Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 07/02/18
-
EPA Issues Final Rule on Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products Under TSCA
Feb 6, 2018 | Lexology
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham
On February 7, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is scheduled to issue in the Federal Register a final rule on Voluntary Consensus Standards Update; Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products that will revise the formaldehyde standards for composite wood products regulations. -
EPA Poised to Seek Input on Glyphosate Reviews
| Inside EPA
EPA is poised to seek public comment on its recently-issued draft human health and ecological risk assessments of glyphosate, documents that show that the world's most commonly-used herbicide poses risks to birds, mammals and plants, but is unlikely to cause human cancers. -
Pruitt Wants to ‘Eradicate Lead.’ Is That Possible?
Feb 7, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt told lawmakers last week that he wants their help with what he's calling his agency's "war on lead." -
Echa MSC Backs Proposal to Add Seven SVHCs to Authorisation List
| Chemical Watch
Echa’s Member State Committee has backed the agency’s proposal recommending seven substances of very high concern be added to REACH Annex XIV – the authorisation list. -
EDC Criteria Guidance Consultation Ends With Criticism from Industry, NGOs
Feb 7, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Industry, NGOs and member states have expressed concern over the applicability of Echa and the European Food Safety Authority's (Efsa) draft guidance document for the identification of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). -
UK Opens Product Safety Office
Feb 7, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The UK has established a new office to provide scientific and technical expertise in areas including chemicals in products, and to coordinate the response to national product safety incidents. -
Crude, Gasoline Inventories Rise, As Does Demand
Feb 7, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
Crude and gasoline stockpiles rose last week, adding to worries about rising U.S. oil production and pressuring crude prices. -
Pollution Monitors Should be Standard in LA’s Oilfields
Feb 6, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tim O'Connor
There are several reasons to be optimistic about environmental progress in Los Angeles. The city is making massive investments in electric vehicles, making clean energy more accessible to everyday people, and cutting pollution from the ports and freeways to name a few. -
LA and Natural Gas: It's Complicated
Feb 7, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Debra Kahn
Los Angeles politicians yesterday acknowledged their near-term dependence on natural gas while exploring ways to get off of it. -
Dem Senators Demand EPA Chief Recuse Himself on Clean Power Plan Rulemaking
Feb 7, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
Four Democratic senators are calling on Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt to recuse himself from overseeing any rulemaking regarding the repeal of an Obama-era rule on carbon dioxide emissions, because of his "closed mind." -
US Will Be a Net Energy Exporter by 2022, Four Years Sooner Than Expected: Dept of Energy
Feb 7, 2018 | CNBC
By Tom DiChristopher
The United States is on pace to export more energy products than it imports by 2022 as oil and natural gas production from the nation's shale fields keep booming and domestic energy demand remains fairly tepid, according the Department of Energy's statistics arm. -
What’s Good for Russian Gas Is Good for America
Feb 7, 2018 | Foreign Policy (In RealClearEnergy)
By Brenda Shaffer
The Donald Trump administration has emphasized its separation from its predecessors in energy policy, but at least one aspect has been entirely continuous: its ardent opposition to the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline from Russia to Germany. -
Shutdown Day for Southeast Pipeline? All Eyes on the Court
Feb 7, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A federal court may take unprecedented action today: shutting down a natural gas pipeline because of its climate impacts. -
Southeast Pipeline Project Staves Off Shutdown, For Now
Feb 7, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Backers of a natural gas pipeline network on the brink of shutdown can breathe easier for a couple of weeks. -
(ACC Mentioned) NTSB Chews Out FRA Over Sleep Apnea
Feb 7, 2018 | Politico
By Brianna Gurciullo and Lauren Gardner
The NTSB took FRA to task Tuesday for reneging on an early-stage rulemaking last year to consider setting screening and treatment standards for truckers and rail workers at risk for obstructive sleep apnea. -
Engineers in 2 N.Y. Crashes Had Sleep Apnea
Feb 7, 2018 | The New York Times (In E&E Greenwire)
By Patrick McGeehan
Engineers in two New York-area commuter train crashes since 2016 had sleep apnea, federal investigators found. -
Senate Committee Advances Coal Lobbyist to Serve at EPA
Feb 7, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times)
Republican senators used their majority to advance President Donald Trump's nomination of a former coal-industry lobbyist to serve as the second-highest ranking official at the Environmental Protection Agency. -
Ewire: Senate EPW Advances Wheeler as EPA Deputy on Party-Line Vote
Feb 7, 2018 | Inside EPA
The Senate Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW), in an 11-10 party-line vote, has approved the White House's nomination of industry lobbyist Andrew Wheeler to be EPA's deputy administrator, clearing the way for a floor vote though it is unclear when the upper chamber might take up that vote, or whether Democrats might try to block it. -
Court Gives EPA May Deadline on Ozone Designations
Feb 7, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
A federal appeals court is ordering U.S. EPA to report by May 15 on its progress in making past-due attainment designations for its 2015 ground-level ozone standard. -
Pruitt Suggests Warming Can Help Humans
Feb 7, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman and Niina Heikkinen
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt questioned yesterday if rising global temperatures are harmful to humans, a claim that adds new insight to his alternative views on 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
-
EPA Issues Final Rule on Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products Under TSCA
Feb 6, 2018 | Lexology
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham
On February 7, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is scheduled to issue in the Federal Register a final rule on Voluntary Consensus Standards Update; Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products that will revise the formaldehyde standards for composite wood products regulations. The revision updates the incorporation by reference of multiple voluntary consensus standards originally published in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Title VI formaldehyde emission standards for composite wood products final rule on December 12, 2016, that have been updated, superseded, or withdrawn, and provides a technical correction to allow panel producers to correlate their approved quality control test method to the ASTM E1333-14 test chamber, or, upon showing equivalence, the ASTM D6007-14 test chamber. EPA withdrew its direct final rule to update voluntary consensus standards for composite wood products in December 2017 due to its receipt of adverse comment on the rule. The final rule will be effective upon publication.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=fd0a012c-2da3-4974-85ba-3c10b01a2ce4
-
EPA Poised to Seek Input on Glyphosate Reviews
| Inside EPA
EPA is poised to seek public comment on its recently-issued draft human health and ecological risk assessments of glyphosate, documents that show that the world's most commonly-used herbicide poses risks to birds, mammals and plants, but is unlikely to cause human cancers.
Anna Lowit, senior science advisor for EPA's pesticides office, told a Feb. 6 hearing of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee that the agency will soon publish in the Federal Register and seek public comment on the draft reviews.
“While the draft human health and ecological risk assessments are already available on the EPA website, the official public comment period for the registration review of the draft glyphosate risk assessments and supporting science evaluations will soon be announced in the Federal Register,” Lowit said in written testimony.
On Dec. 18, EPA posted on its website, its draft human health assessment reiterating the agency's conclusion that glyphosate is not likely to cause human cancers. The draft reviews strike a blow to California's recent listing of glyphosate as a carcinogen under its Proposition 65 warning-label law and potentially aid a pesticide industry lawsuit challenging the state's listing.
EPA's cancer finding is also contrary to the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 2015 monograph that concluded glyphosate probably causes cancer. The House Science Committee hearing built on Republican lawmakers and pesticide industry opposition to IARC's glyphosate finding.
Lowit told the hearing that seeking public input on the two draft reviews is one of numerous remaining steps in EPA's Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) reregistration of glyphosate.
EPA also must consult with federal wildlife officials on risks to species, using a new inter-agency process that faces significant uncertainty in the Trump administration following industry claims that the process leads to overly conservative and unrealistic results.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt Jan. 31 signed a memorandum of agreement (MOA ) forming a federal inter-agency working group to review and fix what he has called a “broken” Obama-era inter-agency process for assessing pesticides' risks under the ESA.
The MOA faults the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) as failing to foresee the challenges of implementing its recommendations for improving the inter-agency process, which EPA and wildlife officials spent several years implementing during the end of the Obama administration.
In addition to consulting with wildlife officials on species risks, Lowit told the committee that EPA will propose and seek public input on a proposed interim registration decision, including label changes and mitigation measures if necessary. EPA will also assess the substances' potential risks to pollinators.
EPA is required to complete registration review of glyphosate and 700 other pesticides by Oct. 1, 2022.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-poised-seek-input-glyphosate-reviews
-
Pruitt Wants to ‘Eradicate Lead.’ Is That Possible?
Feb 7, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt told lawmakers last week that he wants their help with what he's calling his agency's "war on lead."
Testifying before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, he said that "investing in infrastructure challenges to eradicate lead in our drinking water within a decade should be a goal of this body and, I think, the goal of this administration."
His bold statement drew support from Democratic Sens. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois and Ben Cardin of Maryland, but it flummoxed water experts.
"Anybody who is interested in not drinking lead with their water is going to need to use filters or bottled water," said Yanna Lambrinidou, founder of Parents for Nontoxic Alternatives.
Lead contaminates drinking water primarily by leaching from pipes that carry water from treatment plants to homes. The potent neurotoxin — particularly harmful to children — can flake from pipes deemed "lead-free."
"It's not just the lead service lines on public property, it's not just the lead service lines on private property, it's lead in fixtures in homes, its lead solder, too," G. Tracy Mehan III, executive director of government affairs for the American Water Works Association.
EPA is working to revamp drinking water standards for lead. While changes to monitoring and requiring some amount of lead pipe replacement are all options the administration is considering, no one has discussed removing other kinds of pipes that can contribute to lead contamination.
Said an EPA employee who asked to remain anonymous: "There are steps you can take to make progress that are being considered, but getting lead to zero is probably impossible.
"Unless you are going to physically replace every plumbing device in the country," the staffer added, "you're not going to get there."
Pruitt's comments in the Senate last week upped the ante on previous statements he made to a House committee in December, promising to "eradicate ... concerns" about lead poisoning.
EPA failed to respond to requests for clarification on Pruitt's statements, nor did the agency answer questions about what strategies EPA is considering for reducing or eliminating lead in drinking water as it works on revised standards.
Public health experts have long argued the best way to reduce exposure to lead in drinking water is to replace 7 million to 11 million lead water lines — a job that water utilities estimate would cost $30 billion.
Cities' efforts to replace lead pipes are often stymied by a number of factors.
For one, some utilities don't even know how many lead pipes are in their service area. And even if they do know, they are legally responsible for removing lead pipes that run from main supply lines to the curb, where individual property owners must take responsibility. Municipalities that have tried to help residents pay for the private-side of lead pipe removals have also been ensnared by state utility laws (Greenwire, March 23).
Even if those complications could be overcome and all pure-lead pipes were removed nationwide, lead would still leach into drinking water.
While most properties with pure lead pipes were installed prior to the 1960s, lead solder was still used on non-lead plumbing until 1986. And pipes that were legally considered "lead-free" were actually allowed to have up to 8 percent lead until 2014.
Those pipes, as well as more modern "lead-free" pipes that can legally contain up to 0.25 percent lead, can still contaminate drinking water as they age or if they are exposed to heat.
While treating drinking water with anti-corrosion chemicals can prevent some of that leaching, chemical treatments are generally ineffective at preventing large particles of lead from being knocked-out of non-lead pipes when construction occurs nearby.
According to one Virginia Tech report, there are 81 million homes without pure-lead pipes that still leach lead into drinking water.
"Generally, the non-lead pipes leach less lead than lead pipes, but there is still a significant health risk for folks living in homes built before 1986 and a risk for those homes built before 2014, even if they do not have lead pipes," said Marc Edwards, a Virginia Tech scientist credited with discovering the Flint, Mich., water crisis. "There are 10 to 20 times more homes without lead pipes than with lead pipes that would still leach lead."
Edwards said he would not be worried about health risks from lead in water if he lived "in a modern, post-2014 home," but noted that the lead would not necessarily be "eliminated" from such homes.
It's "very rare," Edwards said, to see lead levels above 5 parts per billion coming out of the tap in modern homes, but "very common" in homes built before 1986.
He added, "That doesn't mean you're not at risk."'Political stunt'?
Risks are widespread because scientists' understanding of a "safe" lead level has evolved through the years.
When EPA wrote its drinking water regulations in 1991, it required utilities to take action if lead concentrations in tap water exceeded 15 ppb at more than 10 percent of testing sites.
While most water contaminant standards are based on health risks, the 15 ppb standard was adopted based on the ability of corrosion control treatments to reduce lead levels at the tap.
At the time, EPA calculated that under its standard, less than 5 percent of children younger than 7 years old would have blood lead levels exceeding 10 micrograms per deciliter, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's threshold for blood lead levels.
The CDC lowered its blood lead threshold to 5 micrograms per deciliter in 2012, but EPA's lead water standards have remained the same.
"Historically, the lead levels we consider low have become levels of concern 10 to 20 years later," Edwards said.
Pruitt appeared aware of that dichotomy during the Senate hearing last week.
Responding to a question from Duckworth about safe blood lead levels, Pruitt acknowledged EPA's 15 ppb standard and that some states like Michigan are considering stricter regulations.
"But, from my perspective, as I indicated, I don't think there is a safe level, and I think we need to eliminate it from our drinking water," he said.
Pruitt's critics say he's not ignorant of the issues but rather playing politics. EPA's current efforts to rewrite lead in drinking water standards began under the Obama administration.
Then, officials were careful not to promise eliminating the toxin from drinking water, talking instead about reducing lead levels or lead risk.
"The Obama people never would have made such an extreme statement because they knew that they would have to follow up on it, and that's not possible," said Betsy Southerland, a former EPA Office of Water employee.
She believes Pruitt's comments are a "political stunt."
The Trump administration has delayed the timing of new lead regulations twice, with a final regulation now expected in February 2020. By then, a new administration or EPA administrator could be in office.
"Nobody who understood the billions of dollars it would cost to replace lead pipes in this country would make a statement like that if they thought they would have to fulfil that promise," Southerland said. "And who knows if he is going to be here in 2020? He knows it sounds good, so he's saying it, but he doesn't mean it."
Southerland also notes that, under Trump administration regulatory reform requirements, EPA would not only have to justify the costs of potentially requiring replacement of lead pipes but also find two other regulations to repeal in order to balance out that cost.
"Where is he going to get the repeals that would be equal to that $30 billion cost?" she asked.'More than waving a magic wand'
Said Ronnie Levin, a former EPA staffer who now manages the water and health program at Harvard University's T.H. Chan School of Public Health, "Even if they decided they wanted to do it, they couldn't do it in 10 years because it costs a boatload of money, and they know that."
Levin noted that Lee Forsgren, deputy assistant administrator in the Office of Water, has cited the cost of lead service line replacement as a reason EPA is no longer considering requiring such work.
Last November, Forsgren told Bloomberg Environment that requiring lead pipe replacements would be "an unfunded mandate that would be unprecedented the likes of which we have never seen."
While calling Pruitt's eradication statement a "laudable goal," public health advocate Lambrinidou said his comments "do make me wonder if there is an understanding of the issue or just an interest in pleasing and deceiving."
While eliminating lead from drinking water isn't practicable, there are meaningful steps EPA could take toward reducing lead exposure. That includes better public education about the prevalence of lead in drinking water, as well as revamped and enforced monitoring standards.
Levin notes that sampling methods used by utilities can be manipulated in ways that don't give an accurate picture of lead contamination. In addition, it's often the same homes with a low risk of having lead that are tested multiple times, leaving out possible contamination in the wider communities. Large utilities are also allowed to sample just once every three years.
Levin and other public health experts have said they are skeptical that an industry-friendly EPA will actually crack down on lead contamination, fearing that a new drinking water regulation from the Trump administration would follow utility recommendations that could actually weaken monitoring (Greenwire, Dec. 11, 2017).
But Levin is hoping Pruitt will prove her wrong.
"You can absolutely reduce lead, even if you can't eliminate it," she said. "It just takes more than waving a magic wand or saying the magic words — you need strong monitoring policies that you enforce."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/02/07/stories/1060073145
-
Echa MSC Backs Proposal to Add Seven SVHCs to Authorisation List
| Chemical Watch
Echa’s Member State Committee has backed the agency’s proposal recommending seven substances of very high concern be added to REACH Annex XIV – the authorisation list.
The substances are:5-sec-butyl-2-(2,4-dimethylcyclohex-3-en-1-yl)-5-methyl-1,3-dioxane [1], 5-sec-butyl-2-(4,6-dimethylcyclohex-3-en-1-yl)-5-methyl-1,3-dioxane [2];2-(2H-benzotriazol-2-yl)-4,6-ditertpentylphenol (UV-328);2,4-di-tert-butyl-6-(5-chlorobenzotriazol-2-yl)phenol (UV-327);2-(2H-benzotriazol-2-yl)-4-(tert-butyl)-6-(sec-butyl)phenol (UV-350);2-benzotriazol-2-yl-4,6-di-tert-butylphenol (UV-320);1-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP); and1,2-benzenedicarboxylic acid, di-C6-10-alkyl esters; 1,2-benzenedicarboxylic acid, mixed decyl and hexyl and octyl diesters with ≥ 0.3% of dihexyl phthalate (EC No. 201-559-5).
The first five substances have persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) and/or very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB) properties. The last two are suspected of being toxic for reproduction.
The MSC adopted its opinion on 11 December 2017. It had considered comments from a public consultation on the draft recommendation between March and June last year, Echa said in a press release.
The final decision on the inclusion of the substances in the authorisation list, and on the dates by which companies will need to apply for authorisation, will be taken by the European Commission in collaboration with member states and the European Parliament, Echa said.
https://chemicalwatch.com/63777/echa-msc-backs-proposal-to-add-seven-svhcs-to-authorisation-list
-
EDC Criteria Guidance Consultation Ends With Criticism from Industry, NGOs
Feb 7, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Industry, NGOs and member states have expressed concern over the applicability of Echa and the European Food Safety Authority's (Efsa) draft guidance document for the identification of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs).
Echa said it received more than 1,500 submissions during the consultation, which closed on 31 January.
The agency itself could not yet comment on the content of these, but said it hopes to publish a report on the consultation. This would contain the received comments and the ways they have been addressed.Data requirements
In comments submitted to the consultation, the European Crop Protection Association (Ecpa) said the guidance goes beyond its remit by introducing new data requirements, outside of those set in the biocides and plant protection products Regulations.
Chemicals should be assessed for endocrine disrupting properties, using available data and a weight-of-evidence approach, the association said. It added that data provisions in the guidance would lead to "a huge amount of animal testing with no or only minor improvement in human health or environmental safety".
"The draft requires an unreasonable burden of proof to demonstrate that a substance is not an endocrine disruptor," it added. "This contradicts the legal text of the EDC criteria, where available data are used to determine if a substance is an EDC."
And the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT-Europe) also criticised the paper's testing requirements, in particular its reference to uterotrophic and Hershberger assays.
"In the US, Toxcast endocrine disruptor prediction models already have provided better predicitivity results than the uterotrophic assay since 2015 and are accepted by the EPA," it said. "It is not in the interest of industry, regulators and consumers to have tests that do not perform properly."Limitations
NGOs shared concerns that the high level of evidence required in the guidance will hinder rather than enable identification of EDCs.
UK-based CHEM Trust said the paper asks for "overly detailed knowledge" of a chemical's mode of action, to link its endocrine activity with adverse effects. It asked for a short-cut mode of action analysis as a starting point for identifying EDCs.
Similar points were made by the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL), which also wants the paper to acknowledge that multiple modes of action can contribute to a single adverse effect.
And it commented that the guidance is limited by only focusing on adverse effects from interaction with oestrogen, androgen, thyroid and steroidogenic (EATS), echoing concerns voiced last year by PAN Europe. HEAL said this issue should be stressed repeatedly throughout the document, because it leaves room for false-negative conclusions.
It added that the paper lacks any practical guidelines on how to address these limitations, and also on how new knowledge will be included in it in the future.
HEAL said the paper is "a good start to help identify EDCs with EATS properties in mammals", but should tackle how new scientific knowledge and advances on testing guidelines will be integrated to expand its scope in the future.Next steps
During a stakeholder workshop on the guidance, run by the European Commission on 1-2 February, 12 member states shared their views on how the guidance would work in practice, by trying to apply it to individual chemicals.
It was a closed meeting and their conclusions were not made public. But Echa said both the comments received in the public consultation and during the workshop will be considered by the joint Efsa, Echa and JRC drafting team for a revision of their current draft guidance.
Before the final paper is published, there will be further consultations of Echa and Efsa's main biocides and pesticides working groups. The biocides competent authorities and the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed will also discuss it.
The final guidance will become available by the time the EDC criteria for biocides become applicable in June, Echa said.
https://chemicalwatch.com/63766/edc-criteria-guidance-consultation-ends-with-criticism-from-industry-ngos
-
UK Opens Product Safety Office
Feb 7, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The UK has established a new office to provide scientific and technical expertise in areas including chemicals in products, and to coordinate the response to national product safety incidents.
The new body – Office for Products Safety and Standards – will support trading standards teams around the country, work with the British Standards Institution (BSI) on product recalls, and help manufacturers conduct product research, according to a government statement.
It is not, however, set up with the intention of replacing existing surveillance authorities or mechanisms as Britain prepares to leave the European Union, a spokesperson at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Beis) said.
The UK reports to the European Commission's Rapid Alert System for dangerous products (Rapex), which includes information on hazardous chemicals found in products, the risks identified and the measures taken in order to prevent or restrict their marketing or use across the EU.
The government is exploring how to continue its access to Rapex, once it leaves the EU next year.
The statement says the new office "coordinates the response to national product safety incidents, including product recalls and repairs" and "can provide advice on chemical composition where that is a relevant factor in the safety of a product".
It adds that there will be no changes to the enforcement of REACH, which remains the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
https://chemicalwatch.com/63776/uk-opens-product-safety-office
-
Crude, Gasoline Inventories Rise, As Does Demand
Feb 7, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
Crude and gasoline stockpiles rose last week, adding to worries about rising U.S. oil production and pressuring crude prices.
The Energy Department said Wednesday that crude inventories rose for the second consecutive week, adding nearly 2 million barrels. Gasoline inventories climbed by 3.4 million barrels.
Inventories of all petroleum products, which include diesel, heating oil and jet fuel, rose by 4.4 million barrels.
The Energy Department recently said it expected that U.S. oil production to reached a record 10.2 million barrels a day in January. Demand, however, continues to grow.
Over the past four weeks, consumption of petroleum products rose by nearly 5 percent compared to the same period a year ago. Gasoline demand jumped 6.5 percent.
http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Crude-gasoline-inventories-rise-as-does-demand-12558409.php
-
Pollution Monitors Should be Standard in LA’s Oilfields
Feb 6, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tim O'Connor
There are several reasons to be optimistic about environmental progress in Los Angeles. The city is making massive investments in electric vehicles, making clean energy more accessible to everyday people, and cutting pollution from the ports and freeways to name a few. But with over 60,000 Angelinos living less than 500 feet from an active oil well – LA could do more to protect our health and our environment.
Oil and gas wells emit toxic chemicals that can increase our risk of developing asthma, cancer and other health problems. Recent studies by the California Air Resources Board and South Coast Air Quality Management District have uncovered elevated levels of benzene, a cancer causing agent, and other toxic compounds coming from oil and gas equipment in Huntington Beach and Signal Hill. In Santa Fe Springs a rupture at an oil site coated numerous homes with oil and generated noxious odors. Then there are the communities in Culver City, South LA, Compton and elsewhere living mere feet from drill sites who experience odors and health ailments on a regular basis. Most notoriously, the Porter Ranch community next to the Aliso Canyon gas field still reports respiratory problems and other symptoms stemming from a major gas leak in 2015.
In response to that disastrous gas leak, the Air Board required continuous pollution monitoring at the 12 natural gas storage sites in the state. The City followed up and imposed continuous monitoring requirements for two oil wells with a bad history of causing odors and community impacts. Last month, South Coast Air Quality Management required the five Southern California oil refineries to deploy real-time air quality monitors at their fencelines by 2020.
Unfortunately, aside from this small set of examples, few standards require continuous pollution monitoring at, or near, the other 54,000 active oil and gas sites across the state. As a result, communities and the government lack consistent, consolidated data on oil and gas emissions, leaving affected neighbors in the dark about their air quality.
In the past, price, availability and capability were barriers to the widespread deployment of continuous air quality monitoring systems. That is increasingly no longer the case. Dozens of companies now provide low- and mid-cost monitoring devices for commercial use.
With continuous pollution monitoring, oil and gas operators can pinpoint the location and the start-time of leaks in their system, minimize product loss, and reduce the risk of jeopardizing public health. Government agencies can regulate the industry more effectively, and communities can use monitoring data to hold neighboring companies accountable for their emissions.
If made public, the data yielded by a comprehensive network of pollution monitors at oil and gas sites could provide Californians with transparent and accurate pollution assessments — as opposed to the current system where facility-level emissions data are often kept confidential. The data can also enable government agencies to make better linkages between emissions and health effects, in order to take responsible actions to protect people.
It is time to take advantage of the technological advancements and make monitoring commonplace at all sites, especially those in closest proximity to communities. Everybody deserves to know what is in their air, Los Angeles has the power to make it happen.
http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2018/02/06/pollution-monitors-should-be-standard-in-las-oilfields/
-
LA and Natural Gas: It's Complicated
Feb 7, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Debra Kahn
Los Angeles politicians yesterday acknowledged their near-term dependence on natural gas while exploring ways to get off of it.
The Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously to oppose a winter moratorium on natural gas hookups for new commercial and industrial buildings in the region. But they also directed the city's utility to explore ways to reduce natural gas demand in buildings through electrifying water heaters, stoves and other gas appliances.
State regulators had proposed the moratorium earlier this winter in response to a state analysis that warned natural gas imports into the LA region would be curtailed by unexpected pipeline outages, jeopardizing reliability during the winter months when demand for heating is high.
Regulators also cited local pressure to shut the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility north of Los Angeles, which leaked 100,000 metric tons of methane into the atmosphere over a four-month period in 2015.
"Los Angeles County has made it clear that it does not support the continued operation of Aliso Canyon," California Public Utilities Commission President Michael Picker and California Energy Commission Chairman Bob Weisenmiller wrote to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in December. "However, on the same note, the Los Angeles County has also failed to step up on behalf of its constituents and provide an alternative that would ensure they could still heat their homes in the winter and conduct other necessary household functions."
The CPUC had the moratorium on its agenda for its board meeting tomorrow but removed it earlier this week. LA councilmembers acknowledged the nudge from state regulators.
"We should be focused on reducing natural gas," said Councilmember Bob Blumenfield. "The right thing for the environment is to focus on those issues, not to do this blind moratorium."
Environmentalists cheered an amendment to the resolution that directs the LA building department and its Department of Water and Power to report back within 90 days on ways to reduce natural gas usage in new buildings — particularly in heating, cooking and water heaters. It also requires the Department of Water and Power to set building electrification targets for 2028 and 2038 later this year that align with the city's greenhouse gas targets of 45 percent below 1990 levels by 2025 and 60 percent by 2035.
"Aligning buildings with the city of LA's aggressive climate goals is a huge win, and it's going to help to decrease gas use in the city and establish an important pathway towards electrification," said Rachel Golden, senior campaign representative with the Sierra Club.
On the state level, the Energy Commission is currently finalizing efficiency standards for all new and remodeled buildings, to take effect in 2020. The rules fall short of requiring new homes to achieve net-zero energy use, due in part to natural gas' role in heating and cooking (Climatewire, Jan. 22).
Golden said LA's move would help build momentum for state regulators to move away from gas.
"It definitely sends the Energy Commission a signal that the future is electrified buildings, and that's where big cities want to go," she said.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/02/07/stories/1060073115
-
Dem Senators Demand EPA Chief Recuse Himself on Clean Power Plan Rulemaking
Feb 7, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
Four Democratic senators are calling on Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt to recuse himself from overseeing any rulemaking regarding the repeal of an Obama-era rule on carbon dioxide emissions, because of his "closed mind."
In a formal comment submitted Wednesday to the docket for the repeal of the Clean Power Plan (CPP), Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) wrote that Pruitt was unfit to oversee the repeal of CPP because of his history of lawsuits against the plan and the Obama administration when Pruitt was attorney general of Oklahoma.
“The evidence for Pruitt’s inalterably closed mind on CPP rulemaking is overwhelming,” the senators wrote. “It falls into three categories: (1) his deep and wide financial ties to the fossil fuel industry which is ferociously opposed to the CPP; (2) his status as a previous petitioner suing the EPA to block the CPP; and (3) his numerous statements denouncing the CPP, questioning the ability to regulate carbon emissions under the [Clean Air Act] as the CPP proposes to do, and casting doubt on climate science.”
The four argued that the law makes clear that when an administrator is proven to have bias he should be recused.
"When clear and convincing evidence exists that a regulator possesses an inalterably closed mind about a subject covered by a rulemaking, s/he is not permitted to participate in the rulemaking," they wrote. "Pruitt’s extensive involvement in CPP litigation means that he cannot be impartial in CPP rulemaking and therefore must recuse himself."
The senators also mentioned Pruitt's history of receiving donations from some of the very groups the CPP could directly affect, noting that in his four campaigns for elected office between 2002 and 2014, Pruitt collected more than $350,000 from businesses and individuals in the energy and natural resources sector.
Since coming to the EPA, Pruitt has taken swift actions to roll back or do away with a number of Obama-era regulations he's deemed over-reaching.
CPP was a ruling, in particular, Pruitt has said does not carry the weight of law as afforded to EPA by Congress.
In October Pruitt sent an official notice of proposed rulemaking to repeal CPP.
“The Obama administration pushed the bounds of their authority so far with the CPP that the Supreme Court issued a historic stay of the rule, preventing its devastating effects to be imposed on the American people while the rule is being challenged in court,” Pruitt said in a statement at the time. “We are committed to righting the wrongs of the Obama administration by cleaning the regulatory slate. Any replacement rule will be done carefully, properly, and with humility, by listening to all those affected by the rule."
Pruitt has pointed to a 2016 Supreme Court stay of the rule following the hefty legal battles it faced as proof that CPP is illegal. The rule was never implemented under Obama.
In an interview released last week with the New York Time's podcast, "The Daily," Pruitt argued that the EPA is not expressly responsible for regulating the effects of climate change — something the Obama administration had in mind when establishing CPP.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/372741-dem-sens-demand-epa-chief-recuse-himself-from-clean-power-plan
-
US Will Be a Net Energy Exporter by 2022, Four Years Sooner Than Expected: Dept of Energy
Feb 7, 2018 | CNBC
By Tom DiChristopher
The United States is on pace to export more energy products than it imports by 2022 as oil and natural gas production from the nation's shale fields keep booming and domestic energy demand remains fairly tepid, according the Department of Energy's statistics arm.
The country will achieve the feat as it expands natural gas exports beyond its traditional North American markets, shipments of crude oil increase and outward flows of refined products like gasoline remain robust, the Energy Information Administration said in its Annual Energy Outlook.
The nation's anemic appetite for energy will also play a role in the United States becoming a net exporter. U.S. energy consumption is only forecast to grow by 0.4 percent through 2050, compared with expectations for economic growth of 2 percent.
If the forecast bears out, 2022 will mark the first year the U.S. energy exports surpassed imports since 1953.
"The United States energy system continues to undergo an incredible transformation," EIA Administrator Linda Capuano said in a statement. "This is most obvious when one considers that the [Annual Energy Outlook] shows the United States becoming a net exporter of energy during the projection period in the Reference case and in most of the sensitivity cases as well — a very different set of expectations than we imagined even five or ten years ago."
In fact, just last year, the EIA forecast the United States would not achieve net exporter status until 2026.
As a net exporter, the United States would still import oil, natural gas and other energy products. Many U.S. refineries are configured to process heavier grades of crude oil, and international flows fluctuate based on the relative cost of energy products from different parts of the world.
Last year, U.S. crude started trading at a big discount to international benchmark Brent crude after Hurricane Harvey shut down a quarter of American refining capacity, shrinking demand for crude oil. That discount makes U.S. crude more attractive to overseas refiners and helped push American exports to an all-time high above 2 million barrels a day last fall.
U.S. exports have been fueled by a boom in natural gas and oil production from advanced technology like hydraulic fracturing, the process of pumping water, sand and chemicals underground to fracture shale rocks and allow hydrocarbons to flow.
EIA projects U.S. crude and liquids output will keep growing through 2042, while natural gas production will remain on an upward trajectory through 2050.
Shipments of natural gas cooled to liquid form, known as LNG, are expected to dominate the US export flows. Historically, gas piped to Canada and Mexico has accounted for the bulk of exports.
The EIA expects the United States to remain a net exporter of coal through 2050. However, it warns that shipments won't increase much because competing exporters are closer to the major markets for coal.
Within the United States, coal-fired power generation and coal production is projected to keep falling through 2022 as plants continue to retire, under pressure from natural gas-fired generation. EIA says virtually all new U.S. power generation will come from natural gas-fired plants and renewable sources like wind and solar farms after 2022.
President Donald Trump has vowed to revive the U.S. coal industry, but he has not made much progress.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/07/united-states-will-be-a-net-energy-exporter.html
-
What’s Good for Russian Gas Is Good for America
Feb 7, 2018 | Foreign Policy (In RealClearEnergy)
By Brenda Shaffer
The Donald Trump administration has emphasized its separation from its predecessors in energy policy, but at least one aspect has been entirely continuous: its ardent opposition to the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline from Russia to Germany. The Barack Obama administration opposed the Nord Stream 2 project, and the George W. Bush administration opposed the parallel Nord Stream pipeline before it became operational in 2011. Last week, in Warsaw, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson effectively endorsed those earlier positions by saying that the United States sees the pipeline “as undermining Europe’s overall energy security and stability.” The new pipeline — which, together with the original Nord Stream, will have the capacity to provide a quarter of Europe’s annual natural gas imports — was also specially targeted by U.S. sanctions on Russia adopted by Congress in August 2017.
This stance has always put the United States at odds with Russia — and, for some commentators, this might seem reason enough to endorse the policy. But the fact that American opposition to Nord Stream 2 is bipartisan doesn’t suggest it is right. Ultimately, Washington’s rejection of Nord Stream is a wasteful distraction and a hindrance to American interests.
This is true for a number of reasons. First, the United States needs to carefully choose its battles with its allies in Europe; it should oppose policies of its European allies only on vital issues and where it can win. Here, it is important to understand that Nord Stream doesn’t only have strong support in Moscow, but also in Berlin. Washington is unlikely to succeed in swaying the German government’s decision, since the pipeline and expanded direct gas trade with Russia enjoy broad political support.
In fact, the United States has a history of failing to prevent Russian gas exports to Europe. In 1981, the Ronald Reagan administration sanctioned both U.S. and European companies engaged in building gas pipelines from the Soviet Union to France and West Germany, creating a large rift with Europe. It eventually backed down when it was clear Europe would forge ahead despite American opposition. Current U.S. policymakers should refer to a declassified CIA report from 1982 explaining how Europe sees trade with Russia differently than the United States, and its assessment of the difficulties Washington faces in getting them on board to sanction energy trade. Nothing has changed in Western Europe’s attitude toward trade with Russia since the drafting of that memo.
Second, Europe needs more gas imports from all sources, including Russia. In the last two years, Europe’s gas imports have increased significantly. If economic growth in Europe continues on the current trajectory, together with declining domestic European gas production, gas imports will grow even more. While the portion of renewables in Europe’s fuel mix is growing, coal consumption remains very high, especially as Europe closes more nuclear energy facilities. Germany’s demand for gas is expected to soar after the closure of its last nuclear plant in 2022. Additional gas supplies into Europe will facilitate the much-needed switch from coal to natural gas, with its lower impact on the environment and specifically on climate change.Additional gas supplies into Europe will facilitate the much-needed switch from coal to natural gas, with its lower impact on the environment and specifically on climate change.
Europe can’t ensure the security of its energy supply by reducing Russian gas supplies. Instead, it needs to increase additional supplies from diverse sources and through building robust infrastructure systems, such as extensive gas storage facilities and interconnectors.
Unfortunately, Russian gas cannot be replaced by and large by U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports. Many of the states in Europe most dependent on Russian gas imports are landlocked or otherwise inaccessible to shipping and thus cannot access LNG. Moreover, even states that have built LNG import facilities, such as Lithuania, continue to seek Russian imports due to the significant price gap between LNG and Russian pipeline gas.
Third, Washington’s attempt to pressure Russia to route its gas through Ukraine undermines European energy security. Transit states make gas supply inherently less stable, and it is a legitimate commercial goal for Russian state-owned oil company Gazprom to avoid them where possible. Today close to half of Russia’s gas supplies into Europe transit Ukraine. Gas supplies to Europe have been disrupted a number of times over the past two decades, caught up in the conflicts between Russia and Ukraine, including over Kiev’s lack of payments for its gas imports.
The expansion of the Nord Stream pipeline would indeed mean that the far more stable Germany would replace Ukraine as a transit state for some of Russia’s exports.The expansion of the Nord Stream pipeline would indeed mean that the far more stable Germany would replace Ukraine as a transit state for some of Russia’s exports.
Indeed, in the wake of the 2014 Russian invasion of Crimea, when policymakers in Washington and Brussels assessed which gas supplies were stable and which were at risk, they counted those delivered by Nord Stream as among those least likely to be disrupted as part of the conflict between Ukraine and Russia. Germany and Russia possess uniquely interdependent gas trade relations, with Russia providing approximately 35 percent of German gas, and Germany serving as Russia’s largest gas export market (22 percent). Furthermore, German-Russian trade and cooperation is important for stability in Europe and is a cornerstone for building more cooperative East-West relations. Washington should coordinate with Berlin as it plays that role — not try to undermine it.
In reality, further removing Russian energy companies from the Ukrainian market is actually in Kiev’s interest. The loss of the transit fees to the Ukrainian budget can be compensated for by improved energy efficiency (through metering and raising of gas prices), and the reduced presence of Russian companies in Ukraine’s critical sectors will help Kiev to strengthen its sovereignty and reduce corruption. True, Ukraine will lose some geopolitical leverage over Russia through the loss of its transit role, but the United States and European Union can’t fairly lecture Moscow that it must act by market rules in its gas trade with Europe and then go and block a project to promote a geopolitical goal.
In order to obstruct the Nord Stream 2 project, policymakers in Brussels, backed by voices in Washington, are considering demanding that EU energy trade rules be applied not only in Europe but also on the portions of import pipelines located outside of Europe. In the long run, this would hurt Europe’s security of supply and deter producers who seek to export to the European market. EU gas trade laws were designed for trade between consumers and not for gas production and transit projects. Moreover, imposing EU gas trade laws on import pipelines prior to their arrival to the EU could actually enhance Russia’s position in various non-Russian gas supply projects. The EU’s laws would impose third-party access on these pipelines, which would open the door for Russia to join those projects.
For most of the post-World War II period, Washington has been a champion of European energy security, sometimes taking the issue more seriously than Europe itself. However, Washington has been successful when it championed policies in coordination with Europe, and not when it tried to impose a vision on Europe of what was best for it. It should use the same approach for Nord Stream 2 — even if that happens to overlap with what Russia wants.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/02/06/whats-good-for-russian-gas-is-good-for-america/
-
Shutdown Day for Southeast Pipeline? All Eyes on the Court
Feb 7, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A federal court may take unprecedented action today: shutting down a natural gas pipeline because of its climate impacts.
Developers and regulators have pleaded with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to save the Sabal Trail pipeline and related projects in Alabama, Georgia and Florida.
The judges' response so far? Crickets.
If the D.C. Circuit sticks to its normal schedule, it will issue a mandate today that will render Sabal Trail's permits at least temporarily void. But nobody knows for sure what the court will do, and the recent requests from FERC and the developers could buy FERC time to take further action.
Today's suspense has been building for months in a legal case that has stunned pipeline watchers and energized the environmental community.
The D.C. Circuit last August sided with the Sierra Club in a case that alleged the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hadn't considered certain climate impacts from Sabal Trail and the Southeast Market Pipelines Project. A panel of judges ordered the agency to do a new study.
FERC quickly set to work on the climate study but asked the court to rethink a part of its decision that, when effective, would scrap the pipeline's certificate. The D.C. Circuit rejected that request last week, starting a seven-day clock for a mandate to issue that would finalize the decision and shut down the pipeline (Energywire, Feb. 1).
The shutdown, though it would likely be short-lived, would be unprecedented. Courts have never halted operations on a major natural gas pipeline for regulators' failure to adequately consider climate change.Last-ditch efforts
As the days have counted down, pipeline backers have pleaded with FERC to find a way around it by completing the court-ordered climate review and reauthorizing the project.
FERC did part of that this week, issuing a final study that looks at the downstream greenhouse gas emissions from Sabal Trail — the climate impact of actually burning the natural gas transported by the project (Energywire, Feb. 6).
But FERC signaled yesterday that it is not prepared to issue a final order reauthorizing the pipeline's certificates based on the climate review. In a filing to the D.C. Circuit, it asked for a 45-day reprieve from the looming mandate in order to finish its work.
"The Commission therefore requests that the mandate be stayed for this short period," agency lawyers told the court yesterday. "If it is not, the Court's vacatur order would create a lapse in Commission-issued certificate authority and effectively cease the operation of needed natural gas pipelines, potentially endangering the supply of electricity to Florida residents."
FERC said it was committed to releasing a final order within 45 days.
Project backers Spectra Energy Partners LP, NextEra Energy Inc. and Duke Energy Corp. made their own last-ditch filing last night, asking for a 90-day stay of the mandate. The companies echoed FERC's concerns about service interruptions and noted that the agency has already substantially addressed the court's August 2017 concerns.
"FERC has now issued a detailed final supplemental environmental impact statement, in compliance with this Court's decision," the companies wrote. "FERC now merely requires a reasonable period of time to decide whether to reaffirm the Project's authorization in light of its supplemental analysis."
The developers have put forth one alternative option for avoiding shutdown, asking FERC to issue temporary emergency certificates that would allow gas to keep moving through the pipeline network (Energywire, Feb. 5).
Analysts at Capital Alpha Partners LLC noted that if the D.C. Circuit issues the mandate today, FERC could respond by quickly releasing a final order to keep the pipeline in service.
"We expect this could keep service disruption to just a few days," the research firm wrote in a memo yesterday. "However, if FERC declines to waive the 30-day period, the delay will stretch into March, with a maximum of 45 days from tomorrow."
The Sierra Club and other environmental groups are expected to challenge any efforts to keep the project in service. They have also criticized the substance of FERC's new climate review, saying it falls far short of what the court required, and are likely to take the agency back to court.
The pipeline backers, meanwhile, have their own follow-up legal plans. Industry lawyers are considering a run to the Supreme Court to challenge both the potential invalidation of the pipeline permits and the merits of the D.C. Circuit's underlying decision requiring further climate analysis last year.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/02/07/stories/1060073089
-
Southeast Pipeline Project Staves Off Shutdown, For Now
Feb 7, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Backers of a natural gas pipeline network on the brink of shutdown can breathe easier for a couple of weeks. A federal court is no longer expected to issue an order today that would turn off a new project in the Southeast.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and pipeline developers yesterday asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to hold off on issuing a mandate that would invalidate permits for Sabal Trail and the Southeast Market Pipelines Project. The requests themselves are enough for Sabal Trail to buy time while the judges consider them.
The Sierra Club plans to file its opposition to the requests by next Friday, and the pipeline companies and FERC will have a chance to respond. The court can resolve the issue — and potentially issue the mandate — after that.
It's the latest twist in what has been a wild legal and procedural battle for the Southeast project and Sabal Trail, which crosses Alabama, Georgia and Florida to deliver natural gas to power plants in the Sunshine State. Spectra Energy Partners LP, NextEra Energy Inc. and Duke Energy Corp. are the primary backers.
FERC approved the project two years ago, drawing a lawsuit from the Sierra Club and other groups concerned about greenhouse gas emissions and other issues. The D.C. Circuit last August agreed that the agency failed to consider the climate impacts of power plants ultimately burning the gas transported by the pipeline.
The commission undertook a fresh climate review to look at that issue but asked the court to rethink part of its decision that would invalidate project permits in the meantime. Last week, the court declined and started a seven-day clock for issuing the mandate that would nix the permits. Now, with the new requests from FERC and the developers pending, the clock will run a couple of weeks longer.
Although a shutdown would likely be temporary, it would still mark the first time a federal court has shut down a major natural gas pipeline for regulators' failure to adequately consider climate change (Energywire, Feb. 1).
While seeking to avoid that outcome, FERC has also been busy trying to comply with the D.C. Circuit's August 2017 decision. On Monday, it completed the new court-ordered climate review. But the agency is not yet prepared to issue a final order reauthorizing Sabal Trail. It has asked the court for 45 days to finish its work.
"FERC's issuance of the final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) on February 5, 2018 was a positive step for us. We are hopeful the FERC will act soon issuing the new Certificate Order based on the final SEIS," Sabal Trail spokeswoman Andrea Grover said in an email this morning.
The pipeline developers also have their eyes set on potential Supreme Court review of the D.C. Circuit's August ruling. Plus, they noted yesterday that, "if necessary," they'll ask the high court for an emergency stay that keeps the project from shutting down.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/02/07/stories/1060073165
-
(ACC Mentioned) NTSB Chews Out FRA Over Sleep Apnea
Feb 7, 2018 | Politico
By Brianna Gurciullo and Lauren Gardner
ON REPEAT: The NTSB took FRA to task Tuesday for reneging on an early-stage rulemaking last year to consider setting screening and treatment standards for truckers and rail workers at risk for obstructive sleep apnea. That disorder was a causal factor in two engineers who ran their commuter trains into bumping posts in 2016 and 2017, our Lauren Gardner writes. Board Chairman Robert Sumwalt said the decision to yank the rule “mystified” him and, later to reporters, expressed frustration that the board’s previous recommendations on medical fitness-for-duty requirements for rail workers have gone unheeded. “Most of our recommendations are ultimately adopted, but for the ones that aren’t, and we continue to see accidents that are similar, it’s very frustrating,” Sumwalt said. To that point, board staff ticked off a list of five other train accidents NTSB has investigated since 2001 where sleep disorders or fatigue played a role in those crashes.
DOT responds: The FRA said in a statement that it “continues to work closely with” NTSB and will study the recommendations “thoroughly.” When DOT announced in August that it was pulling back an ANPRM on sleep apnea, it pointed to current programs and an existing rulemaking process to address fatigue management at railroads as “the appropriate avenues” to address the disease. But that regulation is years overdue, and it’s unclear when a proposal might surface. “From where I sit, and looking at the multiple pile[s] of broken sheet metal and broken engineers and broken people, it doesn't seem to have been effective,” NTSB medical officer Nicholas Webster said, referring to the agency’s position on regulating sleep apnea.
PTC not a panacea: The board also recommended that FRA require passenger railroads to implement technology that can stop train movements in terminals. At least 35 terminals in the United States with multiple feeder tracks are exempt from positive train control requirements, investigator Ted Turpin said. The law allows passenger railroads to apply for those exemptions for yards or terminals, though they must meet certain requirements, including a 20 mph speed limit in those areas where “any available onboard PTC equipment” can enforce the restriction. Board staff said FRA is working with universities now to try to develop a control system for terminals.
For your radar: New Jersey Democrats and Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthalblasted out statements Tuesday urging a federal response to the sleep apnea issue. Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) said he “will be pushing hard on the federal level to ensure the NTSB’s recommendations are fully implemented in a timely manner” and “will be introducing legislation to help agencies like N.J. Transit fast-track that effort.”
Related: A judge has reinstated the criminal charges against the engineer of the Amtrak train that derailed in Philadelphia almost three years ago, an incident that killed eight people and that the NTSB has said could have been prevented by PTC. Months ago, a judge for a different court dismissed the charges against 34-year-old Brandon Bostian. The Philadelphia Inquirer has the latest.
“Respect, walk. What did you say? Respect, walk. Are you talking to me?”
LISTEN HERE: Follow MT’s playlist on Spotify. What better way to start your day than with songs (picked by us and readers) about roads, rails and runways?
ONE THING AFTER ANOTHER: A pair of cars on an Amtrak Acela Express train decoupled Tuesday heading to Boston from Washington, D.C., but no one was harmed. The train “experienced a mechanical issue when two of the train’s cars separated,” according to an Amtrak statement. “We are currently investigating the cause of the car separation, inspecting every Acela trainset, and taking any necessary actions to prevent a reoccurrence,” the statement read.
FOR REAL THIS TIME? Feb. 12, everybody. That’s the day President Donald Trump’s proposal for an infrastructure package will finally arrive, a White House official confirmed Tuesday. The official added that while Trump’s infrastructure “principles” will come out the day of his budget proposal for fiscal 2019, the two will be released separately. We’ve laid out what’s expected in Trump’s blueprint.
Wayback Wednesday: Loyal MT readers may remember that last year we had a competition in which you could guess when the Trump administration would roll out an infrastructure plan. We counted the fact sheet that the White House released as part of Trump’s fiscal 2018 budget request. But we’ll count this new set of “principles” as well. Norman Whitaker at the Virginia Department of Transportation had the closest guess: Feb. 1, 2018. He sent us that prediction on April 19, 2017. His prize is quality time with the Pro Transportation team — coffee and donuts included! But don’t worry, Norman, they won’t be a year old.
What pricked up our ears: Infrastructure got a shoutout at Tuesday’s weekly press conference with Senate Republican leadership. Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) called for cutting “so many of the regulations that make it tougher to construct projects.” He said: “We need to do a much better job as we work toward infrastructure with regulatory reform and relief so that we can build in ways that are faster, better, cheaper and smarter.”
Timing is everything? Separately, Barrasso told reporters that he doesn’t want an infrastructure package to include a gas tax hike, as House Transportation Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) floated last week. “We just passed a massive tax relief for the American people,” Barrasso said. “I think it would be the wrong time now to put on a tax after you just provided tax relief that people needed.”
MEETING OF THE MINDS: Expanding the preclearance program to more transportation hubs in Canada and the United States was at the top of the list of topics raised during a meeting between Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and Ralph Goodale, Canada’s minister of public safety and emergency preparedness, that largely focused on securing transportation at the U.S.-Canada border. “It’s extremely important. And it requires the minister of public safety on the Canadian side, the secretary of DHS on the U.S. side, to have a very strong and productive relationship,” Goodale told our Stephanie Beasley in a sit-down interview.
Location, location, location: Goodale said that the Canadian government is eyeing Toronto’s Billy Bishop Airport, Quebec City, Montreal’s train station (an Amtrak destination) and rail-cruise ship interconnections along Canada’s west coast as part of the expansion. Currently, eight of Customs and Border Protection’s 15 international airport preclearance locations are in Canada. But the real prize, Goodale said, would be adding cargo to the preclearance program. Pros can check out the full interview here.
HELLOS AND GOODBYES: Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), the No. 3 Democrat on the House Transportation Committee, has left the panel to be ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. Del. Stacey Plaskett (D-V.I.) will fill his spot and be a member of the Economic Development and Coast Guard subcommittees. And Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) is out as ranking member of the Economic Development Subcommittee — also in favor of a higher post on the Judiciary Committee. Democrats elected Rep. Dina Titus (D-Nev.) to succeed him as the Democratic leader of the subcommittee.
SLICE OF PI: General Motors hired Hance Scarborough to lobby on self-driving cars, NAFTA and bills related to auto manufacturing. “The automaker spent more than $8.6 million on lobbying last year and also retains the EOP Group, the Fritts Group, the Majority Group, Roberti Global, the S-3 Group, the Washington Tax & Public Policy Group and the Williams Group,” the POLITICO Influence team writes. Meanwhile, Alignment Government Strategies registered to lobby for United Airlines on the reauthorization of the FAA. And S-3 Group is lobbying for the American Chemistry Council on infrastructure issues.
MT MAILBAG: A collection of general aviation, drone and other groups askedthe FAA this week to “investigate, identify, and apprehend the operator” of a drone shown on video flying over a jet in Nevada and “prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.”
SHIFTING GEARS: Jill Zuckman, a managing director at SKDKnickerbocker, was picked to be president of D.C. public affairs for the firm, per Playbook Power Briefing. Zuckman is the Partnership for Open and Fair Skies’ top spokesperson.
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-transportation/2018/02/07/ntsb-chews-out-fra-over-sleep-apnea-095586
-
Engineers in 2 N.Y. Crashes Had Sleep Apnea
Feb 7, 2018 | The New York Times (In E&E Greenwire)
By Patrick McGeehan
Engineers in two New York-area commuter train crashes since 2016 had sleep apnea, federal investigators found.
At a hearing yesterday, the National Transportation Safety Board'sm chairman questioned the Trump administration's decision to withdraw a proposed rule last year that would have screened train crews for sleep apnea.
A study by the agency found that lack of testing and engineer fatigue led to a crash in Hoboken, N.J., in late 2016 and another one in Brooklyn in early 2017. Both trains ran off the end off the track. A bystander died in the Hoboken crash.
"The public deserves alert operators," said Chairman Robert Sumwalt. "That's not too much to ask."
The board's medical officer, Dr. Nicholas Webster, said testing for sleep apnea is simple and inexpensive.
The Trump administration withdrew a rule that would have mandated apnea screening in August 2017 as part of its regulation-cutting initiative.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/02/07/stories/1060073139
-
Senate Committee Advances Coal Lobbyist to Serve at EPA
Feb 7, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times)
Republican senators used their majority to advance President Donald Trump's nomination of a former coal-industry lobbyist to serve as the second-highest ranking official at the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Environment and Public Works Committee voted along party lines 11-10 on Wednesday to send the nomination of Andrew Wheeler to the full Senate for a vote.
Before his nomination as EPA's deputy administrator, Wheeler was a lobbyist whose clients included Murray Energy, one of the nation's largest coal mining companies.
Wheeler accompanied company CEO Bob Murray last year during meetings to lobby the Trump administration to roll back environmental regulations affecting coal mines. Asked about the meetings during a November hearing before the Senate committee, Wheeler said he couldn't remember details. The administration later carried out some of the recommended actions.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/02/07/us/politics/ap-us-congress-trump-environment.html
-
Ewire: Senate EPW Advances Wheeler as EPA Deputy on Party-Line Vote
Feb 7, 2018 | Inside EPA
The Senate Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW), in an 11-10 party-line vote, has approved the White House's nomination of industry lobbyist Andrew Wheeler to be EPA's deputy administrator, clearing the way for a floor vote though it is unclear when the upper chamber might take up that vote, or whether Democrats might try to block it.
“We all know” Wheeler will be “a good deputy” at EPA, EPW Chairman John Barrasso (R-WY) told a Feb. 7 business meeting.
But Democrats on the committee, where Wheeler previously served on the Republican staff, said they oppose him due to unresolved concerns about his support for the agency's deregulatory agenda.
The panel's ranking member, Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), previously suggested that the recent withdrawal of the controversial nomination of Kathleen Hartnett White to lead the White House Council on Environmental Quality could help clear the path for Senate consideration of Wheeler and other EPA nominees.
But Carper and all other Democrats on the panel voted against advancing Wheeler. “I'm pleased that the administration heeded our words and responded to our concerns” about White, Carper said, adding he would vote against Wheeler because of broader concerns about EPA's agenda and Administrator Scott Pruitt's failure to provide clear indications of his path forward -- including the possibility it could rescind California's power to set stricter vehicle greenhouse gas standards than the federal government.
Carper said Pruitt has refused to say “clearly” whether he will leave in place a finding that vehicle GHGs endanger human health and welfare, which underpins the agency's landmark vehicle GHG rules that currently mirror California's initial standards. “That lack of clarity is a large reason why I cannot support quickly moving forward with Mr. Wheeler's nomination,” he said.
Still, the senator said that he has met with Wheeler twice and that the nominee believes the GHG endangerment finding is “settled law,” according to Carper's opening statement.
Carper also said that Wheeler told him that he was not involved in crafting a controversial “action plan” of policy priorities for the Trump administration from Murray Energy. Wheeler represented the coal firm, which sought to undo the endangerment finding and scrap the Obama-era Clean Power Plan GHG standards for existing power plants.
Meanwhile, Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) said he opposes Wheeler's nomination more generally because of his work as an industry lobbyist. Wheeler is currently a principal at FaegreBD Consulting. “I'm afraid that the nominee before us will not help EPA right its course. He is another lobbyist for another industry,” said Markey.
In contrast, Wheeler won broad support from committee Republicans, with Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK) faulting Democrats for slow-walking President Donald Trump's nominees.
“I just hope this isn't part of the continuing effort” to “obstruct, block every Trump administration nominee,” he said. “The election's over -- we need to start putting people in positions in the executive branch. . . . Had Republicans done this in the first year of the Obama administration, the New York Times would have had front-page articles every single day.”
Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) said Trump “is entitled to put his team in place. . . . There has been an unprecedented delay in getting second- and third-tier nominees into place,” and it is nearing a point where the Senate GOP majority might have to consider “changing the rules” on nominations.
The other outstanding EPA nominee still pending is for Holly Greaves, a top adviser to Pruitt, to be the agency's next chief financial officer.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-senate-epw-advances-wheeler-epa-deputy-party-line-vote
-
Court Gives EPA May Deadline on Ozone Designations
Feb 7, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
A federal appeals court is ordering U.S. EPA to report by May 15 on its progress in making past-due attainment designations for its 2015 ground-level ozone standard.
The order, issued today by a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, implicitly rebuffs EPA's bid to throw out lawsuits brought both by environmental and public health groups and a coalition of Democratic-led states on the grounds that those challenges are moot.
The panel also stopped short of giving the plaintiffs exactly what they wanted: a ruling that EPA's earlier attempt — since withdrawn — to give itself a year's extension in making the designations was illegal, or at least to keep the litigation in abeyance. Decisions on both sides' motions are deferred for now, the panel wrote.
Under a standard Clean Air Act timetable, EPA was supposed to have made all attainment designations for the 70-parts-per-billion standard by the beginning of last October. After its previously aborted bid to defer all those decisions until October 2018, the agency in November effectively deemed the bulk of the country in compliance with the 70 ppb threshold but postponed determinations on Houston, Los Angeles and other heavily populated urban areas that are unlikely to meet the tighter limit.
EPA air chief Bill Wehrum now says the agency will complete most of those remaining designations by the end of April, but wants until early August to make a final decision for eight counties in the San Antonio area. Ozone, a lung irritant, is the main ingredient in smog.
From a compliance standpoint, the designations are important because they start the clock for states to come up with cleanup plans for areas that are out of compliance.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/02/07/stories/1060073175
-
Pruitt Suggests Warming Can Help Humans
Feb 7, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman and Niina Heikkinen
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt questioned yesterday if rising global temperatures are harmful to humans, a claim that adds new insight to his alternative views on climate change.
In an interview with KSNV television in Nevada, Pruitt suggested that global warming could be seen as a good thing for people. He said civilizations tend to flourish when it's warm.
"I think there's assumptions made that because the climate is warming, that that necessarily is a bad thing," Pruitt said.
Recently, Pruitt has questioned whether scientists know what the ideal surface temperature should be in the year 2100, or even in 2018. Scientists have disputed that premise, saying that any swift change to global temperatures can have disruptive impacts on plants, animals and humans.
Pruitt's claims yesterday adds new texture to what's known publicly about his skepticism about mainstream climate science. In the past, Pruitt steered away from commenting on what a warming world could mean for humankind. Instead, he often questioned whether humans are having a substantial impact on the climate, while acknowledging that temperatures are climbing. He has also described the science as being politicized and touted the fossil fuel industry's progress in limiting carbon emissions through innovation.
Pruitt's comments yesterday moved beyond those views.
"Is it an existential threat, is it something that is unsustainable, or what kind of effect or harm is this going to have?" he said. "We know that humans have most flourished during times of, what, warming trends?"
A growing body of research has found that humans are warming the Earth at an unprecedented pace, chiefly through the burning of fossil fuels. Possible impacts include a few feet of sea-level rise and an increase in deadly heat waves, potentially making some areas of the planet uninhabitable. The National Climate Assessment released by the Trump administration last year found that it's "extremely likely" that humans are the primary drivers of climate change.
Pruitt is right that temperatures have varied throughout geologic history. But scientists say the speed of change sets the modern age apart. It's happening over a period of decades, not millenia. That makes comparisons to the past inaccurate, they say.
At the beginning of his tenure, Pruitt was criticized for saying humans are not the primary cause of climate change. Since then, he has promoted the idea of a red-team, blue-team climate debate that would highlight areas of uncertainty in the field.
Pruitt's shift in rhetoric has been noticed by even his supporters.
Myron Ebell, who headed Trump's EPA transition team and is director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said he noticed that Pruitt was parroting arguments long made by skeptics. One of them is the claim about there being no ideal temperature. Ebell said that's an "aesthetic" preference that depends on whether or not someone prefers cold weather.
"When you're learning about a subject, you pick up pieces, and you don't pick up other pieces right away," Ebell said. "His rhetoric has shifted, and I expect that that is because he has been briefed by someone."
EPA spokesman Jahan Wilcox declined to comment about Pruitt's briefings or if he's been talking with someone about climate science. He pointed to Pruitt's public schedule, which shows recent meetings with a number of conservative think tanks and politicians who question mainstream climate science. That includes Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, as well as representatives from the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute and Manhattan Institute.
Some of Pruitt's boosters publicly worried that his new talking points suggest a softening of his climate beliefs. Jay Lehr, the science director at the Heartland Institute, noted in an email that Pruitt's statements send unclear signals about his position.
"Pruitt is certainly confusing us on this issue," said Lehr. "He could be preparing to push the red team-blue team approach, or he could be trying to soften opposition by not being in any way strident in his opposition to climate alarmism."
Lehr described Pruitt as having a tough job and said Heartland is satisfied, "by and large," by the work Pruitt has been doing, "but we are always on edge about any reversal of position."
Pruitt's comments inch closer to those of controversial figures like the former nominee to lead the White House Council on Environmental Quality, Kathleen Hartnett White, who has pointed to carbon dioxide as the "gas that makes life possible on Earth."
She had said that while human activity likely has some influence on climate, CO2 does not have the characteristics of an air pollutant that "contaminates and fouls and has a direct impact on human health." Harnett White hit opposition in the Senate, and her name was withdrawn from consideration for the position over the weekend.
Others who are skeptical of climate science, such as Will Happer, who is rumored to be a contender for science adviser to the president, have pointed to the potential benefits of climate change for crops.
Smith, the science committee chairman, wrote an opinion piece for the Heritage Foundation in which he claimed that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide would benefit plant life.
Previously, Pruitt highlighted the uncertainty inherent in climate change. During his confirmation hearing last year, Pruitt told senators on the Environment and Public Works Committee that humans affect the climate in "some manner" (Climatewire, Jan. 19, 2017).
"The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent of that impact and what to do about it are subject to continuing debate and dialogue, and well it should be," he said.
Later in his tenure, as the Trump administration committed to withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, Pruitt began to note U.S. accomplishments in limiting carbon emissions, even while continuing to raise doubts about the environmental impact of doing so.
Following the release of the draft national climate assessment last August, Pruitt criticized the Obama administration for politicizing carbon emissions (Greenwire, Aug. 11, 2017).
"The past administration used the CO2 issue as a wedge issue," he said. "And that's why we talk about it so much. Why aren't we celebrating what we've achieved with respect to CO2?"
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/02/07/stories/1060073119
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