Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 12/13/17
-
(ACC Mentioned) Environmentalists, EPA At Odds Over Use Of Low-Priority TSCA Reviews
Dec 13, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Environmentalists are urging EPA to aggressively use its data collection power in the revised toxics law for its plan to prioritize existing chemicals for review and limit designations of substances as low priorities for review, but the agency says data collection is time-consuming and that low-priority findings can help conserve limited resources. -
Lawsuits Challenging TSCA Regulations To Be Heard In California
Dec 13, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
Two of the three lawsuits seeking court review of the EPA's regulations for implementing the Toxic Substances Control Act will be heard in California, it has been announced. This was a demand of the NGOs bringing the action. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Loses Bid to Argue Chemical Lawsuits in Fourth Circuit
Dec 13, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency lost its bid to have its preferred court hear lawsuits challenging two core chemical rules. -
Sweden Examines Need For Regulation Of Chemicals In Building Products
Dec 13, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
The Swedish government has announced it is investigating the need for a national chemicals regulation, covering the building products sector. -
The U.S. Is Exporting Oil and Gas at a Record Pace
Dec 12, 2017 | Bloomberg
By Laura Blewitt
... The world’s largest oil consumer exported more hydrocarbons than ever before in 2017 and shows no signs of slowing down. -
Ohio Rep. Johnson Rolls Out 2 Bills To Expedite Exports
Dec 13, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Sam Mintz
Ohio Republican Rep. Bill Johnson introduced two measures this week aimed at boosting exports of liquefied natural gas. -
Trump Administration’s Rollback Of Oil Train Regulations Puts Our Region At Risk
Dec 12, 2017 | The Colombian
Although the demise of a proposed oil terminal at the Port of Vancouver appears imminent, oil-bearing trains will continue to roll through Vancouver and other populated areas of Clark County. Because of that, a decision by the Trump administration to scale back some safety regulations for oil trains is cause for concern. -
Stalled Ozone Bill Could Get Second Wind in 2018, Capito Says
Dec 13, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer Lu
A Senate bill to delay the EPA's updated ozone standards is unlikely to move by the end of this year, but could advance in 2018, its sponsor said. -
EPA To Move Quickly On 2015 Ozone Designations — Wehrum
Dec 12, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA is "working actively" to finish past-due attainment designations for its 2015 ground-level ozone standard and will soon be giving states the required four-month notice when the agency's decisions differ from their recommendations, air chief Bill Wehrum told an agency advisory panel this afternoon. -
OAR's Wehrum Prioritizes Piecemeal NSR Reform, Narrow Utility GHG Rule
Dec 13, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA Office of Air & Radiation (OAR) chief William Wehrum says his priorities following his recent confirmation include a piecemeal and ongoing approach to reforming parts of the Clean Air Act new source review (NSR) permitting program, and issuing a narrow replacement rule for the Obama-era utility greenhouse gas standards. -
Investors With $26.3 Trillion to Shame Top Carbon Emitters
Dec 13, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Francois de Beaupuy
A group of 225 global investors with $26.3 trillion of assets under management, including HSBC Holdings Plc and the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, will publish an annual assessment of how some of the world's biggest producers of greenhouse gases are reducing emissions and limiting their exposure to climate risks. -
Exxon Bows to Investor Pressure to Disclose Climate Impacts
Dec 13, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Burkhardt
Exxon Mobil Corp. will start to disclose the effects of climate change on its business, reversing its earlier opposition after the company split with investors over the issue. -
What to Watch at Macron Climate Summit: Pollution Costs and Oil
Dec 13, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jessica Shankleman and Ewa Krukowska
French President Emmanuel Macron hosts at least four world leaders, three mayors and the governor of California at an event in Paris Dec. 12 aimed at breathing life into the global fight against climate change.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Environmentalists, EPA At Odds Over Use Of Low-Priority TSCA Reviews
Dec 13, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Environmentalists are urging EPA to aggressively use its data collection power in the revised toxics law for its plan to prioritize existing chemicals for review and limit designations of substances as low priorities for review, but the agency says data collection is time-consuming and that low-priority findings can help conserve limited resources.
EPA on Dec. 11 held a public meeting in Washington, D.C., to hear input on potential approaches for pre-prioritization of chemicals for review under the recently revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The Obama EPA in January proposed a pre-prioritization process for existing chemicals, but the Trump EPA removed that process from the final rule issued in June, saying it needed more public input.
During the meeting, officials with the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families urged EPA staff to use new authority under TSCA to collect data on chemicals that may be prioritized for review, and said that designating a broad array of chemicals as low priority for review would be contrary to the law's intent.
“EDF urges EPA to proactively use its enhanced information‐gathering authorities under the revised TSCA to collect information about potential candidate chemicals early in the process in order to ensure sufficient information exists on which to base prioritization decisions,” EDF's Rob Stockman said.
EDF's Richard Denison called on the agency to acknowledge that TSCA sets a high-bar for designating chemicals as low priority for review. He argued that EPA lacks experience in making low-priority designations and noted that those designations may be subject to judicial review in cautioning the agency to take a “go-slow”approach in deeming chemicals low priority.
“If EPA designates significant numbers of low-priority chemicals in a short time frame, it will undermine the ability of public interest stakeholders to meaningfully provide comments and have confidence in the process,” Denison said. “There must be limits placed on the number of low-priority designations undergoing public comment at any given time, and hence EPA should also be identifying relatively few low-priority candidates at a time.”
Under the revised TSCA, EPA is required to establish a risk-based screening process and criteria to identify chemical substances as either high-priority substances for risk evaluation, or low-priority substances for which risk evaluations are not warranted at the time.
The statute gives EPA 12 months to determine whether chemicals are a high or low priority for evaluation, and once deemed a high priority, the agency must complete a risk evaluation within three and a half years. The law requires EPA to have 20 existing chemicals under assessment at all times.
Low-Priority Designations
But EPA's top political toxics official at the meeting touted the benefits of low-priority findings. At the outset of the Dec. 11 meeting, Nancy Beck, deputy director of EPA's toxics office, argued that limiting use of low-priority designations would have the adverse impact of increasing the volume of reviews and straining agency resources.
Noting the law's deadlines for reviews, Beck cautioned that collecting new data is a lengthy process and said delays in testing to support reviews of chemicals for which existing data is limited could force the agency to base reviews on default assumptions, leading to possible legal challenges, which could further tie up agency resources.
“We're here today to be smart and to figure out what chemicals should be put into the prioritization process to have chemicals with regulations that stick, that is our goal,” she said.
At the meeting, EPA sought input on “Possible Approaches for Identifying Potential Candidates for Prioritization” outlined in a Nov. 14 discussion document, on which the agency is seeking written comment through Jan. 25. EPA officials said they hope to come up with a plan for pre-prioritization of existing chemicals for review by June.
Existing chemicals are those that were on the market when the original TSCA took effect in 1976, and were largely grandfathered from regulation under that version of the law. The reformed TSCA tasks EPA with prioritizing these chemicals and beginning to assess the risks of those deemed high priority.
EPA's discussion document outlines six general approaches the agency could use to prioritize existing chemicals for priority assessment. One possible approach would continue use of the prioritization process developed for the Obama EPA's TSCA workplan program, which identified more than 80 chemicals the agency deemed priorities for risk assessment. The Obama EPA developed the approach in 2012 to help it begin regulating existing chemicals under TSCA while waiting for congressional action on reforming the original statute.
Other potential approaches include a series of new methods that EPA could develop -- one based on the approach the Canadian government adopted for use in 1996 and often heralded by industry as a model for EPA; two approaches based on chemical structure and functionality; an approach using alternative toxicity methods and an approach for designating low priority chemicals taken from EPA's Design for the Environment (DfE) program.
Statutory Deadlines
During the meeting, environmentalists argued that tight statutory deadlines for review mean EPA should use its authority to collect data early in the prioritization process and that reluctance to collect new data would bias prioritization toward data-rich chemicals rather than those that necessarily pose the greatest risks.
“EPA’s proposed approaches rely heavily on estimation and modeling as well as high-throughput methods,” EDF's Lindsay McCormick said. “While these approaches have their place, given their significant limitations, their availability should not be an excuse to avoid acquiring experimental and monitoring data that are needed to conduct a robust risk evaluation and meet the law’s 'best available science' requirements.”
Robert Sussman of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition that long called for reform of the toxics law argued that the revised TSCA “provides new tools for [addressing] data gaps, but we have no idea how these tools will be used to support prioritization and risk evaluation.”
Environmentalists and industry representatives differed over Beck's apparent backing of low-priority designations to safeguard use of limited agency resources, with industry calling for expansive use of low-priority designations and advocates arguing that the revised TSCA sets a high-bar for low-priority designations.
Sussman said that the law requires chemicals deemed low priority to exhibit an absence of potential hazard or exposure, and that a lack of data on those potential risk factors cannot be a basis for a low-priority listing.
Denison argued that EPA should consider as candidates for low-priority designations only those chemicals “for which it has or will have enough information on their full range of conditions of use to find all of those conditions of use are low-priority.”
But Christina Franz of the American Chemistry Council said she was pleased that EPA is apparently “expanding its thinking” on using low-priority designations, and James Cooper of the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers argued that EPA should not require a minimum data set for making early decisions on prioritization and will have to make those decisions in the absence of complete information.
Animal Testing
Meanwhile, an animal rights group reiterated arguments that the revised TSCA requires that the agency limit animal testing, and that EPA lacks authority under the revised law to require new tests before prioritizing a substance for review. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) first raised the concern in March 20 comments on the Obama EPA's proposed prioritization process, though the agency did not have to fully address the concern in response to comments because the Trump EPA declined to finalize those proposed pre-prioritization steps.
“Under the proposed screening process, the Agency expects to require the development of a significant amount of new information before initiating prioritization,” PETA said in comments on the Obama-era proposal. “To the extent that this information includes the results of new animal tests, such overreach runs counter to the Agency’s responsibility to reduce and replace the use of vertebrate animals under section 4(h).”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/environmentalists-epa-odds-over-use-low-priority-tsca-reviews
-
Lawsuits Challenging TSCA Regulations To Be Heard In California
Dec 13, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
Two of the three lawsuits seeking court review of the EPA's regulations for implementing the Toxic Substances Control Act will be heard in California, it has been announced. This was a demand of the NGOs bringing the action.
Several NGOs filed petitions on 10 and 11 August for court review of the agency's final framework rules for prioritisation and risk evaluation. They argued that the regulations deviate drastically from the proposals set out in the Obama administration's final days, and do not faithfully implement the 2016 TSCA amendments.
A coalition of industry organisations moved to intervene in those actions in support of the EPA, acknowledging that it would go against their interests for the NGOs to succeed in changing the regulations.
Parallel lawsuits were filed in multiple federal appeals courts. The Fourth Circuit decided the final issue on 11 December, by transferring jurisdiction over the prioritisation case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California. This already had jurisdiction over the risk assessment case.
The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) filed an additional petition on 1 September, asking for review of the inventory notification rule. This case was filed in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which has jurisdiction over the capital, and will be heard there.
The Ninth Circuit set deadlines of 23 January to receive formal written arguments from the plaintiffs in the risk assessment suit and 22 February for the EPA and its industry supporters.
No schedule has been set for the other two cases.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62527/lawsuits-challenging-tsca-regulations-to-be-heard-in-california
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Loses Bid to Argue Chemical Lawsuits in Fourth Circuit
Dec 13, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency lost its bid to have its preferred court hear lawsuits challenging two core chemical rules.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled Dec. 11 it would transfer challenges of one regulation to the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco. The Ninth Circuit already has said it would keep the challenges to the other regulation.
More than a dozen environmental, health, and labor groups are challenging the rules the EPA issued in June, saying the agency's procedures could result in it underestimating the health and environmental risks chemicals pose.
The rules describe two separate, but related core tasks the Environmental Protection Agency must carry out to implement requirements in the 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act. One rule describes the procedures the agency will use to designate chemicals as high or low priorities for risk evaluation. The other describes EPA's risk evaluation procedures.
The decisions the EPA reaches during the procedures will determine whether a chemical already in commerce is regulated because it poses unreasonable health or environmental risks.
Single Court Sought
The EPA and the environmental, health, and labor groups agreed a single court should hear the challenges because their legal issues overlap substantially. Having a single appeals court hear the challenges to each rule also reduces the potential for different courts to interpret related TSCA requirements in different ways, attorneys told Bloomberg Environment.
But, the parties disagreed on which appeals court should hear the cases.
The EPA pushed for the Fourth Circuit because it issues final rulings in about half the time the Ninth Circuit does. The petitioners, which originally had filed separate challenges in three different courts, sought hearing in the Ninth Circuit, but did not say why.
“I don't know that it's going to be a huge difference between the two circuits,” Daniel Rosenberg, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, which joined the Alliance of Nurses for Health Environments and Cape Fear River Watch in challenging both EPA rules, told Bloomberg Environment.
An EPA spokesman declined to comment to Bloomberg Environment on the transfer, citing the agency's typical policy of not weighing in on pending litigation.
Many trade associations have joined the lawsuits supporting the EPA's regulations. These include the American Chemistry Council, American Coatings Association, American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute, the Battery Council International, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. None of the attorneys representing the trade associations returned calls seeking comment.
Rosenberg and Robert Sussman, an attorney for Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, which represents 11 environmental, health and labor that also challenged the two rules, said the next step will be for the Ninth Circuit to decide whether it will hear the challenges to each rule separately or consolidate them into one case.
The case is Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Env'ts v. EPA, 4th Cir., No. 17-1926, 12/11/17.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=125052253&vname=dennotallissues&fn=125052253&jd=125052253
-
Sweden Examines Need For Regulation Of Chemicals In Building Products
Dec 13, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
The Swedish government has announced it is investigating the need for a national chemicals regulation, covering the building products sector.
The investigation is part of a wider assessment of the country's building legislation. A government meeting in February decided that a committee of inquiry – the Committee on Modern Building Rules – will review the country's Planning and Building Act.
This will comprise an analysis of the need for regulation to "reduce climate and environmental impacts, including the spread of particularly dangerous substances during the construction process and in the choice of building materials".Chemical in products
A government spokesperson told Chemical Watch that the committee is still collecting information and so "it's too early to describe the methods that will be used to carry out the investigation."
However, the committee's terms of reference say that because a substantial share of the sector's environmental impact arises during the construction process, and in choices of materials, there is a need to target policy tools covering these stages.
The committee will therefore:assess the socio-economic effects of reducing the climate and environmental impacts of buildings, including curtailing the spread of particularly dangerous substances from a lifecycle perspective; andinvestigate the need for changes in regulatory frameworks and other policy tools so as to reduce these impacts, including cutting the spread of particularly dangerous substances during the construction process, and present cost-effective proposals when required.
In the terms of reference, the government says the review is needed to ascertain whether current building requirements, in combination with standards and the structure of the construction industry, create barriers to establishing new businesses and to the sectors growth.
"There is criticism of the present regulations to the effect that they are seen as too extensive and costly," the terms say.
It adds that because there has not been a comprehensive review into modernising the building regulations, there is reason to look into whether they are "well-adapted and appropriate and represent a balance between public and private interests".
Outcomes of the investigation of the climate and environmental impacts of the building process, and resulting proposals, will be presented to the government by 30 November 2018.
In 2015, Sweden's chemicals agency Kemi called on the government to set national thresholds for emissions of hazardous chemicals from products, used in the construction of flooring, walls and ceilings.
The government spokesperson did not confirm whether Kemi's proposal was a catalyst for the review, but did say that it is being considered by the Ministry of Environment.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62489/sweden-examines-need-for-regulation-of-chemicals-in-building-products
-
The U.S. Is Exporting Oil and Gas at a Record Pace
Dec 12, 2017 | Bloomberg
By Laura Blewitt
U.S. crude production, refining rates rise to historic highs
Sweet, light and cheap U.S. oil attractive to global buyers
The world’s largest oil consumer exported more hydrocarbons than ever before in 2017 and shows no signs of slowing down.
You name it -- crude oil, gasoline, diesel, propane and even liquefied natural gas -- all were shipped abroad at a record pace. While the surge comes many years after the shale boom started, it can be traced straight back to the growth of horizontal drilling and fracking. U.S. exports are poised to expand even further, as the fear of peak oil supply has all but vanished just as a new demand threat emerges in the form of electric vehicles.Crude Oil
Americans are expected to end the year pumping oil out of the ground at rates unseen since the early 1970s. More and more of it is going overseas, giving OPEC a headache as the group restrains its own output.
Last year the U.S. tested the export waters after a nearly four-decade-old ban was removed. But this year, purchases of U.S. light, sweet crude have skyrocketed as pipeline and dock infrastructure was built out and the wider price spread between Brent and West Texas Intermediate crude coaxed more cargoes abroad.
Canada, once the only regular buyer of U.S. crude, finds itself competing with refiners in Europe and Asia. China’s appetite for American oil is voracious: in April, China bought more than Canada did for the first time.
“It’s pretty amazing, really,” said Matt Smith, ClipperData LLC’s director of commodity research. "You learn to never say never in this market."
Of all the emerging trade flows this year, crude deliveries into Europe and Asia are most surprising, according to Smith. Brent crude, the European benchmark, has maintained at least a $4 a barrel premium to WTI since mid-August, and was $6.31 more expensive Tuesday. If the price of European oil stays suspended into the New Year -- a good possibility after the Forties oil pipeline was shut to repair a crack -- U.S. exports will continue hold above 1 million barrels a day.
“The U.S. has fully integrated itself into the global market,” Smith said by phone. “You have U.S. crude going into Europe, and European crude heading elsewhere because the U.S. is selling crude into its own backyard.”Fuel Bonanza
The growth of U.S. gasoline and diesel exports was more subtle this year, mostly filling the gaps left as refiners in Latin America weren’t up to the task of meeting the region’s growing thirst for fuel.
Refiners in the middle of the U.S. were pumping out fuel at a record pace, leaving a surplus of refined products along the Gulf Coast ready to be shipped to eager Latin American buyers, according to Mason Hamilton, an analyst with the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
“The Midwest is running at bonkers levels,” Hamilton said by phone from Washington. Weekly preliminary government data show total gasoline exports hit a record 1.21 million barrels a day in November.
July was a banner month for American refiners, who processed crude and exported distillate fuel at a record clip, according to monthly data. The strong demand from Latin America will continue into 2018, according to Hamilton.NGL/LPG
Talk about alphabet soup. Exports of oft-confused natural gas liquids and liquefied natural gas exports chugged along to records as well. NGLs like propane and butane are in high demand around the world to feed plastics-making plants, heat homes and stoves. China and Japan emerged as the biggest propane buyers in 2017.
LNG shipments are just warming up. The sole export terminal in the U.S., operated by Cheniere Energy Inc., hit new highs this year after its capacity was expanded. Mexico, where demand for natural gas increased following energy sector reforms, led all countries in 2017, followed by South Korea and China. LNG is even reaching the Middle East, typically a top supplier of the fuel.
“It’s like selling ice to the Eskimos,” ClipperData’s Smith said.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-12/u-s-fuels-the-world-as-shale-boom-powers-record-oil-exports
-
Ohio Rep. Johnson Rolls Out 2 Bills To Expedite Exports
Dec 13, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Sam Mintz
Ohio Republican Rep. Bill Johnson introduced two measures this week aimed at boosting exports of liquefied natural gas.
The first, H.R. 4606, is the House version of a Senate bill that would codify Department of Energy efforts to expedite small-scale natural gas exports. It would allow DOE to automatically accept applications for LNG exports smaller than 51.1 billion cubic feet per year (E&E Daily, Oct. 19).
Johnson's other bill, H.R. 4605, would allow LNG suppliers to export natural gas after completing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's review process instead of waiting for additional approval from DOE.
The texts for the Johnson bills weren't available late yesterday.
"These bipartisan bills demonstrate support for a vibrant American natural gas export industry, designed to grow our economy domestically while strengthening ties with our allies abroad," Johnson said in a statement.
"I look forward to working with Members of Congress of both parties and the Trump Administration to encourage more natural gas exports," he said.
The LNG industry praised the bills.
"While the United States has a strong and transparent regulatory process for the approval of LNG export terminals, there is no question that this process is expensive and time-consuming," said Fred Hutchinson, executive director of LNG Allies, in a statement.
"Thus, we support measures — such as H.R. 4605 and H.R. 4606 — that would reduce the time and expense of securing LNG project authorizations," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/12/13/stories/1060068853
-
Trump Administration’s Rollback Of Oil Train Regulations Puts Our Region At Risk
Dec 12, 2017 | The Colombian
Although the demise of a proposed oil terminal at the Port of Vancouver appears imminent, oil-bearing trains will continue to roll through Vancouver and other populated areas of Clark County. Because of that, a decision by the Trump administration to scale back some safety regulations for oil trains is cause for concern.
The U.S. Department of Transportation announced last week that it would overturn a 2015 decision requiring trains that carry hazardous materials to have electronically controlled pneumatic brakes by 2021. Proponents say electronic brakes work more quickly than the air brakes that are the industry standard, thereby helping to prevent derailments.
Residents in Washington and Oregon are well aware of the danger involved. Last year, 14 cars from a Union Pacific train derailed near Mosier, Ore., in the Columbia River Gorge, spilling 42,000 gallons of crude oil and sparking a fire that burned for 14 hours. As U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., said in the wake of last week’s decision: “Oil trains are rolling explosion hazards, and as we’ve seen all too many times — and all too recently in Mosier — it’s not a question of ‘if’ but ‘when’ oil train derailments will occur. Degrading of oil train safety requirements is a huge step backward and one that puts our land, homes and lives at risk.”
The issue of oil-train safety has been at the forefront in Clark County since 2013, when the Port of Vancouver signed an agreement for the construction and operation of an oil terminal at the port. In the wake of last month’s election, anti-terminal forces have a majority on the board, leading to assumptions that the lease will be terminated; in addition, a state regulatory board said it would recommend to Gov. Jay Inslee that the project be rejected. But even if the project is scuttled, oil trains will continue to carry crude through the area on the way to refineries in northern Washington.
In overturning the mandate for electronic brakes, the U.S. Department of Transportation relied heavily upon a review by the National Academy of Sciences that was unable to determine whether electronic brakes could conclusively be deemed safer than other braking systems. In part, that lack of a definitive answer came because the railroad industry insisted upon actual trains being wrecked as part of an experiment — a costly and unrealistic demand designed to obfuscate the issue. Without such an experiment, the Department of Transportation stated, “The cost of this mandate would exceed three-fold the benefits it would produce.”
Such a declaration is absurd on its face. How does one put a price on the prevention of an explosion that could kill dozens or hundreds in Camas or Washougal? How does one measure the cost of a catastrophic oil spill in the Columbia River Gorge? Or a fire that could destroy office buildings near downtown Vancouver? The human, environmental and economic costs of a large derailment could be immeasurable, and the possibility of such a calamity demands that every practical safety measure be embraced.
The railroad industry long has fought the electronic-brake mandate, saying it would cost about $2.5 billion. Federal officials, at least under the Obama administration, argued that the cost would be closer to $500 million.
Either way, the discussion is disconcerting. It is misguided to argue over the price tag when working to avoid a disaster that could irrevocably damage the region.
http://www.columbian.com/news/2017/dec/12/in-our-view-safety-should-be-job-one/
-
Stalled Ozone Bill Could Get Second Wind in 2018, Capito Says
Dec 13, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer Lu
A Senate bill to delay the EPA's updated ozone standards is unlikely to move by the end of this year, but could advance in 2018, its sponsor said.
The House passed a similar bill to postpone implementation of the new, more stringent ozone standards set in 2015. But the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has yet to hold a hearing on legislation that Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W. Va.) introduced in February.
“I don't think we'll be doing anything before the end of the year, but we'll probably be talking about it again next year,” Capito, who is a member of the Senate environment committee, told Bloomberg Environment. Capito's bill, SB 263, would give states until 2024 before they have to start meeting the Environmental Protection Agency's updated ozone standards.
‘High Alert’
Public health groups, meanwhile, will be watching to see if it is added as a rider to must-pass spending legislation.
“We are on high alert for this,” Paul Billings, senior vice president of advocacy at American Lung Association, told Bloomberg Environment. “This is an urgent threat to public health.”
Under 2015 standards, areas with ozone problems must begin reaching acceptable ozone levels by 2020. Areas with more severe ozone pollution are given more time. The worst areas have until 2037 to achieve compliance with the revised standards.
Capito's bill would give the EPA 10 years instead of the current five to review air pollution standards for six common pollutants, including ozone.
“Why go to another standard when there's still areas that can't meet the first standard?” Capito asked.
Groups including Ameren Services Co., the Edison Electric Institute, American Wood Council, the National Association of Manufacturers, BP America, and Marathon Petroleum Corp. have lobbied on at least one of the bills.
The American Lung Association, Earthjustice, and the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments have opposed the bill.
—With assistance from Dean Scott
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=125052261&vname=dennotallissues&fn=125052261&jd=125052261
-
EPA To Move Quickly On 2015 Ozone Designations — Wehrum
Dec 12, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA is "working actively" to finish past-due attainment designations for its 2015 ground-level ozone standard and will soon be giving states the required four-month notice when the agency's decisions differ from their recommendations, air chief Bill Wehrum told an agency advisory panel this afternoon.
EPA officials then intend to complete the designation process for the 70-parts-per-billion standard as quickly as possible, Wehrum said at a meeting of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee. Asked in a brief interview afterward whether he expected the process to conclude by this spring, he replied, "That's fair."
The attainment designations, which mark a key step in the compliance process, were legally due at the beginning of October.
While EPA has effectively declared about 85 percent of the nation's counties to be in attainment for the 70 ppb standard, it has yet to deal with areas that are likely failing to meet the limit and thus will eventually have to take added steps to curb emissions that contribute to creation of ozone, a lung irritant linked to asthma attacks in children and other problems. A coalition of Democratic-led states, along with environmental and public health groups, both recently filed lawsuits to force action on the remaining designations.
Wehrum, sworn in about a month ago as assistant administrator in charge of the Office of Air and Radiation, also named EPA's New Source Review program as a top priority for revisions. Over the course of almost 90 minutes, he also signaled his intent to forge ahead with the Trump administration's bid to scale back the Clean Power Plan, saying afterward that he hopes to get EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's signature on an advance notice of proposed rulemaking within a matter of days.
"We're going to do a good job on the regulations, and that's going to take time," he told the advisory panel, "but it's not going to take any more time than it needs to, from my perspective."
This was perhaps Wehrum's first extended public appearance since rejoining the Office of Air and Radiation.
In the George W. Bush administration, he worked at the office from 2001 to 2007, first as counsel and then as acting chief. He had since returned to private law practice, where he represented industry clients including some — such as the American Petroleum Institute and the American Forest and Paper Association — that are also represented on the panel.
The committee, often known by its acronym CAAAC, was created to advise EPA on implementation of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and includes participants from industry, state and local regulatory agencies and environmental groups. The panel typically meets twice a year. Today's all-day session, held at a Washington hotel with about three dozen members in attendance, will be its only meeting of 2017.
Asked by a panel member about the perception that the Trump administration is bent on a wholesale rollback of Obama-era regulations, Wehrum replied, "I would call that an intent to get it right."One in, two out
Earlier in the day, however, another senior EPA official touted the agency's efforts to comply with White House directives to curb regulations.
"We're proud of the progress we've made," said Brittany Bolen, deputy associate administrator for policy. She told committee members that EPA in fiscal 2017 met the administration's "one in, two out" goal of finalizing two "deregulatory actions" for every new proposed regulation, at no overall net added cost.
The administration's approach appeared to have at least qualified support from several industry and state government representatives.
Bob Morehouse, director of the Air Permitting Forum, which focuses on implementation of air pollution regulations, said the industry coalition doesn't want regulatory reform to interfere with EPA's handling of its statutory responsibilities. He then offered technical suggestions on ways the agency could improve its New Source Review program that gives permits for new plants and major expansions of existing facilities.
But Adrian Shelley, director of Public Citizen's Texas office, dismissed the entire effort as misguided.
"It's a really unfortunate situation," Shelley said.
While the idea of regulatory reform sounds good, he added, the administration's direction makes clear that the initiative "is about easing burdens on industry" at the expense of public health and safety.
A similar split emerged when Daisy Letendre, a senior adviser in EPA's Office of Policy, discussed the recently launched "Smart Sectors" initiative to foster more collaboration with specific industry and agricultural sectors while improving environmental outcomes.
"We are effectively changing the way EPA does business," Letendre said after listing dozens of meetings with trade groups and other entities.
But Adrienne Hollis, director of federal policy at the organization We Act for Environmental Justice, said a proposed EPA "transformation strategy" highlighted by Letendre did not mention public health.
"I'm wondering if that was just an oversight," Hollis said, adding that a number of environmental protections have already been lost. "I just want you to assure me that you do consider communities as part of your partners when you're looking at reducing burdens."
Letendre said, "We certainly hear and understand those concerns." She noted the Office of Policy also houses EPA's community revitalization and environmental justice programs. Any community issues flagged through feedback from Smart Sectors participants "is always, always being shared" with those offices, Letendre said.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/12/12/stories/1060068805
-
OAR's Wehrum Prioritizes Piecemeal NSR Reform, Narrow Utility GHG Rule
Dec 13, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA Office of Air & Radiation (OAR) chief William Wehrum says his priorities following his recent confirmation include a piecemeal and ongoing approach to reforming parts of the Clean Air Act new source review (NSR) permitting program, and issuing a narrow replacement rule for the Obama-era utility greenhouse gas standards.
Speaking at a Dec. 12 meeting of the agency's Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) in Washington, D.C., Wehrum also touched on a host of other major policy issues he expects to address as assistant administrator of OAR. For example, he debated the pros and cons of the previous administration's power plant air toxics rule, questioned the viability of the agency's long-term regional haze program goals, and interstate air transport policy.
Although he signaled major policy departures from the Obama era -- such as NSR reform -- he sought to characterize them not as regulatory “rollbacks,” but as correct interpretations of the air law. He stressed that for several major rules, agency reconsideration is in its early stages and he would not prejudge the outcome.
Wehrum said reforming NSR is a top priority for the agency, and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has previously announced an internal task force to craft recommendations on overhauling the program.
One early major policy shift was the agency's issuance of a memo last week in which it dropped a years-old policy saying it could use its own projections of a facility's potential future emissions to trigger NSR permitting requirements, rather than rely on a company's projections. Instead, EPA will now adopt industry's approach that will defer to companies to assess whether they believe NSR applies.
Environmentalists criticized the move, saying it will help more companies avoid NSR permitting by submitting data to EPA claiming potentially costly NSR permitting should not apply.
Pursuing NSR reform through smaller-scale steps such as policy memos or targeted revisions will likely be OAR's approach compared to a sweeping regulatory overhaul of the entire program, Wehrum suggested. He led a prior attempt to reform the program when serving as acting air chief under President George W. Bush.
Wehrum said he foresees “a series of actions that will last for the indefinite future,” such as the recent memo changing the policy on the “potential to emit” (PTE) of power plants. “We will continue to chip away at it” in a “one-by-one-by-one” approach, and “not in large chunks in a flagship reform effort.”
The Supreme Court declined to review a key lawsuit addressing NSR reform Dec. 8, DTE Energy v. EPA, in which Michigan utility DTE has been challenging several tenets of the Obama-era NSR enforcement program, such as calculation of PTE, and whether EPA can prosecute an enforcement action using preconstruction estimates of increased pollution that do not actually materialize once a project is completed.
The high court's decision leaves in place a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit on the issue supporting the now-rescinded EPA policy, potentially complicating Wehrum's drive to reform NSR. But asked by Inside EPA what the implications might be, Wehrum said he has recused himself from the matter, given the involvement of his former law firm, Hunton & Williams, which is representing DTE in the litigation.
OAR Priorities
On the Clean Power Plan (CPP) -- the Obama EPA's flagship GHG reduction program for existing power plants that the Trump EPA is proposing to rescind --Wehrum echoed the preferences of power and other industry officials who are calling on the agency to pursue a limited replacement rule, rather than just the replacement rule the agency is proposing.
Wehrum said EPA in its pending advance notice of proposed rulemaking will ask a lot of questions about a “building-block one-style rule,” referring to the first of the CPP's four “building blocks” that sought to improve the efficiency of power plants inside their “fencelines.” He said the Obama CPP was “more of a federal mandate” than a suggestion, signaling that any replacement may likely leave more discretion to states.
Asked by a CAAAC member why EPA chose to issue an ANPR, rather than a proposed replacement rule directly, Wehrum said that while the agency is soliciting comment broadly on possible replacements, the ANPR should not be construed as meaning EPA is on a “slow boat here. I believe we are on a fast boat,” he said.
Wehrum also said that the agency is potentially days away from taking a key procedural step to completing designations of areas in “nonattainment” with the 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standard, set by the Obama EPA at 70 parts per billion, tougher than the previous 2008 standard of 75 ppb.
EPA missed an Oct. 1 deadline to designate all areas of the country as meeting or violating the 2015 standard, but will issue “120 day letters” soon to states advising them of its views of states' recommendations for designations of areas. This is a prerequisite to issuing the missing designations. States and environmentalists have already sued the agency to force issuance of the designations.
Wehrum also appeared to signal a departure from Obama-era policies on regional haze and interstate air pollution transport.
On haze, he noted that he disagreed with several of the agency's stringent determinations regarding states' decisions of best available retrofit technology (BART), a standard of emissions control for sources -- usually power plants -- emitting haze-forming pollution. But BART, determined by states in their air quality plans unless EPA disagrees, is not the focus of the second round of haze planning which covers the period 2018-2028, where “reasonable further progress” is required instead.
Wehrum indicated that the haze program's ultimate goal of restoring visibility in “Class I” national parks and wilderness areas by 2064 is “an enormously heroic goal” - and no more than a goal - that means the program becomes “more and more acute over time.” He said the second planning periods' approach should set the stage for subsequent planning periods
On interstate transport, Wehrum said he had not yet had an opportunity to examine EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) emissions trading program for power plants, and specifically the updated version of the program adopted by the Obama EPA in 2016. However, he indicated a desire to see EPA step back from crafting such plans, saying, “I would very much like states to step in in the first place and do the math.” Under the air law, states must craft “good neighbor” air plans to mitigate their interstate emissions, but if they fail, EPA must step in with federal plans, such as those underpinning CSAPR.
MATS Rule
Also, Wehrum indicated he is torn about what action to take over the Obama EPA's mercury and air toxics standards (MATS) rule for power plants, which has been largely implemented at great cost to industry already.
The Supreme Court faulted EPA for issuing a prerequisite finding that it is “appropriate and necessary” to regulate the sector without regard to costs, prompting EPA to reissue the finding with a cost analysis. The revised finding is however still contested and EPA may reconsider it.
“Can you unring that bell? Should you unring that bell?” Wehrum asked, noting that although much has already been spent on implementing MATS, “there is a lot of money left to be spent in this program” by utilities to comply and EPA cannot ignore Supreme Court decisions critical of the agency's statutory interpretations on such matters.
Although it is not as pressing as other issues, such as the CPP, “we are not going to wait around forever” in crafting a response, Wehrum said.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/oars-wehrum-prioritizes-piecemeal-nsr-reform-narrow-utility-ghg-rule
-
Investors With $26.3 Trillion to Shame Top Carbon Emitters
Dec 13, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Francois de Beaupuy
A group of 225 global investors with $26.3 trillion of assets under management, including HSBC Holdings Plc and the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, will publish an annual assessment of how some of the world's biggest producers of greenhouse gases are reducing emissions and limiting their exposure to climate risks.
Under the five-year initiative called Climate Action 100+, the group will ask companies including ExxonMobil Corp., Volkswagen AG, and Airbus SE to reduce emissions across their businesses consistent with the global climate agreement signed in Paris two years ago.
They will also ask companies to be more transparent on their climate strategy and to make their boards more responsible for overseeing climate change risks.
“Investors may choose to take a number of actions as a result of progress or lack of progress of the companies that we're collectively engaging with,” Stephanie Maier, director of responsible investment at HSBC Global Asset Management, said at a press conference during the One Planet Summit near Paris Dec. 12. She said investors may voice their concerns through votes at shareholders meeting.
The group will publish annual progress reports on the 100 companies, which also include LafargeHolcim Ltd. and Rio Tinto Plc. The push may already be having an impact. Exxon bowed to investor pressure Dec. 11 by pledging to disclose “in the near future” how policies fighting climate change may affect its businesses.
“If these companies don't begin their low-carbon transition strategies in short order, this will lead to their own financial distress and they will really feel it in their business operations,” Betty Yee, a board member of CalPERS, said at the Paris press conference.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=125052267&vname=dennotallissues&fn=125052267&jd=125052267
-
Exxon Bows to Investor Pressure to Disclose Climate Impacts
Dec 13, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Burkhardt
Exxon Mobil Corp. will start to disclose the effects of climate change on its business, reversing its earlier opposition after the company split with investors over the issue.
A shareholder vote in May urged the oil and gas giant to publish a detailed analysis of how curbs on emissions of carbon could affect the value of its fields, refineries and pipelines. While management didn't accept that non-binding resolution, Chief Executive Officer Darren Woods said at the time that Exxon was still committed to the climate goals and methods laid out in the Paris Agreement.
The board of directors has now reconsidered the proposal, Exxon said in a filing Dec. 11. The company said it will include “energy demand sensitivities, implications for 2-degree Celsius scenarios and positioning for a lower-carbon future” and “seek to issue those disclosures in the near future.”
Exxon has faced allegations by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman that it may have misled investors in public statements on climate change. Yet it's also taken steps to bolster involvement on the subject. Woods has advocated low-emission fuels, carbon capture and biofuels as tools for meeting the Paris goals. The company joined the Climate Leadership Council, a group launched in February to promote cost-effective, equitable and politically-viable climate solutions.
Investor Shift
The New York State Common Retirement Fund submitted the disclosure proposal for the 2017 Annual Shareholders Meeting, Exxon said. “In reconsidering the proposal, the company sought input from a number of parties, such as the proponents and major shareholders,” according to the filing.
The vote by investors in May also marked a growing shift in support on climate change risk issues from large asset managers. BlackRock Inc., Exxon's second-largest shareholder, supported the climate proposal this year for the first time, a person familiar with the matter said at the time. There was a 62 percent vote by investors in favor of the proposal this year, up from 38 percent in 2016.
Mere disclosure isn't enough, according to environmental group 350.org, which urges investors to take more drastic steps.
“There is no way that coal, oil and gas can be a significant part of a future that keeps warming to below 2 degrees—no amount of disclosure from fossil fuel companies is going to change that reality,” Brett Fleishman, senior finance campaigner for 350.org, said in an email. “We implore the world's investors to divest now and shift all of that valuable public and private capital to climate solutions.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=125052264&vname=dennotallissues&fn=125052264&jd=125052264
-
What to Watch at Macron Climate Summit: Pollution Costs and Oil
Dec 13, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jessica Shankleman and Ewa Krukowska
French President Emmanuel Macron hosts at least four world leaders, three mayors and the governor of California at an event in Paris Dec. 12 aimed at breathing life into the global fight against climate change.
Companies from the software developer Microsoft Corp. to insurer AXA SA are announcing initiatives to help rein in pollution, and investors will join Bank of England Governor Mark Carney in seeking greater disclosure of climate-related risks. The event marks the second anniversary of the landmark Paris Agreement, where almost 200 nations vowed to curb fossil fuel emissions.
Here's what to watch:
Who's Isn't Coming
Expect to see some of the familiar faces seeking to tackle climate change, but equally interesting is who will stay away from the event. Not attending include China's leader nor U.S. President Donald Trump, who is moving to encourage use of coal. Neither will German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who is embroiled in talks to form a new coalition government that might be more friendly to fossil fuels than the last administration. Poland, which is hosting the next United Nations climate talks in the heart of lignite-mining country, also isn't sending its leader. Is Macron expanding the environmental movement or preaching to those already converted?
Climate Finance
Macron's ambition is to spur new funding for the environment, firming up a 2009 pledge by industrial nations to step up the flow of aid for climate-related projects in developing nations to $100 billion a year by 2020. The latest data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development put 2014 flows at $62 billion. A major source of cash is drying up as Trump vows to pull the U.S. out of the Paris deal. Look for hints that development banks, companies and investors could help to fill the gap.
Carbon Prices
For decades, the UN has promoted putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions as a financial tool to curb pollution, yet the cost of permits has stagnated. French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire said Dec. 11 he's trying to convince other nations to help triple the carbon price. Macron wants a minimum price in the market. The European Union Commission opposes that measure and is looking to link its trading with emerging markets in places such as China and California. Maros Sefcovic, vice president for energy union at the commission, will air his views at the meeting.
Initiatives Announced
France will draw attention to at least 12 projects aimed at cleaning up emissions, and the European Commission has 10 of its own initiatives to discuss on how to modernize the region's energy industry. The commission's financial-services policy chief Valdis Dombrovskis will elaborate on how to mobilize private funds and bring in the 179 billion euros per year in investment needed to reach goals in the Paris Agreement. Almost 1,200 companies have aligned their policies with the Paris deal, and 118 have pledged to get all their power from renewables, according to the We Mean Business group. It counted commitments from 26 of the 100 top polluters and new pledges from 640 companies with a combined market value of $15.5 trillion.
Transparency Steps
Carney has been asked by the Group of 20 nations to lead the push toward making companies more transparent about the risks they face from climate change. Flanked by groups of investors and at least one insurance company, AXA SA, Carney is due to speak about his project and could outline both new supporters and sources of friction in his efforts.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=125052275&vname=dennotallissues&fn=125052275&jd=125052275
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested