprise the agency is creating loopholes for chemical companies. We’re suing to hold the agency to its mission of protecting the public.”
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/nrdc/trumps-epa-weakened-toxic-chemical-rules-were-suing
-
EPA Hit With 2 Lawsuits Over Safety Review for Chemicals
Aug 15, 2017 | ColorLines Magazine
By Ayana Byrd
Earthjustice filed two lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California yesterday (August 15) that challenge how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) performs safety reviews on chemicals that harm families and workers.
According to a statement released by nonprofit environmental law firm Earthjustice:
Earthjustice—on behalf of organizations representing consumers, people from low-income communities of color, Alaska Natives, parents and teachers of children with learning disabilities, workers and scientists—has brought two suits against the Trump Administration for weakening key rules establishing how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will regulate toxic chemicals found in consumer products, building materials and work places, as well as in our drinking water and food.
The suits specifically focus on the EPA’s Prioritization and Risk Evaluation rules, which were both passed under the Trump Administration to establish how the agency will carry out its jurisdiction under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Per the EPA website, “The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 provides EPA with authority to require reporting, record-keeping and testing requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or mixtures. Certain substances are generally excluded from TSCA, including, among others, food, drugs, cosmetics and pesticides.” Chemicals covered under TSCA include detergents, household cleaners and asbestos.
Congress overhauled the TSCA in 2016 for the first time. The update, per an article in The Atlantic, expanded the powers of the EPA, giving “teeth” to a law that “ostensibly regulates household and industrial compounds (chemicals in the stuff under the sink or in the garage).” It requires the EPAto conduct comprehensive risk evaluations of chemicals without regard to cost, and with special attention to the risks posed to vulnerable populations, according to Earthjustice.
“After Congress took bipartisan action to make desperately needed updates to our chemical safety laws, the Trump Administration has turned back the clock, leaving families and workers at risk,” said Eve Gartner, an attorney at Earthjustice, in the statement. “This lawsuit is about one thing: holding the Trump EPA to the letter of the law and ensuring it fulfills its mandate to protect the public.”
The lawsuits were filed by Earthjustice on behalf of eight groups, including WE ACT for Environmental Justice, Learning Disabilities Association of America and the Union of Concerned Scientists. Read the two complaints here and here.
https://www.colorlines.com/articles/epa-hit-2-lawsuits-over-safety-review-chemicals
-
Authorization for Freeport LNG Export Facility Upheld by Court
Aug 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
A federal appeals court upheld the Energy Department's authorization of a Freeport LNG Development L.P., liquefied natural gas export facility in Texas, rejecting the Sierra Club's assertion that the department didn't go far enough to assess the indirect environmental impacts of the project.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that “the department offered a reasoned explanation as to why it believed the indirect effects pertaining to increased gas production were not reasonably foreseeable.”
The Sierra Club claimed in its lawsuit that the Energy Department didn't assess the indirect effects of LNG exports, including the impacts of a likely increase in natural gas production and usage that will result from the export authorization. However, the D.C. Circuit said the department was not required to “foresee the unforeseeable.”
“We cannot say that the department failed to fulfill its obligations under [the National Environmental Policy Act] by declining to make specific projections about environmental impacts stemming from specific levels of export-induced gas production,” D.C. Circuit Judge Robert Wilkins wrote in an Aug. 15 opinion.
Last year, the D.C. Circuit denied a Sierra Club lawsuit over the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's approval of the Freeport LNG terminal, saying the indirect environmental impacts of LNG exports would be better addressed by the Energy Department. It was one of four Sierra Club LNG petitions against FERC that the D.C. Circuit denied.
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.
The export facility, located on Quintana Island about 70 miles south of Houston, is expected to be completed in 2019 and will produce and export 15 metric tons per annum (MTPA) of LNG, according to the company's website.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=119005601&vname=dennotallissues&fn=119005601&jd=119005601
-
Big Oil Follows Silicon Valley into Backing Green Energy Firms
Aug 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anna Hirtenstein
Major oil companies are joining Silicon Valley in backing energy-technology start-ups, a signal that that those with the deepest pockets in the industry are casting around for a new strategy.
From Royal Dutch Shell Plc to Total SA and Exxon Mobil Corp., the biggest investor-owned oil companies are dribbling money into ventures probing the edge of energy technologies. The investments go beyond wind and solar power into projects that improve electricity grids and brew new fuels from renewable resources.
While the money involved is small—a fraction of the $7.5 billion that venture capital and private equity injected into the clean energy industry last year—the funds support work that may evolve into major income streams in the decades ahead as governments work to limit fossil-fuel pollution and global warming.
“In the energy industry, small companies have quite a lot of disruptive power,” Geert van de Wouw, managing director of Shell Technology Ventures, said in an interview. “We always have to look over our shoulder to make sure that we stay ahead of the game.”
Following is a list of the projects the biggest oil companies are supporting:
Shell Technology Ventures
The unit of Royal Dutch Shell Plc splits its spending between oil and gas technology and clean energy equally. The green share may increase to about 60 percent in the years ahead, according to van de Wouw, declining to detail his annual budget. The fund's total size is “hundreds of millions of dollars,” he said. It has put money into:
• Kite Power Systems, a maker of a kite that flies on wind currents to generate renewable electricity;
• Glasspoint Solar Inc, a company that has developed a way to make steam for enhanced oil recovery with solar energy; and
• Sense, a start-up that creates devices that monitor home power consumption.
Total Energy Ventures International SAS
The unit of the French oil major Total SA has invested $160 million to date with almost three quarters flowing into North America, according to the fund's CEO Francois Badoual. It only takes minority stakes. It has invested in:
• AutoGrid, a California-based company that designs smart-grid software;
• United Wind, a company that leases wind turbines to retail customers and small businesses; and
• Off Grid Electric, a Tanzania-based installer of rooftop solar panels that works in low energy-access areas in Sub-Saharan Africa.
“We try to detect and invest in innovation,” Badoual said. “The shift can accelerate at a pace which is difficult to really foresee, but you have to be ready and to adapt.”BP Ventures Inc
BP Plc's VC fund has invested $325 million to date. It tends to skew more towards chemicals or fuels, rather than renewable electricity. It has funneled money into:
• Tricoya Technologies, a maker of a technology that changes the chemical structure of wood chips to make a building material that's more durable and energy efficient;
• Fulcrum, a producer of bio-jet fuel made from municipal waste, which raised $30 million from BP; and
• Solidia, a company that is working on reducing the carbon footprint of concrete.
“BP Venture's goal is to be both an investor and an end-user of the technologies in which we invest,” said Jonathan Tudor, managing director of the fund. “That requires a longer-term commitment because we look beyond a quick financial return. We take an active role in the evolution of these companies and want to see their new technologies commercialized and deployed into BP's existing businesses.”Exxon Mobil Corp
Exxon has a different approach to frontier technology. It prefers to conduct research internally and with partners rather than buy minority stakes in start-ups. It's studying biofuels, carbon capture and storage, energy-efficiency processes and energy-saving materials, according to spokesman William Holbrook, and is working with:
• Synthetic Genomics Inc., which studies how to make biofuels from algae; and
• FuelCell Energy Inc., which is developing carbonate fuel cells to capture CO2 emissions from natural gas plants while also producing electricity.
“We conduct R&D through in-house efforts, via partnerships with other industries and by funding academic and other nongovernmental research projects,” Holbrook said by email. “These studies help inform the company on emerging technologies, define our potential contribution to the science, and assess the future applicability of the technologies to our businesses.”Chevron Corp
Chevron has been investing in start-ups since 1999 and divides its portfolio between oil and gas, advanced materials, communications infrastructure and information technologies and emerging and alternative energy. On the latter, it has invested in the following:
• Acumentrics, a fuel cell company that can make its products from ceramics;
• Ensyn, a maker of fuels and chemicals from residue from forests and agriculture; and
• Inventys, a developer of carbon capture technology that traps CO2 from industrial gas streams.
The fund “serves as a window and an on-ramp” for emerging technologies, said Chevron spokesman Kent Robertson by email. The technologies are “well aligned with projected energy needs.”Statoil Energy Ventures
The unit of Norway's state oil company, Statoil ASA, has invested $20 million since February 2016. It only funds renewable start-ups, listing among its investment themes wind, solar, storage, transportation, energy efficiency and smart grids. To date, it has put money into:
• ChargePoint Inc., an electric-vehicle charging point operator based in California;
• Oxford Photovoltaics Ltd., a solar technology company that is developing panels with perovskite. The substance could make traditional photovoltaics as much as 30 percent more efficient; and
• Convergent, a large-scale energy storage developer working on projects with lead acid, lithium-ion and flywheel batteries in the U.S. and Canada.
“In the transition into clean energy, it's not clear who would be the winners and losers,” said Bala Nagarajan, investment director at Statoil Energy Ventures. “So for us, the investment is a means to understand which business models and which technologies are likely to be more successful. These investments help us position ourselves in the right part of the value chain.”Of course the oil companies have always dabbled in other forms of energy, backing solar after the 1973 oil crisis. Exxon backed nuclear power in the 1980s. Shell vowed to push into renewables ahead of the landmark Kyoto Protocol on climate change in 1997.
Those efforts fizzled when dips in the oil price sharpened the industry's focus on costs. More recently, Shell has taken big stakes in offshore wind projects, BP revived its wind business and Total pressed into solar through an investment in SunPower Corp.
Big Oil's push into venture capital adds to the sense that technology is moving rapidly in the energy industry, leaving a question mark over what will dominate supply for the first time in almost a century.
“A lot of these companies are still figuring out how to get involved on a larger scale,” said Rick Wheatley, head of leadership and innovation at Xynteo Ltd., a consultant that advises Shell, Statoil and Eni SpA on sustainability and long-term planning. “They invest in start-ups to learn and to demonstrate intent. For the cost of a drilling campaign, they can invest in dozens of start-ups.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=119005607&vname=dennotallissues&fn=119005607&jd=119005607
-
EPA Backs Utilities' Push To Rework Key Provisions Of Power Plant ELG
Aug 15, 2017 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
EPA is preparing to start a rulemaking to rework three key portions of the contested Obama-era Clean Water Act (CWA) effluent rule for power plants, backing utilities' push to soften mandates they say are unjustified -- even while the power companies in litigation defend other parts of the rule against environmentalists' attempts to tighten them.
The agency announced its next steps in an Aug. 14 filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which is hearing the currently stayed litigation over the merits of the 2015 effluent limitation guideline (ELG).
In that motion, EPA says Administrator Scott Pruitt has “now advised that after carefully considering the two administrative petitions, he has decided that it is appropriate and in the public interest to conduct a rulemaking to potentially revise” the rule's best available technology (BAT) and pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES) for wastewater from flue gas desulfurization (FGD), bottom ash transport and gasification.
“In light of all of the foregoing developments and administrative undertakings, EPA respectfully requests that this Court sever and hold in abeyance all judicial proceedings as to all issues relating to the portions of the 2015 Rule concerning the new, more stringent BAT limitations and PSES applicable to (1) bottom ash transport water, (2) FGD wastewater, and (3) gasification wastewater,” EPA's 5th Circuit brief says.
Power companies protested the provisions in the final rule as unnecessary strict, although they support other sections of the rule that EPA declined to tighten to the level sought by environmentalists and some water utilities. The consolidated 5th Circuit case combines the various suits over the merits of the rule.
Attached to the brief are letters that Pruitt sent to power firms and the Small Business Administration (SBA) on Aug. 11 notifying them of his decision.
“After carefully considering your petitions, I have decided that it is appropriate and in the public interest to conduct a rulemaking to potentially revise the new, more stringent Best Available Technology Economically Achievable effluent limitations and Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources in the 2015 rule that apply to bottom ash transport water and flue gas desulfurization wastewater,” reads an Aug. 11 letter to the The Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) and SBA, both of which petitioned him to reconsider the ELG.
If the court grants EPA's request, it would create a stand-alone suit on the provisions industry opposes and keep that on hold while it reworks those sections. The rest of the 5th Circuit case that is currently stayed would proceed and power companies, water utilities and environmentalists would continue their fights over the rule's other contested provisions.
Effluent Rule
The 2015 ELG sets technology-based standards for power plants to reduce pollution in their wastewater discharges. Those standards are not immediately effective, but are to be implemented in future CWA discharge permits for the utilities. However, EPA has stayed implementation deadlines in the ELG while it weighs revising its mandates.
Limits on bottom ash and FGD waste are the main areas where industry sought reconsideration in petitions filed earlier this year, while the gasification revision appears to be an attempt to broaden variances from the ELG that the agency has already proposed to grant for a Duke Energy power plant in Indiana.
EPA quietly posted a notice on its website on Aug. 7 proposing a variance for mercury and sediment releases from a Duke facility in Edwardsport, IN. That notice holds that the plant's gasification equipment is a “fundamentally different factor” that was “not accounted for during the development of the effluent guidelines” and should not be subject to the same requirements as other technologies.
A new rulemaking would allow EPA to incorporate such factors into the ELG.
If the 5th Circuit agrees to sever the three issues EPA plans to revise, the agency would then be able to defend many of the standards that environmentalists and utilities targeted as too lenient, including limits on leachates and the decision not to set a BAT requirement for reducing power plants' bromide discharges.
However, it would also delay any ruling on environmentalists' claims that bottom ash restrictions should apply to all such wastewater, instead of only waste generated after the ELG went into effect.
Currently, the ELG exempts “legacy” wastewater that has been stored in ash impoundments since before the rule was finalized, but will be discharged later -- such as in the course of closing a facility that cannot satisfy the 2015 Resource Conservation & Recovery Act rule governing ash disposal. Environmentalists argued that there is no reason to exempt such waste from treatment mandates.
Industry Claims
UWAG and the SBA's advocacy office filed separate reconsideration petitions in March that targeted the 2015 rule's FGD and bottom ash requirements, largely on the basis that the agency withheld data crucial to establishing whether the BAT mandates for those categories of waste were in fact practicable, designating it as confidential business information (CBI).
UWAG, which represents power plants on water issues, said in its reconsideration petition that the agency's use of CBI in the rule conflicts with President Donald Trump's executive orders on regulatory reform. “EPA withheld its most basic data, methodologies, and analyses from the public record under the guise of CBI. This unprecedented lack of openness is inconsistent with the policies articulated in Regulatory Reform Order for transparency and reproducibility,” the petition said.
More specifically, it charged that technologies required in both the FGD and bottom ash provisions of the ELG were not applicable across the full categories, because they ignore differences between various categories of coal and the composition of the waste created by burning them, and that the agency based many of its requirements on incomplete or outdated data.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-backs-utilities-push-rework-key-provisions-power-plant-elg
-
Pullback In U.S. Fracking Sand Use Pressures Producers
Aug 16, 2017 | Reuters
By Arathy S Nair and Nivedita Bhattacharjee
(Reuters) - U.S. shale oil companies are pulling back on the amount of sand they use to hydraulically fracture new wells, responding to rising prices of the material that are driving up costs.
Investors worry a slowdown in sand use, combined with new mining capacity coming online, could lead to a glut of the material and bring down prices. The worries have pressured shares of sand companies.
Sand prices soared in the last year as oil companies ramped up shale drilling and production.
But with crude LCoC1CLC1 prices below where they started the year, oil producers are employing new well designs and chemical agents that lessen the use of sand that represents around 12 percent of the cost of drilling and fracturing.
The price of frack sand is expected to rise 62 percent this year to average $47 a ton, according to researcher IHS Markit. That is expected to drive oilfield service price inflation to 15 percent over 2016, according to researchers at Wood Mackenzie.
Oilfield services provider Halliburton Co (HAL.N), which buys sand for its drilling customers, last month reported its first decline in average sand used per well, saying customers wanted designs that consumed less of the material.
Average sand volumes for each foot of a well drilled fell slightly last quarter for the first time in a year, said exploration and production consultancy Rystad Energy. Volumes are expected to drop a further 2.5 percent per foot in the current quarter over last, Rystad forecast.
"As alternative strategies are optimized, sand density will fall on a foot by foot basis – dramatically in time," said Dallas Salazar, chief executive of energy consulting firm Atlas Consulting.
For a graphic showing frack sand use per well over time, see: tmsnrt.rs/2fHzJbcLOGISTICS PROBLEMS?
Frack sand is mixed in a slurry and forced at high pressure into wells to free oil and gas trapped in rocks. Any weakening of sand demand would collide with several sand producers' plans to open new mines.
Companies including Unimin Corp, U.S. Silica Holdings Inc (SLCA.N), and Hi Crush Partners LP (HCLP.N) are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on new mines to address an expected increase in demand.
On Thursday, supplier Smart Sand SND.O reported it shipped less frack sand in the second quarter than it did in the first. Rival Fairmount Santrol Holdings Inc (FMSA.N) forecast flat to slightly higher volumes this quarter over last.
In the last six weeks, shares of U.S. Silica and Hi Crush are both off about 30 percent. Smart Sand is off about 43 percent since June 30.
Some shale producers add chemical diverters, compounds that spread the slurry evenly in a well, and can reduce the amount of sand required. Anadarko Petroleum Corp (APC.N) and Continental Resources Inc (CLR.N) are reducing the distance between fractures to boost oil production. The tighter spacing allows them to extract more crude with less sand.
In the Denver-Julesburg Basin of Colorado, Anadarko said the new well designs have increased oil and gas production by as much as 35 percent. It is "no secret we have experimented with less sand out there," Bradley Holly, Anadarko's head of U.S. onshore exploration and production, told analysts last month.
Analysts and frack sand providers continue to forecast an overall rise in sand consumption as more wells are drilled and completed. Smart Sand last week blamed its decline on operational and logistics problems.
"The cases where people were scaling back [sand] usage, that was probably due to logistics problems," Duane Scardino, Hi Crush's corporate development manager, said in an interview this week. "It's hard for me to imagine what would be more cost effective than frack sand."
Still, Atlas Consulting's Salazar said of the major U.S. shale basins, only two - Haynesville and Eagle Ford - are pumping in more sand per well.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-oil-idUSKCN1AW018
-
Exxon Mobil's $2.6M Fine for Ruptured Pipeline Tossed
Aug 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew M. Ballard
Exxon Mobil will get a break on a $2.6 million fine levied against it for a 2013 pipeline spill in Arkansas.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ordered the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to reconsider the fine in an Aug. 14 ruling because the company properly complied with certain safety regulations at issue (ExxonMobil Pipeline Co. v. DOT, 5th Cir. App., No. 16-60448, 8/14/17).
Exxon Mobil's Pegasus Pipeline ruptured near Mayflower, Ark., spilling several thousand barrels of crude oil about 22 miles north of the state's capital, Little Rock.
Seam Defect
A PHMSA investigation into the accident identified the cause as a manufacturing defect in the seam of the pipe maintained by Exxon Mobil Pipeline Co., and the agency assessed the $2.6 million fine in October 2015, based on nine alleged regulatory violations. The citations arose from risk factor and pipeline integrity assessments.
Exxon Mobil challenged six of the violations cited by regulators, and the Fifth Circuit found five of those decisions to be “arbitrary and capricious,” because it said the company reasonably complied with applicable guidance.
The appeals court did affirm the agency's decision regarding one of the challenged violations, which requires pipeline operators to develop and follow a written integrity management program. But the court said the $783,300 elevated penalty for that cited violation also needed to be lowered as there was no indication the company's failure to use a proper assessment tool was a cause of the spill.
Requirements Followed
“According to the unambiguous text of the pipeline integrity regulations, pipeline operators are required to ‘consider’ various risk factors when they prioritize pipelines for assessment,” according to Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod. “This is a process-based requirement that does not mandate a particular outcome, but rather prescribes a careful, informed decision-making process that pipeline operators must undergo in good faith,” Elrod said in her Aug. 14 opinion.
As Exxon Mobil complied with that requirement when it determined the Pegasus Pipeline was not susceptible to seam failure by applying the appropriate methodology, the bulk of the violations were incorrectly cited and the fine required revision, Elrod wrote.
Suann Guthrie, a spokesperson for Exxon Mobil, told Bloomberg BNA Aug. 15 that company officials were “still reviewing the decision” and declined to comment further.
Agency representatives didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=119005599&vname=dennotallissues&fn=119005599&jd=119005599
-
Trump Order Seeks To Speed NEPA Project Reviews
Aug 15, 2017 | Inside EPA
A new executive order from President Donald Trump seeks to limit federal agencies' environmental reviews of infrastructure projects under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to two years, while establishing a series of “accountability” measures for federal agencies involved in the permitting process.
The Aug. 15 order seeks to bring “accountability and discipline back to the permitting process for infrastructure projects,” says a White House official, who notes it is part of a broader effort to “change the paradigm” of the federal government's involvement in infrastructure by encouraging self help, leveraging private sector investment potential, making smarter federal investments and streamlining project delivery.
The order also will establish the protocol of “One Federal Decision” for major infrastructure projects, under which the lead Federal agency will work with other relevant Federal agencies to complete the environmental reviews and permitting decisions needed for major infrastructure projects, according to a White House fact sheet.
Each agency will also sign a joint Record of Decision and all required Federal permits will be issued 90 days later, according to the fact sheet.
In addition, the order requires a broad review of the “entire environmental review and permitting process . . . to improve performance across the government and hold every Agency accountable.” Among other things, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) will “develop and implement an action plan to improve environmental reviews Government-wide.” CEQ will also mediate disagreements between agencies “so a decision isn’t delayed amid bureaucratic disputes,” the fact sheet says.
In addition, the Office of Management and Budget will develop a two-year modernization goal and ensure agencies take steps to achieve it. Agencies will also be required to modify their strategic plans to include agency-specific goals for improving environmental review and permitting processes, and hold their officials accountable.
The fact sheet adds that OMB will establish a performance accountability system and score each agency on their implementation of the Executive Order. Poor performance will be considered in budget formulation and could result in the imposition of available penalties.
Agencies will also be held accountable for implementing appropriate best practices that are proven to enhance the environmental review and permitting process.
Trump signed the order at an event in Trump Tower in New York where he said that the order was intended to “dramatically reform the nation's badly broken permitting infrastructure process,” and noted that the nearby Empire State Building took 11 months to build while today it “can take as long as a decade” or more “just to get approvals to start construction of a fairly routine highway.”
He added that if a project does not meet environmental safeguards, “we're not going to approve it.”
NEPA experts note that the order will not necessarily limit the environmental reviews.
This is the second NEPA-related infrastructure order that Trump has signed, with the first coming Jan. 24. That order also seeks to address permitting delays by setting up a process for CEQ to designate projects as “high priority” and then establish expedited procedures and deadlines for completion of environmental reviews “in a manner consistent with law.”
But observers were quick to question the effectiveness of that order -- one of a series Trump signed in his first days in office -- saying it appeared to break little new ground beyond the highway law's NEPA changes.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/trump-order-seeks-speed-nepa-project-reviews
-
Trump Talks Infrastructure, But $1 Trillion Plan Is As Elusive As Ever
Aug 15, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Lauren Gardner
President Donald Trump on Tuesday rolled out yet another executive order aimed at speeding up approvals for infrastructure projects — the latest in a string of efforts to call attention to his languishing proposal for a $1 trillion initiative to rebuild the nation's roads, tunnels and bridges.
Tuesday’s order aims to shrink the environmental permitting process to as little as two years, down from an average of seven years for "complex" highway projects, and ensure that just one federal agency serves as the point of contact for each project's paperwork. It also nixes an Obama-era flood standard that would have required federally funded projects to be built to withstand the stronger storms projected to occur as the planet warms.
"My administration is working every day to deliver the world-class infrastructure that our people deserve and, frankly, that our country deserves," the president said in the lobby of Trump Tower. He was flanked by Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.
The executive order is another drip in the trickle of actions Trump has taken to highlight his interest in bolstering the nation's infrastructure, relying on existing authorities granted by Congress in its 2015 surface transportation law. He made a similar announcement in June at DOT headquarters, when he dropped thick binders full of permit paperwork on stage and vowed to end the “painfully slow, costly and time-consuming" review process.
But Tuesday’s announcement did little to flesh out exactly how his administration plans to boost public and private investment in those projects. The most detail the White House has provided to date was a six-page fact sheet released with little fanfare along with Trump’s fiscal 2018 budget proposal in May.
While infrastructure boosters have largely cheered the administration's posture onspeeding up permit approvals, they're also eager to see the president put some substance into a policy priority that they hope can notch a rare bipartisan win forTrump's first year in the West Wing.
Even so, administration officials and their allies said Trump’s latest order is a significant step toward smoothing out what they've decried as a long, confusing federal permitting process that allows a multitude of agencies to approve or reject projects.
“We’re pleased that the Trump administration is continuing its effort to slice through burdensome, duplicative processes across government," said Christine Harbin, Americans for Prosperity's vice president of external affairs, in a statement. "Particularly in the federal infrastructure space, permitting holdups can add years to projects that would otherwise be improving our infrastructure and contributing to our economy."
Just days into his presidency, Trump signed an executive order directing federal officials to expedite environmental reviews for infrastructure projects deemed "high priority." And he visited DOT headquarters in June at the end of the White House's "infrastructure week" to announce he was standing up a council previously created by Congress to guide project sponsors through the federal permitting process. He also said in June that he would revamp an Obama-era online "dashboard" to allow the public to track projects and see when deadlines are blown.
"The over-regulated permitting process is a massive, self-inflicted wound on our country. It's disgraceful," Trump said Tuesday.
But Trump is just the most recent president eager to hasten the federal permit process. President Barack Obama signed orders of his own to speed up those environmental review proceedings, and President George W. Bush before him formed a task force with the goal of "modernizing" the National Environmental Policy Act, the 1970 law that requires federal agencies to evaluate the environmental impacts of proposals affecting anything from construction to land management before endorsing them.
Environmental groups blasted the administration's latest permitting order, calling it a giveaway to big business that skirts long-standing safeguards for communities.
"Arbitrary decisions and artificial deadlines can lead to costly mistakes we’ll all pay for down the line," said Rhea Suh, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Trump's news conference following his meeting with administration officials on infrastructure quickly devolved into a back-and-forth with reporters about the statements he'd made after last weekend's deadly protests in Charlottesville, Va.
Before he left the lobby, though, he maintained that he still expects Democrats "will go along with" an infrastructure bill that his administration hopes lawmakers will consider later this year.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/08/trump-talks-infrastructure-but-1-trillion-plan-is-as-elusive-as-ever-160765
-
N.J. Senate Plans Override Of Oil Train Bill That Railroads Opposed And Christie Vetoed
Aug 15, 2017 | NorthJersey.com
By Curtis Tate
The New Jersey Senate is expected to attempt an override of Gov. Chris Christie's veto of an oil train safety bill, which he issued last month after the state's three largest railroads directly urged him to reject the bill.
In a four-page letter dated June 12, obtained from the governor’s office through an Open Public Records Act request by The Record, CSX, Norfolk Southern and Conrail expressed security concerns about a provision in S806 that would require monthly public disclosures of the routing and volume of oil trains.
"We respectfully request that you veto S806," the railroads wrote the governor.
Christie cited the security concerns in a statement to lawmakers after he vetoed the legislation on July 13.
The Record reported last week that a CSX regional vice president met with senior Christie administration officials before the governor's veto. But the OPRA request revealed a full-court press by all three of the state's largest railroads to derail the legislation.
The bill’s lead sponsor, state Sen. Loretta Weinberg, D-Teaneck, said she plans to seek an override of Christie’s veto later this month if she can get enough votes. The legislature has never been able to override a Christie veto in his 7 ½ years in office.
"The governor takes his instructions from the railroads," Weinberg said. "We are going to attempt an override."
Brian Murray, a Christie spokesman, declined to comment on the veto attempt by the Senate or the letter from the railroads.
In the letter to Christie, Rodney Oglesby, a CSX regional vice president; Michael Fesen, Norfolk Southern's manager of government relations; and Jonathan Broder, Conrail's vice president for corporate development and chief legal officer, wrote that federal law preempted the state from requiring railroads to submit oil spill response plans or submit their bridge inspection reports.
They also called the state legislation's requirement that railroads make the routing and volume of oil shipments publicly available on a monthly basis "particularly troubling."
Again, the railroads argued that federal law precluded the state from mandating the state disclosures.Other states have similar laws on the books
What's happened in other states on the issue could undercut the railroads' rationale, however.
In 2015, a federal judge upheld a California law that included many of the same requirements as S806. The rail industry had made the same federal preemption argument they used to scuttle the New Jersey legislation. But the federal court ruled that the railroads couldn't challenge the law before it even took effect, sidestepping the preemption issue.
n 2014, New York and Pennsylvania produced records requested by news organizations that revealed the routes and volumes of oil trains in those states. Because the oil train routes to New Jersey pass through those states, the disclosures virtually revealed what the railroads and Christie sought to keep secret.
The same OPRA request that produced the letter also revealed that lobbyists from all three railroads met with senior Christie administration officials on May 31 to explain their opposition to the legislation.
"I can't say I'm surprised," said state Sen. Bob Gordon, D-Fair Lawn, a cosponsor of S806, of the railroads' effort to pressure the Christie administration to reject the bill.
Gordon endorsed plans for an override.
"We ought to try to do it," he said.Railroads, top-level Christie officials meet
The Record reported last week that Oglesby, of CSX, had lobbied Richard Hammer, the state transportation commissioner, and Lisa Almeida, the governor's deputy chief counsel, prior to Christie's veto of S806.
The OPRA revealed the participation of Mary Kay Roberts, a lobbyist for Conrail; Richard Van Wagner, a lobbyist for CSX; and Joseph Simonetta, a lobbyist for Norfolk Southern in a May 31 meeting with Almeida and Andrew McNally, the governor's senior counsel and Greg Acquaviva, then the governor's chief counsel.
Christie nominated Acquaviva to fill a judicial vacancy on the state Superior Court on June 1.
The OPRA also showed that Skip Elliott, CSX vice president of health, safety and the environment, participated in the meeting alongside Oglesby.
Andy Smith, an analyst at the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security, was invited to participate, but it's not clear from the documents whether he did.
The OPRA didn't indicate exactly what the railroad officials discussed with the Christie officials, but it did include documents summarizing the railroads' efforts to train emergency responders, their sharing of information about bridge conditions and their justification for federal preemption.
The documents, however, identified no specific security threats to rail infrastructure.
http://www.northjersey.com/story/news/transportation/2017/08/15/nj-senate-override-christie-veto-planned-oil-train-safety-bill/566956001/
-
Trade Groups Call on U.S. to Investigate CSX Rail Disruptions
Aug 15, 2017 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Nick Carey, Allison Lampert and Michael Flaherty
(Reuters) - Dozens of U.S. trade groups have asked federal rail regulators to investigate CSX Corp's "chronic service failures," saying problems at No. 3 U.S. railroad have rippled across the North American rail network, according to a letter seen by Reuters.
The letter, from the Rail Customer Coalition sent on Monday, is the latest challenge to CSX Chief Executive Hunter Harrison's effort to ramp up productivity at the Jacksonville, Florida-based railroad and fulfill investor expectations for substantially better financial performance.
The 44 trade groups, representing chemical and agricultural companies, steel and auto makers, and beer producers and importers, among other companies, told U.S. lawmakers on House and Senate Transportation committees "chronic service failures" could degrade the nation's broader rail network.
"This has put rail dependent business operations throughout the U.S. at risk of shutting down, caused severe bottlenecks in the delivery of key goods and services, and has put the health of our nation's economy in jeopardy," they said.
The shipper groups want Congress to make it easier for them to file complaints and allow other operators to use CSX track during service disruptions, according to their letter.Continue reading the main story
A spokeswoman for Representative Peter DeFazio from Oregon said his office received the letter and is "continuing to monitor the situation."
The other lawmakers to whom the letter was sent - U.S. Senators John Thune of South Dakota and Bill Nelson from Florida, and Representative Bill Shuster of Pennsylvania - did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Nor did the Surface Transportation Board.
CSX spokesman Rob Doolittle said the company has acknowledged that some customers are experiencing service issues as Harrison implements his vision for driving efficiency, known as Precision Scheduled Railroading.
The letter comes about two weeks after the Surface Transportation Board notified Harrison of complaints about CSX's service. And an analyst survey last month found shippers have moved freight to rival Norfolk Southern Corp and truckers.
CSX's service problems were exacerbated by an Aug 2 derailment in rural western Pennsylvania that forced the company to re-route trains. Federal safety officials are investigating the cause of the accident.
The recent issues have caused some investors to sell since the stock hit a 52-week high of $55.48 on July 13. The stock is off about 10 percent since news of CSX problems came to light in July.
Jason Seidl, an analyst at Cowen & Co, said the problems at CSX were bound to improve with time.
"We have seen railroads be in far worse position and recover," Seidl said.
Harrison apologized to customers in a July 31 letter for service disruptions since he took the job as CEO in March, and assigned blame to a few employees who have "pushed back."
When asked about customer reactions during CSX's quarterly earnings call earlier this month, Harrison said, "I don't know, frankly, how to get there without some bumps in the road."
The Rail Customer Coalition's letter echoes complaints from current and former employees and union officials who told Reuters that job cuts and changes to operating procedures are disrupting service.
Shippers and employee sources said Harrison's changes and cuts are causing rail cars and trains to sit idle or be re-routed across multiple states, delaying product shipments, and leading to inadequate customer service.
In one Aug. 3 email seen by Reuters, a CSX division manager in Florida said Crowley Maritime Corporation hauled 150 container loads by truck from Charlotte, North Carolina, to Jacksonville, Florida, and then loaded them onto Florida East Coast Railway trains to avoid CSX's system issues.
A Crowley spokesman declined to comment.
CSX's Doolittle declined to discuss the Florida incident. Regarding the broader complaints being raised, Doolittle said, "Ultimately the changes we are making will enable better service to customers."
Data from the Association of American Railroads (AAR) shows CSX weekly rail car dwell times - the average time a car sits at a terminal - have crept up to 29.4 hours through the week of August 4, the last available, versus 26.2 hours for the same week last year. Train speeds dropped to 18.7 mph versus 20.7 mph for the same period.
Current and former CSX employees say the railroad is suffering from poor communication from leadership, job cuts, and rapid changes to operations - like doubling train sizes, shutting hump yards where train cars are sorted, increasing the frequency of crew changes on a service line, and blocking overtime pay.
In Montgomery, Alabama, dwell times jumped to 60.9 hours from 35.8 hours a year earlier, and doubled in Nashville, Tennessee, to 71.9 hours. However, some of CSX's cost-cutting moves do not appear to be dramatically affecting operating performance in other locations, based on data CSX provides to the AAR.
At CSX's Barr Yard in Chicago, roughly seven managers now run the company's service line, down from more than 35 managers a month ago, an employee told Reuters. The overall work force has been halved by furloughs, he said.
Even so, weekly dwell times in Chicago have risen and fallen by several hours over the past month, and were basically unchanged from a year ago, federal data shows.
Doolittle, the CSX spokesman, declined to discuss the situation in Chicago.
(Additional reporting by Nick Carey in Detroit, Allison Lampert in Montreal and Michael Flaherty in New York; editing by Joe White and Edward Tobin)
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/08/15/us/15reuters-csx-trade-cuts.html
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Add recipients
Suggested