Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 10/20/17
-
(ACC Mentioned) Niacet Corporation Enters High Purity AHCL Business
Oct 19, 2017 | Gasworld
By Jemima Owen-Jones
Niacet Corporation has entered into the highest purity segment of the AHCL (Anhydrous Hydrogen Chloride) market, which serves the pharmaceutical and semiconductor industries. -
(ACC Mentioned) Ocean Conservancy And WPC Part Of USD 150m Initiative To Combat Ocean Plastics
Oct 20, 2017 | Plasteurope
Ocean Conservancy (Washington, D.C. / USA; www.oceanconservancy.org) and its partners, including the Trash Free Seas Alliance, have announced an initiative to raise over USD 150m of funding for the prevention of plastic waste from getting into oceans. -
Pruitt Directive Changing Agency Legal Approach — Official
Oct 19, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
A controversial U.S. EPA directive aimed at curbing settlements with environmental groups will change how the agency's lawyers handle litigation, a top agency official said today. -
Maryland Water Utility Sues Chemical Companies Over Alleged Price-Fixing
Oct 19, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Katherine Shaver
Maryland’s largest water utility filed a lawsuit in federal court Thursday against eight chemical firms and five company executives, alleging that they conspired to inflate the price of a water treatment chemical over more than 14 years. -
Energy Regulator Says Jones Act Could Constrain LNG Shipments
Oct 20, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Catherine Traywick
Add FERC Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur to the growing group of Washington policy makers skeptical of the Jones Act, an almost 100-year-old law that requires vessels moving between U.S. ports to be U.S.-built and crewed by Americans. -
Senators Introduce Bill to Codify Expedited Small-Scale LNG Exports at DOE
Oct 19, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Two Republican senators have introduced a bill that would codify a rule proposed last month by the Department of Energy (DOE) to expedite approval of small-scale liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports, primarily to countries in the Caribbean, Central America and South America. -
U.S. Proposes New Cybersecurity Controls to Protect Power Grid
Oct 20, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Naureen S. Malik
U.S. grid operators will have to take measures to guard against the risk of being infected by malware from electronic devices like laptops and thumb drives under proposals put forward by the nation's top energy regulator. -
Chevron Oil Refinery Fire Under Investigation in California
Oct 20, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
California regulators will investigate if an explosion and fire at a Chevron Corp. oil refinery in El Segundo, Calif., violated process safety standards. -
DOT's Rail Brake, Competitive Switching Proposals In Doubt
Oct 19, 2017 | Law 360
By Linda Chiem
A recent U.S. Department of Transportation analysis and lingering uncertainty over key agency appointments have cast doubt on whether a pair of controversial freight rail proposals will survive the Trump administration’s deregulatory push. -
Safe Freight Rail Drives Washington State’s Economy
Oct 19, 2017 | Tacoma Weekly
By Rep. Dick Muri
As a state representative for the 28th District, I’ve spent quite a bit of time studying and learning about rail safety. It’s a subject I take seriously. -
E.P.A. Scrubs Climate Change Website of ‘Climate Change’
Oct 20, 2017 | The New York Times
By Lisa Friedman
The Environmental Protection Agency has removed dozens of online resources dedicated to helping local governments address climate change, part of an apparent effort by the agency to play down the threat of global warming. -
HFC Rule Critics Say Vacatur Will Not Block Kigali Deal Implementation
Oct 19, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan
Chemical companies that successfully petitioned an appellate court to vacate an EPA rule reducing refrigerants that act as potent greenhouses gases are pushing back on the notion that scrapping the rules means the United States cannot implement a global deal adopted last year to reduce those same chemicals. -
Environmentalists Urge OMB To Speed EPA Ozone NAAQS Implementation
Oct 19, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Environmentalists are urging White House officials to accelerate EPA's implementation of the 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) by issuing delayed designations for which areas of the United States are attaining the NAAQS, even as the Trump administration weighs a possible reconsideration of the standard. -
EPA Extends Comment Period On Plan To Retain SO2 NAAQS
Oct 19, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA is extending the public comment period from Oct. 18 to Nov. 17 on two draft documents supporting the agency review of sulfur dioxide (SO2) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), which recommend that the agency leave the existing one-hour SO2 standard unchanged at 75 parts per billion (ppb). -
California Sees Grid Plan Filling GHG Reduction Void From Repeal Of CPP
Oct 19, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Curt Barry
California's top air official Mary Nichols says Gov. Jerry Brown's (D) controversial proposal to create an expanded Western electricity grid would allow states to work together to de-carbonize the power system and fill a void created by the Trump administration's proposed repeal of EPA's Clean Power Plan (CPP) utility greenhouse gas rule.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Niacet Corporation Enters High Purity AHCL Business
Oct 19, 2017 | Gasworld
By Jemima Owen-Jones
Niacet Corporation has entered into the highest purity segment of the AHCL (Anhydrous Hydrogen Chloride) market, which serves the pharmaceutical and semiconductor industries.
Over 99.999% pure, the ULSI product will be available beginning in January 2018 from Niacet’s new manufacturing unit in Niagara Falls, New York. Niacet has been producing and supplying technical grade AHCL since 2013.
To complement this investment, Niacet is purchasing the AHCL packaging and distribution assets of Alexander Chemical Company. Niacet will now offer a full range of packaging options, from cylinders to tube trailers, for technical, pharmaceutical and semiconductor customers.
Niacet is a leading producer of organic salts, serving customers globally in the Food, Pharmaceutical, Electronics and Technical industries. Niacet is a member of the American Chemistry Council and has ISO 9001 and GMA Safe certifications.
https://www.gasworld.com/niacet-enters-high-purity-ahcl-business-/2013656.article
-
(ACC Mentioned) Ocean Conservancy And WPC Part Of USD 150m Initiative To Combat Ocean Plastics
Oct 20, 2017 | Plasteurope
Ocean Conservancy and WPC part of USD 150m initiative to combat ocean plastics / Waste and recycling management in Southeast Asia / EU commits to fund European and global strategies and centres
Ocean Conservancy (Washington, D.C. / USA; www.oceanconservancy.org) and its partners, including the Trash Free Seas Alliance, have announced an initiative to raise over USD 150m of funding for the prevention of plastic waste from getting into oceans. The announcement was made at the "Our Ocean" conference (5-6 October 2017) in Malta. The initiative is to fund waste management and recycling solutions in Southeast Asia, with a focus on investments to improve collection, sorting and recycling markets.
Susan Ruffo, Ocean Conservancy's managing director of international initiatives, says, "Our research has found that by improving waste management in Southeast Asian countries, we can cut the flow of plastic going in the ocean by half by 2025." According to the conservancy, nearly half the estimated 8m t of plastics that flow into the oceans each year escape from waste streams in only five developing Asian economies – Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand and China.The new funding mechanism will be operated by investment firm Closed Loop Partners(www.closedlooppartners.com), which will raise funding from the private sector, governments and finance institutions, as well as build up waste management projects. Ocean Conservancy notes that consumer goods companies and plastics manufacturers support the project, with early commitments from PepsiCo, 3M, Procter & Gamble, the American Chemistry Council and the World Plastics Council (WPC; www.worldplasticscouncil.com) having already fully funded the design phase.
On 16 September 2017, Ocean Conservancy's "International Coastal Cleanup" drew hundreds of thousands of people worldwide in the "world’s largest single-day volunteer effort to remove trash from local beaches and waterways." This was the 32nd edition of the event that was launched in 1986 in Texas. It is estimated that since the clean-up first started, more than 12m volunteers have removed nearly 100,000 t of trash.EU funds extensive projects and centres across the globeThe EU also announced many commitments to foster "cleaner and safer" seas at the Our Ocean conference. Among these is the launch of WISE-marine, an information portal for the public on the European marine environment. The EU also announced the following funding commitments: a total of EUR 4.3m in 2017 for the implementation of and regional cooperation for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, EUR 2.85m for marine pollution prevention projects and EUR 2.5m for marine pollution exercises coordinated between both EU and neighbouring countries. Other commitments include draft measures, as part of its upcoming plastics strategy in 2017, to reduce plastics leakage into the environment and seas.
Attention was drawn to climate change, which affects oceans in a variety of ways, such as rising sea levels and acidification. The EU made further commitments of EUR 10m for a project with the International Maritime Organization (IMO, London / UK; www.imo.org) regarding climate change mitigation in the maritime shipping sector, with the aim to establish five Maritime Technology Cooperation Centres (in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, Latin America and the Pacific). The centres will form a global network to enable developing countries to create "energy-efficiency" measures in maritime transport. Also announced was EUR 1.5m funding to reduce black carbon emissions in the Arctic, with the intention to reinforce international cooperation, and EUR 600,000 for an integrated project focussed on three areas of the EU Arctic policy.
Despite the UN’s 2020 target to have 10% of the world’s marine and coastal areas protected by law, the EU noted that less than 5% are now protected, and there is a lack of enforcement. It pledged EUR 20m to support marine protected areas in African, Caribbean and Pacific countries through "BIOPAMA II" (Biodiversity and Protected Areas Management Programme), as well as EUR 1.5m to analyse ecosystems and economic activity on the mid-Atlantic Ridge and the Rio Grande Rise, in order to help define a coherent set of "areas of particular environmental interest" in the Atlantic Ocean.https://www.plasteurope.com/news/Ocean_Conservancy_and_WPC_part_of_USD_150m_initiative_to_combat_ocean_t238186/
-
Pruitt Directive Changing Agency Legal Approach — Official
Oct 19, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
BALTIMORE — A controversial U.S. EPA directive aimed at curbing settlements with environmental groups will change how the agency's lawyers handle litigation, a top agency official said today.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt issued the memorandum Monday in response to what critics of the Obama administration dubbed "sue and settle." Under the practice, opponents say, environmental groups sue friendly agencies and then settle in order to advance their regulatory agendas (Greenwire, Oct. 16).
The Trump administration is concerned "that people whose rights are being affected or who are being very much impacted by a settlement are not participating in it," Kevin Minoli, acting general counsel at EPA, said at an annual American Bar Association environmental law conference here in Baltimore.
The memorandum will affect how EPA's lawyers in the Office of General Counsel and at the Justice Department approach litigation in two major ways, said Minoli, a career official who is serving as the agency's top lawyer until Congress confirms Matt Leopold, President Trump's pick to fill the position permanently.
One is the directive's instructions that EPA "seek to exclude" attorneys' fees or costs to any petitioner or plaintiff in litigation against the agency. Republican critics have long charged that environmental groups bring lawsuits against the government in order to fill their pockets with fees.
"This is a big change for us," Minoli said. "There are provisions that allow for attorneys' fees in a variety of statutes, and our instructions now from our client are to seek to exclude them."
The other "big change": that EPA reach out to states and regulated entities affected by potential settlement agreements and seek to "receive the concurrence of any affected states and/or regulated entities" before entering into a settlement with environmental groups.
"I think it's coming from the concern that people who are being impacted by the settlement are not at the table," Minoli said. "And people sometimes feel that it's beyond the statutory authority because it feels wrong to them to be impacted in a way and not be at the table."
He said that, over the last six to nine months, EPA has already begun reaching out to states that could be affected by litigation against the agency.
"We have done this sort of de-facto already," Minoli said. "So if we have a state involved that we're working with, we'll say, 'Can you get the state to say whether they like it or not?' Because that will help to move this case along."
Republicans who have long warned that environmentalists are using court settlements to push regulatory agendas have broadly praised the new directive. Environmentalists, though, have slammed Pruitt for allowing industry to sign off on settlements and court orders.
Minoli noted, though, that Pruitt's directive only tells EPA's lawyers to "seek" concurrence: "We don't have to obtain concurrence. It doesn't say obtain concurrence."
Alexandra Dunn, executive director of the Environmental Council of the States, said in an interview on the sidelines of today's conference that her group was "very pleased" to see that the directive adopted some of its recommendations.
ECOS adopted in 2013 and updated in 2016 a resolution calling on EPA to proactively reach out to states when they could be affected by a consent decree as a result of a citizen suit.
"Sometimes the state would find out about that obligation after the consent decree was signed," Dunn said. "Telling states to check the web for a case that could change their legal obligations wasn't working for as many states as it should have."
Under the new policy, she added, "someone has to formally contact the state and let them know."
Other changes under the rule are smaller or require EPA to expand on existing practices.
Under the directive, for example, EPA is required to post potential settlement agreements online and open them for public comment. The agency already generally does this for Clean Air Act cases, but not in litigation stemming from other environmental laws.
The memorandum also requires EPA to create a searchable database of past consent decrees and post online within 15 days notices of intent to sue. The agency already posts notices — but not always within 15 days.
"Some of these provisions are going to require us to figure out exactly how to implement them, but the administrator has tasked us with not simply putting something on the web and expecting others to come and check it all the time," Minoli said.'Deadlines are going to be met'
Many of the lawsuits that critics say fall under the "sue and settle" category arise from statutory obligations in environmental laws. Environmental groups, for example, sue to enforce deadlines that Congress wrote into the Clean Air Act. As a result of a lawsuit, a court often sets a deadline for the agency to act.
Former Obama administration officials and environmentalists have disputed that "sue and settle" is occurring. They say that deadline lawsuits or other suits that seek to hold EPA to mandatory duties are difficult for the agency to win, and settling is often the prudent legal move. Not settling would likely result in protracted litigation and a loss for EPA.
"Pruitt has no defense to lawsuits where EPA has badly missed a legally mandated deadline," Pat Gallagher, legal director at the Sierra Club, said earlier this week. "If he insists on fighting the obvious, Pruitt will be guilty not just of failing to protect public health and the environment, but also of wasting agency resources, undermining the credibility of DOJ attorneys and burdening the courts with useless litigation."
Minoli today said that part of EPA's strategic plan under the Trump administration is to hit statutory deadlines. Plans include a "deadline board" to keep track of whether the agency is on target with specific deadlines.
"Deadlines are going to be met," he said, adding that EPA also intends to eliminate the backlog of Freedom of Information Act requests at the agency.
But he acknowledged that the goal is "hard to imagine" because the agency often falls short: "It is a breakthrough mindset of we should be complying with the deadlines that we are given by Congress. We don't know how to achieve that quite yet."
EPA, in fact, missed a key Clean Air Act deadline requiring the agency to determine by Oct. 1 which areas of the country are out of compliance with the 2015 national ozone standards.
The attainment designations start the clock for states to come up with plans to reduce ozone, which is a key component of smoggy air. Environmentalists promptly threatened to sue, saying EPA showed "blatant disregard" for the law.
John Walke, clean air director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, tweeted today that EPA's rhetoric on deadlines contradicts reality.
"The Trump EPA has missed a deadline for safer air for Americans, & many, many FOIA response deadlines," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/10/19/stories/1060064131
-
Maryland Water Utility Sues Chemical Companies Over Alleged Price-Fixing
Oct 19, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Katherine Shaver
Maryland’s largest water utility filed a lawsuit in federal court Thursday against eight chemical firms and five company executives, alleging that they conspired to inflate the price of a water treatment chemical over more than 14 years.
The price-fixing and bid-rigging scheme caused Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) to overpay by “many millions” for aluminum sulfate, the complaint alleges.
WSSC supplies drinking water and treats sewage for nearly 2 million people in Montgomery and Prince George’s counties.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, is the latest civil action in what federal prosecutors have alleged has been a years-long conspiracy among chemical companies to drive up prices for aluminum sulfate, known as alum, by eliminating competition. Utilities use alum, which dissolves solids, to purify drinking water and treat sewage.
Nationwide, 68 similar civil claims have been filed against the companies and some of their top executives by water utilities, cities and private entities trying to recoup lost money, WSSC said.
WSSC is seeking more than $5 million in compensation and punitive damages, according to the complaint. The utility spent about $9 million on alum between 1997 and 2016, the utility said.
“This lawsuit is about protecting the investment our customers made in safe, clean water,” WSSC General Manager Carla A. Reid said. “The suppliers named in this suit conspired to deprive us of a competitive price for this essential product, and we will hold them accountable.”
The companies named in the suit include Ontario-based Chemtrade Chemicals, Pennsylvania-based Geo Specialty Chemicals, Georgia-based C & S Chemicals, Georgia-based RGM Chemical, Atlanta-based Kemira Chemicals, Louisiana-based Southern Ionics, and Baltimore-based Usalco and Delta Chemical Corp. The complaint also names General Chemical Corp., as well as affiliates and subsidiaries for all of the companies.
The conspiracy lasted from 1997 to 2011, WSSC alleges, but long-term contracts caused the utility to lose money into 2016.
WSSC said the companies’ executives discussed their bids, agreed to “stay away” from each others’ customers, and submitted intentionally high “throwaway” bids to direct contracts to each other.
Because of the alleged bid-rigging, WSSC’s price for alum nearly quadrupled between 2000 and 2010, from $82 per ton to $314 per ton, according to the lawsuit.
Rohit Bhardwaj, chief financial officer for Chemtrade, said the allegations in the lawsuit precede 2014, when Chemtrade bought General Chemical. He said he couldn’t comment on the lawsuit, but said General Chemical had been granted amnesty in the Department of Justice’s criminal investigation into the allegations.
A lawyer for Kemira declined to comment, saying the company had not seen the suit.
Officials for the other companies named in the lawsuit did not return calls late Thursday.
Ballard Spahr, a Philadelphia-based law firm that filed similar lawsuits for the cities of Baltimore and Richmond in May, will represent WSSC.
The lawsuit likely will be transferred for pretrial proceedings to the federal court in Newark, where dozens of similar lawsuits are being coordinated, WSSC said. However, any trial in WSSC’s case would be held in Greenbelt.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/maryland-water-utility-sues-chemical-companies-over-alleged-price-fixing/2017/10/19/f96c03c6-b4f5-11e7-9e58-e6288544af98_story.html?utm_term=.5da862ef5959
-
Energy Regulator Says Jones Act Could Constrain LNG Shipments
Oct 20, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Catherine Traywick
Add FERC Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur to the growing group of Washington policy makers skeptical of the Jones Act, an almost 100-year-old law that requires vessels moving between U.S. ports to be U.S.-built and crewed by Americans.
Speaking at an agency meeting Oct. 19, LaFleur expressed concern that the statute could constrain power generators’ ability to obtain liquefied natural gas—particularly in New England where pipeline capacity is limited. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulates the interstate transmission of electricity, natural gas and pipelines.
“With all of the domestic gas export capability we're building,” places like New England should be able to get domestic LNG shipments more easily, La Fleur said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=122821142&vname=dennotallissues&fn=122821142&jd=122821142
-
Senators Introduce Bill to Codify Expedited Small-Scale LNG Exports at DOE
Oct 19, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Two Republican senators have introduced a bill that would codify a rule proposed last month by the Department of Energy (DOE) to expedite approval of small-scale liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports, primarily to countries in the Caribbean, Central America and South America.
U.S. Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) introduced the Small Scale LNG Access Act on Wednesday. The bill calls for DOE to expedite any application to export up to 51.1 Bcf of natural gas per year, or 140 MMcf/d.
Specifically, the bill calls for amending Section 3(c) of the Natural Gas Act by inserting language that small-scale LNG exports are "deemed to be consistent with the public interest, and granted without modification or delay." The change would not be applicable to countries subject to U.S. sanctions.
"Expedited approval of small-scale natural gas exports would strengthen an emerging sector of Florida's economy," Rubio said Wednesday. "In addition to the economic advantages for Florida, this measure would bolster our existing ties with Caribbean and Latin American nations while ensuring that bad actors in the region, including Cuba and Venezuela, do not reap its benefits."
Cassidy added that the bill "promotes the growth of American natural gas, creating well-paying jobs with good benefits for hardworking families in Louisiana. The faster approval of small-scale natural gas shipments will create American jobs, improve Caribbean energy security and lower greenhouse gas emissions."
In early September, DOE published a proposed rule calling for revising its process for authorizing LNG exports to countries that do not have a free trade agreement (FTA) with the United States. The rule called for DOE to issue an export authorization for any complete application that proposes exports of up to 140 MMcf/d, and which do not require an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act.
A spokesman from Cassidy's office told NGI on Thursday that the bill introduced by Cassidy and Rubio does not discriminate between FTA and non-FTA countries. Last Monday was the deadline for public comments on DOE's proposed rule affecting non-FTA countries.
Cassidy and two other Republican colleagues in the Senate -- John Barrasso of Wyoming and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska -- sent DOE Secretary Rick Perry a letter to show support for the proposed rule on Oct. 5.
"The current permitting process for LNG export facilities is expensive, and small-scale projects often are not cost effective under current conditions," Barrasso, Cassidy and Murkowski wrote. "Reducing the time and investment required for small-scale exports will benefit U.S. production, manufacturing and construction jobs, while also reducing trade deficits with the importing country."
The senators noted that Jamaica generated more than 90% of its electricity in 2014 from fuel oil, and that no electricity was generated by natural gas. "If this rule is implemented, cheap U.S. LNG could offer countries like Jamaica a cleaner fuel source with which to generate electricity," they said.
Last March, the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas appealed to Perry and lawmakers in Congress to expedite the LNG approval process to both FTA and non-FTA countries. The next month, DOE approved an authorization for Golden Pass Products LLC to export up to 2.21 Bcf/d of LNG to non-FTA countries. In June, Delfin LNG LLC was given authorization to export 1.8 Bcf/d to non-FTA countries from a proposed offshore Louisiana floating LNG terminal in the Gulf of Mexico.
In August, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved a Bermuda-based partnership's plans to slightly expand an LNG import terminal in Puerto Rico.
But manufacturers worry that an increase in LNG exports will drive up domestic natural gas prices. Last April, the Industrial Energy Consumers of America (IECA) sent a letter to Perryurging him to enact a moratorium on exports. Two months later, IECA renewed its call for a moratorium on LNG exports to non-FTA countries in a series of recommendations to Perry and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross.
At the time of Golden Pass's approval, DOE had authorized 19.2 Bcf/d of LNG exports to non-FTA countries. Last month, DOE reported that as of Sept. 27 it had received applications to export a combined total of 51.59 Bcf/d to non-FTA countries, plus an additional 54.98 Bcf/d to FTA countries -- with exports for both originating from the Lower 48. But it is doubtful that much LNG would ever be exported, since many of the proposed export facilities won't be built.
DOE reported that between February 2016 and August 2017, a total of 593.5 Bcf of domestically-produced LNG had been delivered to 26 countries. The figure includes 308.1 Bcf (51.9% of total) to 21 non-FTA countries, with the remaining 285.4 Bcf (48.1%) going to five FTA countries.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/112147-senators-introduce-bill-to-codify-expedited-small-scale-lng-exports-at-doe
-
U.S. Proposes New Cybersecurity Controls to Protect Power Grid
Oct 20, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Naureen S. Malik
U.S. grid operators will have to take measures to guard against the risk of being infected by malware from electronic devices like laptops and thumb drives under proposals put forward by the nation's top energy regulator.
The aim is to mitigate cybersecurity risks that could affect the reliability of the grid, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said in an Oct. 19 release.
The regulator will ask the North American Electric Reliability Corporation—which monitors the grids—to provide clear criteria for electronic access controls for “low-impact” cybersystems and seek ways to reduce the threat posed by malicious code.
The Energy Department said in a report in January that the electricity system faces “imminent danger” from cyberattacks, A successful hack could cause widespread power failures, undermine national defense systems and hurt the economy.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=122821141&vname=dennotallissues&fn=122821141&jd=122821141
-
Chevron Oil Refinery Fire Under Investigation in California
Oct 20, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
California regulators will investigate if an explosion and fire at a Chevron Corp. oil refinery in El Segundo, Calif., violated process safety standards.
The fire late Oct. 18 at the refinery—the largest on the West Coast—was quickly extinguished, the company said.
Fire broke out at the facility about 10:30 p.m. Oct. 18, and was extinguished by 11:18 p.m., Chevron spokesman Braden Reddall said in an Oct. 19 email to Bloomberg Environment.
No one was injured in the incident.
The fire broke out in a distribution area next to storage tanks, but not “in proximity to any of the facility's main process units,” Reddall said.
Frank Polizzi, a spokesman for California's Department of Industrial Relations, said in an email to Bloomberg Environment that the fire started when petroleum products were being transferred from one storage tank to another.
“Cal/OSHA's Process Safety Management Unit is inspecting the incident for the cause and any violations of refinery safety and health regulations,” Polizzi said.
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board doesn't plan to investigate, agency spokeswoman Hillary Cohen told Bloomberg Environment.
Corroded Pipes
A Chevron refinery in Richmond, Calif., exploded in 2012, prompting state regulators to fine the company nearly $1 million and a CSB investigation.
Investigations blamed the Richmond fire on corroded pipes that the company failed to repair. The fire injured six employees and sent an estimated 15,000 area residents to seek medical treatment for respiratory problems.
In 2013, the CSB and Cal/OSHA found similar corrosion in pipe samples taken at the El Segundo refinery. Chevron later replaced the piping with a different type more resistant to corrosion, the agencies said.
When it studied the issue in 2002, the National Fire Protection Association found that refineries and natural gas plants saw an average of 228 fires or explosions a year.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=122821150&vname=dennotallissues&fn=122821150&jd=122821150
-
DOT's Rail Brake, Competitive Switching Proposals In Doubt
Oct 19, 2017 | Law 360
By Linda Chiem
Law360, New York (October 19, 2017, 5:30 PM EDT) -- A recent U.S. Department of Transportation analysis and lingering uncertainty over key agency appointments have cast doubt on whether a pair of controversial freight rail proposals will survive the Trump administration’s deregulatory push.
The first, a safety measure that mandates new braking technology for so-called high-hazard flammable trains, was the subject of an updated regulatory impact analysis released earlier this week. The report indicated that officials overestimated the rule’s benefits when it was proposed in 2015, potentially setting up a repeal.
Meanwhile, a long-brewing battle waged by rail shippers to get railroad giants to open up their lines to competitors remains on ice largely because the only independent adjudicatory board that can address the matter, the Surface Transportation Board, isn’t yet fully staffed.
Here, Law360 examines where these two Obama-era rail proposals currently stand.
ECP Brakes
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and the Federal Railroad Administration in 2015 finalized a requirement for trains carrying crude oil, ethanol and other flammable liquids to be outfitted with electronically controlled pneumatic brakes, also known as ECP brakes.
That provision, part of the agencies’ May 2015 enhanced tank car final rule, requires trains carrying crude oil and operating at speeds of more than 30 mph to be equipped with ECP brakes by 2021, while trains carrying ethanol and operating at more than 30 mph would have until 2023 to have ECP brakes installed.
ECP brakes provide an electronic brake signal instantaneously throughout the train, allowing train cars to brake faster than with conventional air brakes, which were first developed in the late 1800s and are still widely used in the industry today.
But on Oct. 16, the DOT agencies published a revised regulatory impact analysis stating that the projected costs and benefits of the ECP brake mandate have declined since the time the rule was finalized. Those decreases are mainly due to a predicted decline in the number of carloads over a 20-year period, according to the revised analysis.
The revised analysis was mandated by Congress when it enacted the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act in late 2015, after complaints from the rail industry. Those stakeholders complained about a lack of transparency and the agencies’ justifications for imposing the sweeping ECP brake mandate.
The new report comes a year after the U.S. Government Accountability Office issued a reportsuggesting that federal transportation officials may have overstated the benefits of the ECP brake rule. The October 2016 study, as well as a separate review by the National Academies, raised doubts about the DOT’s methodology for justifying the ECP mandate, giving the industry and its supporters further ammunition in their fight to get the provision stricken from the broader tank car rule.
The various studies, paired with the Trump administration’s relentless assault on federal regulations it deems to be anti-business, will continue to fuel those rule repeal efforts, experts say.
Marc Scribner, a senior fellow and transportation policy expert with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told Law360 he thinks the rule’s repeal is “fairly likely just given what the [transportation] secretary has said” about rolling back certain regulations.
“The DOT is not looking to impose something where the braking technology benefit is dubious at best,” he said. “What the rail industry has been saying for years is that the benefits are trivial and the costs are not. And I think this is sort of setting up the DOT to move in the direction of repeal.”
But safety advocates and labor unions still stand behind the ECP mandate.
John Risch, the national legislative policy director for the transportation division of SMART, the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers, described ECP brakes as the “greatest safety advancement I’ve ever witnessed in my career.”
“I’m surprised how fierce some of the industry opposition has been,” Risch, a veteran locomotive engineer, told Law360. “But ECP brakes [have] tremendous benefits that go far beyond an emergency application of the train brakes. … ECP deals with other issues rather than collisions. They prevent derailments and runaway trains.”
The loudest opposition to the requirement has come from freight railroads, represented by the industry lobbying group Association of American Railroads. They insist the DOT had scant data and inadequate testing results to justify foisting an onerous and costly technology onto railroads.
AAR officials have maintained that industry research and years of experimenting in real-world operating environments showed that ECP brakes were unreliable and had a minimal safety impact over conventional braking systems.
Reciprocal or Competitive Switching
Experts say another top concern is a July 2016 proposal by the Surface Transportation Board intended to promote competition. It would allow customers and shippers served by only one major railroad in their region to get access to another railroad.
The STB, the nation’s economic rail regulator, said at the time it would draft new rules to compel a given rail carrier to pass off customers' shipments to a rival railroad at interchanges if certain operating conditions are met. It's a process called reciprocal, or competitive, switching, and it's rarely been used under the existing STB regulations, which have been in place for 30 years.
But the proposal has been at a standstill since last year, which stakeholders attribute to vacancies on the STB.
“The real roadblock, and why things haven’t moved forward is right now, you have only two commissioners on the STB,” said Jeff Sloan, senior director of regulatory and technical affairs for the American Chemistry Council, which has been a vocal proponent of competitive switching.
The board currently has three vacancies and hasn’t been fully appointed since 2015, when Congress expanded it from three members to five. And the board has been down to just two members since Vice Chairman Daniel Elliott resigned in late September.
So if the Trump administration appoints and wins confirmation for three new, presumably Republican board members who sympathize with major railroads, the proposal in its current form could be dismantled, experts say.
But don’t expect rail shippers to ease up the fight.
“No matter who is nominated and put forward, our priority is going to be educating those new commissioners, because this is so important to us and benefits various other industries,” Sloan told Law360.
Thompson Hine LLP partner Jeff Moreno told Law360 that even though the STB isn’t taking any official action on the proposal, commissioners are still holding ex-parte meetings with stakeholders to gather information.
Shippers in the manufacturing, agriculture and energy-producing sectors have said they want the new rules because they’ll boost competitive access to rail service and, in theory, better rates.
But railroad giants have lambasted the proposal as far-reaching and disruptive to how they manage and operate their complex network of tracks across the country, saying it would represent government intrusion. Furthermore, the rail lobby argues, railroads inherently face competition from trucks and barges, and existing STB standards already protect shippers from unreasonable railroad pricing and conduct.
AAR President and CEO Ed Hamberger has pointed out that there are myriad steps involved when switching operations on a track from one railroad to another.
Having widespread forced switching would significantly compromise efficiency by “gumming up” the nation's rail network, he argued, creating unnecessary movements of rail cars in yards and slowing the overall movement of goods just to fulfill the narrow interests of a certain shipper — or the regulator’s desire to “regulate something” in the absence of any demonstrated need for government intervention.
“Everyone has sort of dug in, and I don’t expect any decision until the additional seats are filled,” the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Scribner said. “But I think it’s also likely the STB will reverse course once those seats are filled, just because this is probably the most controversial STB proceeding ever. Depending on who’s nominated, I suspect they will not be going down the path that the STB sort of started.”
--Editing by Mark Lebetkin and Kelly Duncan.https://www.law360.com/articles/975951/dot-s-rail-brake-competitive-switching-proposals-in-doubt
-
Safe Freight Rail Drives Washington State’s Economy
Oct 19, 2017 | Tacoma Weekly
By Rep. Dick Muri
As a state representative for the 28th District, I’ve spent quite a bit of time studying and learning about rail safety. It’s a subject I take seriously. I live in the town of Steilacoom, where trains are a way of life. In fact, the 28th District Puget Sound coastline is defined by the rail line. And, it’s not just about moving freight. Amtrak will soon be transporting passengers at a very high speed through Lakewood and DuPont. Rail safety is a big deal for our communities.
In 2014, more than 119 million tons of freight traveled by rail over more than 3,000 miles of rail tracks across the state. This activity supports Washington businesses across a variety of important industries, from lumber to agriculture to oil. Freight rail is also directly responsible for nearly 4,000 jobs and supports tens of thousands more throughout the state.
The good news is the rail business is thriving in Washington. However, continuing to find ways to improve safety needs to remain a priority. Just this week, state regulators approved $50,000 in funding for safety upgrades at Tacoma’s McCarver Street rail crossing, protecting our community.
Railroads have also prioritized important infrastructure and safety investments over the last 20 years. Building on these improvements is key to our state’s economic future. State and federal officials need to work together to preserve the existing balanced regulatory environment that has enabled the freight rail to develop into the world’s safest rail network.
According to Washington State Department of Transportation, travel by train is 23 times safer than travel by car. This is true for freight as well: A 2016 safety study conducted by OneRail found the accident rate for freight rail is far lower than transportation by freight trucks, largely due to freight rail’s focus on investing in its infrastructure.
This success did not happen overnight. Heavy regulation throughout much of the 20th century nearly brought the rail industry to the point of extinction. When profits decreased, railroads could not sustain their networks — leading them to fall into disrepair. Deregulation in the 1980s with the federal Staggers Act saved the industry and highlighted how balanced regulations promote rail infrastructure investment and safety.
Current proposals such as forced access, requiring railroads to share their networks at government set prices, threaten the industry’s ability to maintain its infrastructure once again. Under these policies, railroads would be unable to build on the $635 billion in private dollars that they have invested in infrastructure since the passage of Staggers.
These investments have played an integral role in improving rail safety. Since 2000, train accidents have fallen by 44 percent. Improvements include; stricter regulations on tanker cars, lower speed limits and the development and installation of new braking technology called Positive Train Control (PTC), making an already-safe system even safer.
PTC technology monitors train speeds and locations with GPS signals and digital tracking. Once operational, PTC will detect any problems and can apply the brakes in the unlikely event that a conductor cannot, helping eradicate accidents caused by human error. PTC remains a priority for freight railroads, which have spent nearly $8 billion to design and install the technology across the nation.
As railroads continue to implement PTC and other safety initiatives across the country, lawmakers at the national and state level must keep in mind smart regulations are integral in enabling the rail industry to make these investments in infrastructure and technology.
Dick Muri represents the people of the 28th District in the Washington State House of Representatives.
https://tacomaweekly.com/2017/10/19/safe-freight-rail-drives-washington-states-economy/
-
E.P.A. Scrubs Climate Change Website of ‘Climate Change’
Oct 20, 2017 | The New York Times
By Lisa Friedman
The Environmental Protection Agency has removed dozens of online resources dedicated to helping local governments address climate change, part of an apparent effort by the agency to play down the threat of global warming.
A new analysis made public on Friday found that an E.P.A. website has been scrubbed of scores of links to materials to help local officials prepare for a world of rising temperatures and more severe storms.
The site, previously the E.P.A.’s “Climate and Energy Resources for State, Local, and Tribal Governments” has been renamed “Energy Resources for State, Local, and Tribal Governments.” About 15 mentions of the words “climate change” have been removed from the main page alone, the study found.
Among the now-missing pages are those detailing the risks of climate change and the different approaches states are taking to curb emissions. Also edited out were examples of statewide plans to adapt to weather extremes.
The analysis, from the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative, which monitors changes to federal environmental agency websites, described the amount of removed data as “substantial.” The energy resources website is the first site to which the E.P.A. has returned a large portion of material since pages dealing with climate science were removed from public view on April 28.Continue reading the main storyRELATED COVERAGENew Talks on Paris Climate Pact Are Set, and That’s Awkward for U.S. OCT. 18, 2017Trump Nominates a Coal Lobbyist to Be No. 2 at E.P.A. OCT. 5, 2017E.P.A. Says It Will Write a New Carbon Rule, but No One Can Say WhenOCT. 10, 2017
In the interim, a notice said “this page is being updated” and added that the site would be changed to reflect the agency’s priorities under the Trump administration. When material was restored with changes in late July, the report said, the site had been cut from 380 pages to about 175.
“I think it’s very alarming” said Adam Parris, who leads the Science and Resilience Institute at Jamaica Bay in New York. “These are not the kind of resources that are just basic climate science. These are the kind of resources it has taken years to develop across the federal family.”
The report comes on the heels of a four-year blueprint of priorities the E.P.A. issued that does not include climate change. The 38-page draft strategic plan, issued for public comment this month, does not use the phrase.
Under the Obama administration’s four-year strategic plan issued in 2014, “Addressing Climate Change and Improving Air Quality” was the E.P.A.’s first of five goals. Climate change was cited 43 times.
The E.P.A. did not respond to requests for comment on the report or the elimination of mentions of climate change in its online resources.
Gina McCarthy, administrator of the E.P.A. under Mr. Obama, said in a statement that one of the agency’s most important jobs is to provide scientific and technical expertise so local officials can write appropriate policies. She said the now-discarded data was collected and shared over a number of years to help states, cities and towns build resilience to fiercer storms, floods, droughts and wildfires.
“There is no more significant threat than climate change and it isn’t just happening to people in far-off countries — it’s happening to us,” Ms. McCarthy said. “It is beyond comprehension that E.P.A. would ever purposely limit and remove access to information that communities need to save lives and property. Clearly, this was not a technical glitch, it was a planned shutdown.”
Toly Rinberg of the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative said that there was no evidence the E.P.A. had destroyed any records. The original pages are available from several sources, including the Internet Archive, which maintains a mirror of the E.P.A. website as it appeared near the end of the Obama Administration.
A number of resources, like emissions inventories, remain intact on the E.P.A. site.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/climate/epa-climate-change.html
-
HFC Rule Critics Say Vacatur Will Not Block Kigali Deal Implementation
Oct 19, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan
Chemical companies that successfully petitioned an appellate court to vacate an EPA rule reducing refrigerants that act as potent greenhouses gases are pushing back on the notion that scrapping the rules means the United States cannot implement a global deal adopted last year to reduce those same chemicals.
The firms argue that EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) regulations did not guarantee an overall reduction in hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) targeted by the deal known as the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol. As such, the U.S. government in any scenario would have had to enact additional policies to implement the deal.
“To the extent that it causes a reduction in U.S. HFC consumption that gets down to the reduction level [in the country's 2019 target under Kigali], that's purely accidental,” says one attorney for petitioners that successfully sued to vacate EPA's first SNAP rule targeting HFCs, issued in 2015.
If that rule and a subsequent 2016 rule were to stand, and EPA took the specific uses outlined in the rules “off the table, presumably those same HFCs will be sold for other uses. You can't necessarily say you're going to reduce overall consumption by banning certain uses.”
The source says it is possible that overall HFC consumption would go down, but it is not clear whether or by how much, given that there would be other applications for the chemicals and sales would depend on several market factors.
However, environmentalists who back the SNAP rules say that the August ruling vacating key parts of the 2015 rule will certainly “complicate” Kigali implementation.
“To say these these rules being vacated doesn't complicate [implementation] is flatly false,” says one environmentalist, adding that the rules “absolutely did put us in range for our 2019 target and the 2024 target, at least in large part.”
This source also rejects the claim that overall HFC use might not decline if the rules were implemented, saying it is “unlikely that sectors not covered in the first two SNAP rules would grow so quickly as to make up the benefit the rules have earned.”
'Complex' Implementation
The commercial refrigeration sector, which backs Kigali, had previously warned that the Aug. 22 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Mexichem Fluor, Inc. v. EPA, et al. might make the deal's implementation more “complex."
But in a recent interview with Inside EPA, Steve Yurek, president of the Air-Conditioning, Heating & Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), now believes that because of years of investment in his sector and in the chemical industry, “we're not going to want to back away from doing what was being planned.”
He says that vacating the SNAP rules -- at least to the extent that they require current users of HFCs to shift to chemicals with a lower global warming potential (GWP) -- “might mean some customers would move slower if they're not required to.”
But he says major retailers such as Walmart, Target and large grocery stores are demanding equipment that uses climate-friendly alternatives. That is because it boosts their reputation and saves costs. Automakers are also moving toward lower-GWP refrigerants, in part because it helps them comply with EPA's vehicle GHG rules.
“We're going to meet the 2019 targets even if this decision is upheld,” Yurek says. “We're actually going to have a pretty good movement toward meeting the 2024 targets.”
Even so, he hopes that appeals of the ruling by environmentalists and other chemical firms ultimately result in upholding EPA's SNAP authority to limit HFCs because it offers the sector predictability. “Everybody knows everybody is going to move.”
Of note, Yurek said Canada and California are moving to adopt versions of EPA's SNAP rules, meaning that industry must make compliant products for those markets anyway.
Ratification and Allocation
Most sources expect that, eventually, EPA will have to write a regulation implementing a sector-wide phase down of the HFCs, as was done in the 1990s for both chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) to improve the ozone layer.
Such a rule would set a baseline and allocate companies a budget of chemicals they are allowed to sell that declines over time.
The chemical firm attorney says that approach is the only way to legally ensure that the U.S. Kigali target for 2019 would be met. This source adds that while his client supports the Kigali Agreement, it is not clear whether or how the Trump administration intends to implement the deal.
The administration has not yet made its views public, and some believe it might not embrace the push to reduce HFCs due to its broader antipathy to climate rules.
The environmentalist adds that such a rule “will be needed at some point,” and also hopes the Senate will ratify the Kigali deal to shore up EPA's legal authority in this area.
Senate Ratification
AHRI's Yurek says that the first necessary step is Senate ratification, and he is hopeful that the Trump administration will back the deal, noting that White House officials have never “said anything bad about it.” He adds that EPA and White House officials are knowledgeable about the pact, and that it will receive a “full and fair hearing.”
Assuming the deal is ultimately ratified, it is an “open question” whether EPA could use existing Clean Air Act authority or whether the statute would need to be amended to write an allocation rule, according to one attorney tracking the issue.
One factor suggesting the need for new legislation is that Title VI of the air law does not explicitly address HFCs and focuses only on ozone-depleting substances. But this source also notes that section 614 of the air act includes language saying that in the case of a conflict between the air law and the Montreal Protocol, the stricter provision would govern.
Since the Montreal Protocol has now been amended to cover HFCs, one could argue that a ratified treaty would provide legal authority for EPA to write an HFC phasedown.
Yurek adds that if ratification occurs, “we're hoping it won't require any implementing legislation” and would be “self-implementing” using air law provisions focused on the Montreal Protocol. However, he said more analysis is needed on this point.
He also says that the government has lots of time before it must ratify the deal or adopt an HFC allocation rule, given that the United States' 2019 target is “easy to meet. It's when you start getting to 2024 and 2029 that we need to have further measures.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/hfc-rule-critics-say-vacatur-will-not-block-kigali-deal-implementation
-
Environmentalists Urge OMB To Speed EPA Ozone NAAQS Implementation
Oct 19, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Environmentalists are urging White House officials to accelerate EPA's implementation of the 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) by issuing delayed designations for which areas of the United States are attaining the NAAQS, even as the Trump administration weighs a possible reconsideration of the standard.
At an Oct. 17 meeting with officials from EPA and the White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB), representatives from the Environmental Defense Fund, League of Conservation Voters, National Parks Conservation Association, Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club urged issuance of the designations. Several of the groups are also involved in pending federal appeals court litigation trying to force release of the ozone designations.
One environmentalist familiar with the meetings says representatives urged OMB to complete its review of a rule the agency submitted on Sept. 21 to establish thresholds used to define the classifications that EPA will assign to areas out of attainment with the NAAQS, and to issue the attainment designations for the standard which the Obama EPA tightened to 70 parts per billion (ppb) in 2015, down from 75 ppb in 2008.
Areas that are classified in nonattainment are ranked from “marginal” nonattainment to “extreme,” and the more severe the classification the stricter the mandates for reducing ozone. EPA was required under the Clean Air Act to issue the designations for all attainment and nonattainment areas by Oct. 1, but missed that deadline. Administrator Scott Pruitt, who opposed the 2015 ozone standard in his prior role as Oklahoma's GOP attorney general, this summer unilaterally delayed the designations until Oct. 1, 2018, but withdrew that decision after several states and environmental groups sued. EPA is now asking a federal appeals court to dismiss that litigation.
Pruitt's withdrawal of the delay restored this year's Oct. 1 deadline for issuing the designations, which EPA missed. Critics of the designations delay are also threatening deadline lawsuits to force the agency to issue the findings, which trigger the clock for states to craft ozone reduction plans.
The groups at the OMB meeting pressed the Trump administration to accelerate area designations, according to the environmentalist. “We think that there should be no delay and there has already been a delay.”
The source says the groups also discussed with OMB and EPA officials the pending thresholds rule, which the agency predicts finalizing in October 2018. The environmentalist says that groups do not know what is in the new Trump EPA proposal: “No-one's seen it.”
For example, it is unclear if the proposal includes implementation measures that states must apply in their compliance plans. The Obama EPA in a Nov. 17 proposal set the thresholds, but also included an implementation schedule for submission of various required elements in states' compliance plans, as well as attainment deadlines.
EPA in that proposal detailed options for states and EPA to identify areas of the country out of attainment with the new standard, and to craft ozone-reduction SIPs. These included deadlines for state and EPA action, measures to be contained in SIPs, two options to revoke its 2008 ozone NAAQS, and “anti-backsliding” measures to prevent any relaxation of pollution controls that could result in worsening air quality.
Designations Litigation
Meanwhile, states suing EPA over the designations delay in American Lung Association, et al. v. EPA, et al., now in abeyance in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, sent a letter to the court Oct. 19 advising of developments relevant to the case -- which the court put on hold after the agency withdrew the delay.
EPA has pressed for dismissal of the case, arguing that in the light of its withdrawal of the universal one-year delay, the challenge is moot.
But the delay in issuing the designations appears to be at odds with an earlier Pruitt statement about the agency meeting its statutory deadlines, as the administrator on Aug. 3 said, “We do not believe in regulation through litigation, and we take deadlines seriously."
States are opposing dismissal of the case and argue that EPA's missing the Oct. 1 deadline supports their argument that the court should vacate EPA's withdrawn one-year delay.
“EPA’s continued delay in issuing designations evidences its departure from the withdrawal notice and support for the prior policy of illegal delay. EPA’s lack of action silently perpetuates the approach the agency appeared to officially reverse in its withdrawal notice . . . and belies EPA’s statement to this Court that '[t]here is no basis whatsoever for the suggestion that EPA would, or even could, now simply withdraw the withdrawal without any further analysis or explanation,'” says the states' letter.
States suing EPA in the suit are New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. Many of these same states have threatened to sue EPA over its missed Oct. 1 deadline.
However, “Without a decision in this case, EPA could attempt to shield its ongoing failure to act from judicial review by again imposing an illegal extension of the expired deadline,” the states say.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/environmentalists-urge-omb-speed-epa-ozone-naaqs-implementation
-
EPA Extends Comment Period On Plan To Retain SO2 NAAQS
Oct 19, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA is extending the public comment period from Oct. 18 to Nov. 17 on two draft documents supporting the agency review of sulfur dioxide (SO2) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), which recommend that the agency leave the existing one-hour SO2 standard unchanged at 75 parts per billion (ppb).
The Obama EPA last revised the SO2 standard in 2010, tightening the standard to 75 ppb over a novel one-hour averaging time, replacing standards of 140 ppb over 24 hours and 30 ppb annually that had been in place since 1971.
Under the Clean Air Act, EPA must review and if necessary revise NAAQS every five years. The agency is again behind schedule for SO2, and under consent decree deadlines must propose a rule to either modify the NAAQS or leave it unchanged by May 25, and a final rule by Jan. 18, 2019.
In an Oct. 18 Federal Register notice, EPA extends the deadline from Oct. 18 to Nov. 17 for public comment on two documents prepared by EPA staff that will inform the proposal due in May. The Risk and Exposure Assessment weighs health risks to the public that remain with the existing NAAQS, while the policy assessment (PA) gives the EPA administrator options for either altering the standard or leaving it unchanged. Here, the PA finds no need to tighten the existing standard.
The comment period extension responds to a request by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality(TCEQ) for more time to provide input, based in part on what TCEQ says was a delay in publishing the documents in the Register that affected Texas regulators' ability to properly analyze the lengthy documents.
The American Petroleum Institute (API), meanwhile, in Oct. 16 comments says that while EPA staff is correct to conclude that the existing NAAQS is sufficiently health-protective, EPA must also consider whether it is in fact too tough. This position mirrors recent comments from API on EPA's proposal to leave its nitrogen dioxide (NO2) unchanged.
The draft PA “convincingly demonstrates to the Administrator that strengthening of the primary SO2 NAAQS is neither necessary nor appropriate."
However, EPA still overstates the health risks of SO2, API claims, and the agency should revise the document “to consider 400 ppb SO2 as the lowest level at which adverse effects have been shown to occur in asthmatics at an elevated rate of ventilation. When revised in this manner, the PA will provide useful information to the Administrator in judging not only whether strengthening of the NAAQS is warranted, but also in judging whether relaxation of the NAAQS is appropriate.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-extends-comment-period-plan-retain-so2-naaqs
-
California Sees Grid Plan Filling GHG Reduction Void From Repeal Of CPP
Oct 19, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Curt Barry
California's top air official Mary Nichols says Gov. Jerry Brown's (D) controversial proposal to create an expanded Western electricity grid would allow states to work together to de-carbonize the power system and fill a void created by the Trump administration's proposed repeal of EPA's Clean Power Plan (CPP) utility greenhouse gas rule.
Nichols' remarks indicate how states that favor GHG regulation of power plants are planning to move forward with the expectation that the Trump EPA will eventually finalize the proposed repeal, and she said that the private sector could also take steps to boost power plant GHG cuts regardless of the rule's repeal.
“We know that if we can integrate our grid better with our neighboring states, we could deliver efficiencies at the system level more broadly, [which] would help to serve not only to reduce emissions but also to keep down costs for everybody,” Nichols said during an Oct. 18 speech at the California Independent System Operator's (CAISO) annual Stakeholder Symposium.
“Now the Clean Power Plan that the federal government enacted is effectively gone. It provided a framework with which some of those actions could have been implemented -- where states were given strong incentives to work together to collectively reduce their emissions and costs,” she added. “Without it, however, it will be up to the states, to the public utilities commissions and the grid operators to figure it out.”
If the state officials “can't figure it out, I suspect that the private sector will find a way to do it as well, because it just makes too much sense . . . to find ways to work at the regional level,” she said.
EPA on Oct. 10 issued a formal proposal to repeal the CPP, arguing that the agency lacked statutory authority for a key aspect of the rule's target-setting formula.
It is also expected “in the near future” to issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking seeking comment on whether or how it should replace the CPP, which was the Obama administration's signature climate change regulation that required states to meet greenhouse gas targets for power plants.
The latter process is expected to take many months and might not be completed before the end of the administration's four-year term, sources say.
Separately, CAISO and Brown last year proposed to expand the operator into a regional entity, a move intended to bolster renewable energy generation, reduce GHGs and lower utility ratepayer costs.
The plan called for first adding territory served by the utility PacifiCorp. The envisioned Western ISO would serve parts of California and the five other states served by PacifiCorp -- Idaho, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.
The organization could eventually also include Nevada and Arizona, which currently participate in CAISO's energy imbalance market, and other Western states.
Stakeholder Concern
Nichols' Oct. 18 comments appear to reflect the Brown administration's ongoing campaign to attract support for its regional grid operator proposal, including legislation that failed during this year's session to create the new ISO's governance structure.
But key stakeholders, including labor unions, some environmental groups and leading Democratic lawmakers, are concerned that the new regional grid operator could undermine California's renewable portfolio standard (RPS) and other clean power and GHG regulations.
California Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon (D) and some environmental and equity groups fear that including other Western states that generate significant amounts of coal power into the same power market may increase exports of dirtier electricity to California and other states. De Leon is challenging incumbent Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) in the Democratic primary for her bid to win reelection.
In addition, critics have charged that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) could make decisions regarding the expanded ISO that undermine California's climate policies, particularly now that the commission has a Republican majority under the Trump administration.
CAISO over the past two years has spearheaded administration efforts to persuade lawmakers to approve a detailed governance structure for the new expanded grid operator, including by commissioning several studies showing that the initiative would increase renewable power generation, reduce GHGs and lower consumers' electricity bills.
But the consistent and vocal opposition to the proposal has thwarted CAISO expansion legislation. Most recently, California Assemblyman Chris Holden (D) postponed until next year his effort to win approval of two CAISO-backed bills introduced late in the 2017 session that would have established a path for the state to create the governance structure.
The bills -- AB 726 and AB 813 -- would have created a new "Commission on Regional Grid Transformation," which would be charged with making certain findings before approving CAISO's proposal for the new governance structure. -
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/california-sees-grid-plan-filling-ghg-reduction-void-repeal-cpp
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested