Preview Newsletter
ACC PM Clips Report 2/16/18
-
(ACC Mentioned) LyondellBasell Industries : CEO Bob V. Patel Becomes Chairman Of American Chemistry Council
Feb 16, 2018 | 4 Traders
By News Reporter-Staff News Editor at Journal of Engineering
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) announced that Bob V. Patel, Chief Executive Officer of LyondellBasell Industries became the Council's Chairman of the Board effective January 1, 2018. LyondellBasell is one of the largest plastics, chemicals, and refining companies in the world. -
(ACC Mentioned) Initial US February Propylene Contracts at 6 cent/lb Decrease
Feb 16, 2018 | ICIS
By Jessie Waldheim
Initial settlements for US February propylene contract prices are at a 6 cent/lb ($132/tonne) decrease from the prior month, market source said on Friday, although the settlement is not yet marketwide. -
(ACC Mentioned) Business People
Feb 16, 2018 | Delaware Business Now
Chemours CEO named to American Chemistry Council board: The American Chemistry Council (ACC) announced today that The Chemours Company President and Chief Executive Officer, Mark Vergnano, becamethe Council’s newest officer, effective January 1. -
LyondellBasell to Buy Specialty Plastics Maker
Feb 16, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Katherine Blunt
Houston petrochemical company LyondellBasell said Thursday that it will buy Ohio plastics maker A. Schulman for $2.25 billion in cash to diversify its operations into specialty products during a period of rapid industry expansion. -
No Justification: Substantiations for Rampant New Chemical CBI Claims are Deficient or Lacking Altogether
Feb 16, 2018 | EDF Health Blog
By Richard Denison
We recently started a series of blog posts describing what we did, and did not, get from the EPA Docket Center when we requested the public files on about 70 new chemicals, most of which EPA had determined were “not likely to present an unreasonable risk” under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as amended in 2016 by the Lautenberg Act. -
Trump's Budget Would Erase USGS Impact Research
Feb 16, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
The Trump administration is seeking to zero out federal funding on the environmental effects of oil and gas development. -
The Energy 202: Trump's Infrastructure Plan Would Make it Harder to Challenge Pipelines
Feb 16, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
The Trump administration’s infrastructure plan released earlier this week is designed to stimulate the construction of more oil and natural gas pipelines across the country. -
Court Orders DOE to Publish Stalled Rules
Feb 16, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Christa Marshall
A federal court yesterday ordered the Trump administration to enact four efficiency standards that have been sidelined for more than a year. -
Court Rules Energy Dept. Must Implement Obama Efficiency Rules
Feb 16, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Trump administration must carry out the implementation of four energy efficiency regulations that it has delayed for more than a year, a federal court ruled Thursday. -
Emissions in Pa. Far Higher than Estimates, Enviro Research Shows
Feb 16, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
The oil and gas industry in Pennsylvania emits almost five times more methane than official estimates, according to new research from an environmental group. -
Colorado Increases Oversight on Natural Gas, Oil Flowlines
Feb 16, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
Colorado regulators this week approved comprehensive rules addressing oil and natural gas flowlines, a response to a fatal explosion last year in a Denver area neighborhood. -
FRA to Provide $73 Million for PTC, Crossing Improvements
Feb 16, 2018 | Progressive Railroading
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is accepting applications for $73 million in grant funding for capital projects, including positive train control implementation. -
Congress Urges Railroads to Meet Looming Safety Deadline
Feb 16, 2018 | Reuters
By David Shepardson
The chair of a congressional committee on Thursday urged U.S. railroads and transit agencies to meet a looming deadline to install an anti-crash technology called positive train control after a series of recent crashes. -
Amtrak May Suspend Use of Tracks Without Crash-Prevention Systems
Feb 16, 2018 | Wall Street Journal
By Ted Mann
Amtrak on Thursday threatened to suspend operations on some tracks it uses outside the Northeast Corridor if the track owners don’t meet a year-end federal deadline to install crash-prevention systems. -
Court Gives Greens Win on '08 Ozone Rule Implementation
Feb 16, 2018 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
The Obama administration wrongly revoked the 1997 ozone standard when it wrote a 2015 rule to implement the 2008 ozone standard, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today in a win for environmentalists. -
In Win for Greens, Court Nixes Parts of Obama-Era Ozone Rule
Feb 16, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
A federal court today sided with environmentalists in vacating a significant chunk of an Obama-era rule guiding implementation for the 2008 ozone standard. -
Facing Lawsuits, San Diego Approves New Climate Plan
Feb 16, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
San Diego County's board of supervisors has unanimously approved a new climate action plan it hopes will fend off lawsuits from environmentalists.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
Feb 16, 2018 | 4 Traders
By News Reporter-Staff News Editor at Journal of Engineering
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) announced that Bob V. Patel, Chief Executive Officer of LyondellBasell Industries became the Council's Chairman of the Board effective January 1, 2018. LyondellBasell is one of the largest plastics, chemicals, and refining companies in the world.
"Advancing the understanding, value, and need for science- and risk-based decision-making in both the marketplace and public policy is central to our mission at ACC," said ACC President and CEO
Cal Dooley. "As chief executive of one of the world's largest plastics, chemicals, and refining companies, Bob possesses the insight and expertise to drive the continued expansion and prosperity of American chemistry in a global manufacturing future. His fiscal, strategic, and operational discipline; together with his leadership, will help ensure ACC's continued success as we navigate an increasingly challenging political and regulatory environment."
Mr. Patel will chair his first ACC board meeting at the Council's Washington, DCheadquarters on February 7, 2018. He became an officer of the organization in 2016 and served as vice chairman of the board and chairman of the board Finance, Audit, and Membership Committee. Last year he served as chairman of the Executive Committee.
Mr. Patel was first elected to ACC's board of director's in 2015, during which time he served as a member of the executive committee.
"Our industry is critical to advancing solutions to many of today's most challenging global issues like enhancing food safety through lightweight and flexible packaging, protecting the purity of water supplies through stronger and more versatile pipes, and improving the safety, comfort and fuel efficiency of many of the cars and trucks on the road today," said Patel. "This is an exciting time and I am honored to help tell our story and advocate for sensible policies that encourage growth and further competitiveness around the world."
As CEO of LyondellBasell,
Mr. Patel has focused on the development and implementation of the next phase of the company's long-term growth strategy.
Mr. Patel has overseen major capacity expansions at the company's sites in the United States, including the construction of the company's industry-leading Hyperzone high density polyethylene (HDPE) plant in La Porte, Texas, and the world's largest propylene oxide and tertiary butyl alcohol (PO/TBA) plant in Channelview, Texas - the largest single investment in the company's history. Under
Mr. Patel's leadership, in 2018 LyondellBasell was named to Fortune Magazine's "World's Most Admired Companies" list for the first time.
Mr. Patel joined LyondellBasell in March 2010 as senior vice president, Olefins and Polyolefins - Americas, where he was one of the leaders who helped position the company to take advantage of the shale gas expansion in the U.S. He was promoted to executive vice president of Olefins and Polyolefins - Europe, Asia and International in October 2013, and appointed CEO in January 2015. Previously,
Mr. Patel worked for Chevron Corporation and its affiliates for more than twenty years.
He is a board member of the Junior Achievement of Southeast Texas, the U.S.-India Business Council, and the Greater Houston Partnership. He is also a member of the external advisory council of the College of Engineering for The Ohio State Universityand a member of the dean's advisory council for the Fox School of Business at Temple University.
Mr. Patel earned a Bachelor of Science in chemical engineering from The Ohio State University, and he also holds a Master of Business Administration from Temple University.
In 2015, LyondellBasell was named a Responsible Care Company of the Year by ACC for the company's outstanding achievement in health, safety and environmental performance.
http://www.americanchemistry.com
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) represents the leading companies engaged in the business of chemistry. ACC members apply the science of chemistry to make innovative products and services that make people's lives better, healthier and safer. ACC is committed to improved environmental, health and safety performance through Responsible Care®, common sense advocacy designed to address major public policy issues, and health and environmental research and product testing. The business of chemistry is a $768 billion enterprise and a key element of the nation's economy. It is the nation's largest exporter, accounting for fourteen percent of all U.S. exports. Chemistry companies are among the largest investors in research and development. Safety and security have always been primary concerns of ACC members, and they have intensified their efforts, working closely with government agencies to improve security and to defend against any threat to the nation's critical infrastructure.
http://www.4-traders.com/LYONDELLBASELL-INDUSTRIES-6742278/news/LyondellBasell-Industries-CEO-Bob-V-Patel-Becomes-Chairman-Of-American-Chemistry-Council-26003617/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Initial US February Propylene Contracts at 6 cent/lb Decrease
Feb 16, 2018 | ICIS
By Jessie Waldheim
Initial settlements for US February propylene contract prices are at a 6 cent/lb ($132/tonne) decrease from the prior month, market source said on Friday, although the settlement is not yet marketwide.
If fully accepted, the settlement would put the February contract prices for polymer-grade propylene (PGP) at 53.0 cents/lb, down from 59.0 cents/lb in January, and for chemical-grade propylene (CGP) at 51.5 cents/lb, down from 57.5 cents/lb in January.
The decrease is in line with falling spot prices as lower demand has helped ease a recently tight market.
A tight market following production issues with propanedehydrogenation (PDH) units in the US Gulf drove spot prices into the high 60s cents/lb in January and pressured January contract prices to a 9 cent/lb increase over December.
The market has been waiting for the ramp-up of a new PDH unit at Enterprise's complex in Mont Belvieu, Texas, since it began start-up activities in November. The unit is currently expected to be fully operational at the end of February.
An outage of a PDH unit at Dow Chemical's complex in Freeport, Texas, followed by an outage of the PDH unit at the Flint Hills Resources complex in Houston, Texas, further tightened the market in late December and January. The Flint Hills Resources PDH unit was restarted in January.
The increase in both spot and contract propylene prices had pushed downstream prices higher, causing imported derivatives to be more competitive. For polypropylene (PP), which accounts for more than half of US propylene consumption, operating rates fell as downstream buyers increasingly turned to imports.
Preliminary data from the American Chemistry Council (ACC) showed PP production in January was 15% lower than the prior month and 12% lower than the same month in the previous year.
Amid the lower demand, PGP spot prices moved sharply downward in the last few weeks. Front-month PGP traded on Friday at 45.25 cents/lb.
Meanwhile, propylene inventory levels have been building from low levels in late 2017. Stocks have built for the last five weeks to 3.203m bbl in the week ended 9 February, which is the highest level since 3.308m bbl in late September.
US propylene contracts are typically settled in the middle of the month for the current month.
Major US propylene producers include Chevron Phillips Chemical, Enterprise Products, ExxonMobil, Flint Hills Resources and Shell Chemical.
Major buyers include Arkema, Ascend Performance Materials, Braskem, Dow Chemical, INEOS, Oxea and Total.
https://www.icis.com/resources/news/2018/02/16/10194632/initial-us-february-propylene-contracts-at-6-cent-lb-decrease/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Business People
Feb 16, 2018 | Delaware Business Now
Chemours CEO named to American Chemistry Council board
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) announced today that The Chemours Company President and Chief Executive Officer, Mark Vergnano, becamethe Council’s newest officer, effective January 1.
As its newest officer, Vergnano will first assume the role of Vice Chairman of the Board and chair of the Council’s Board Finance, Audit and Membership Committee. He’ll serve in this capacity for one year, followed by a one year term each as Chairman of the Executive Committee and Chairman of the Board. He was first elected to ACC’s board of directors in 2015. Since that time he has served as a member of the Council’s Board Chemical Management Committee; Executive Rail, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee; and the Executive Committee.
Newlin to step down from Chemours board
TheChemours Company announced that board memberStephen D. Newlinwill not seek re-election to the Chemours Board of Directors; he will continue to serve on the Board for the remainder of his term until the company’s 2018 Annual Meeting.
Newlin Is Chief Executive Officer of Univar, a chemical distribution company based in Illinois.
https://delawarebusinessnow.com/2018/02/business-people-feb-16-2018-photo-gallery/
-
LyondellBasell to Buy Specialty Plastics Maker
Feb 16, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Katherine Blunt
Houston petrochemical company LyondellBasell said Thursday that it will buy Ohio plastics maker A. Schulman for $2.25 billion in cash to diversify its operations into specialty products during a period of rapid industry expansion.
LyondellBasell will purchase A. Schulman for $42 a share, nearly a 9 percent premium over its closing price Feb. 14, and assume the company's $835 million in outstanding debt. The companies expect to complete the deal during the second half of the year, pending shareholder and regulatory approvals.
It's a relatively small acquisition for Lyondell-Basell, which reported nearly $4.9 billion in profit and $34.5 billion in revenue last year. But it will expand the company's capacity to produce more specialized plastics products such as compound resins and additives for a range of consumer and industrial products.
The deal would roughly double the size of LyondellBasell's compounding segment, which turns plastic resins into materials used mainly in automobiles. A. Schulman, meanwhile, uses a wider range of plastics to make compounds, composites, powders and other materials for packaging, consumer goods, electronics and agriculture.RELATEDLyondellBasell leads Gulf petrochemical boomLyondellBasell plans $2 billion plastics, chemical projectIs Braskem still an acquisition target for LyondellBasell?LyondellBasell sees profits surge in 2017 amid shale boomEarnings grow with demand for plastics
"It makes us a full-range compounding company," CEO Bob Patel said during a conference call.
A. Schulman and LyondellBasell's compounding segment together produced $4.6 billion in revenue and nearly 5 billion pounds of product last year. Combined, they have 72 manufacturing sites and 6,600 employees around the world.
Petrochemical boom
The acquisition comes amid a Gulf Coast petrochemical boom fueled by a steady supply of cheap natural gas from West Texas. Houston-area producers including Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. have poured billions of dollars into new plastics production facilities, particularly for polyethylene, the world's most common plastic.
LyondellBasell is now constructing a $700 million plastics plant at its La Porte complex that's expected to produce more than 1 billion pounds of polyethylene each year when it opens in 2019. Analysts said the A. Schulman acquisition is timely for LyondellBasell because the smaller company makes extensive use of polyethylene.
The A. Schulman acquisition accelerates the company's move into more specialized higher-margin chemical products, a segment of the industry that tends to be somewhat insulated from price fluctuations in the broader petrochemicals market. But analysts say it remains to be seen whether the company, which also produces commodity chemicals, continues along the path toward specialty chemicals.
'Baby step'
"The jury is still out whether this becomes the overall strategy," said Hassan Ahmed, a chemicals analyst with New York-based Alembic Global Advisors. "This is a baby step for them to test out whether or not it works."
That strategy has propelled Huntsman, a petrochemical company based in The Woodlands, to become a major player in the specialty chemicals market. That company has also grown through acquisitions of smaller companies with advanced technology to produce chemicals tailored for specific uses in textiles, consumer products and industrial applications.
A. Schulman in 2017 worked to reorient its business after several quarters of declining sales and a management shake-up that ushered in new top executives. Analysts agreed LyondellBasell's deep pockets and prominence within the industry will likely elevate the smaller company's performance.
"There should be significant room for improvement," said Jonas Oxgaard, a chemicals analyst with Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., a New York-based investment management and research firm.
LyondellBasell's stock closed at $109.97, down 1.8 percent. A. Schulman's stock closed at $42.75, up 10.6 percent.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/LyondellBasell-to-buy-specialty-plastics-maker-12618347.php
-
Feb 16, 2018 | EDF Health Blog
By Richard Denison
We recently started a series of blog posts describing what we did, and did not, get from the EPA Docket Center when we requested the public files on about 70 new chemicals, most of which EPA had determined were “not likely to present an unreasonable risk” under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as amended in 2016 by the Lautenberg Act. To continue our series, we address in this post EPA’s pervasive failure to require companies to adequately substantiate Confidential Business Information (CBI) claims, and its own apparent failure to review such claims, despite clear requirements to do so under § 14 of TSCA.
First, to provide some context, let us address a question we were asked based on our first post: whether the PMN situation we are describing is any worse now than it was pre-Lautenberg Act. We suspect it is not necessarily worse. However, the purpose of the reforms to CBI in the Lautenberg Act was to fix these problems, by requiring substantiation and EPA review of most CBI claims, including those asserted in premanufacture notifications (PMNs) submitted for new chemicals. By and large it appears this is simply not happening, 20 months after the law passed and those provisions took effect.
Few of the PMN public files we received included any substantiations, despite massive assertions of CBI claims that require substantiation; instead, companies simply redacted the information. In addition, nearly all of those submissions that do include a substantiation document are wholly inadequate, routinely claiming information as CBI that is not eligible for nondisclosure or failing to provide justification for information that may be eligible. The violations are so egregious that they indicate EPA is failing to conduct even a cursory review of the claims and redactions.
What the law requires
TSCA § 14(c)(3) requires that “a person asserting a claim to protect information under this section shall substantiate the claim . . .” (emphasis added). EPA has interpreted that section to mean all information submitted to EPA is subject to substantiation unless it falls within the narrow categories of information listed in TSCA § 14(c)(2). These categories include specific information on chemical processes, uses or functions; marketing and sales information; information that identifies a supplier or customer; specific production or import volumes; and specific chemical identity information for chemicals prior to commercial distribution. EPA has identified the specific information elements in a PMN that it considers to fall within each of these exempt categories. Based on this list, a broad range of previously unsubstantiated CBI claims must now be specifically justified at the time the PMN is submitted if the submitter requests CBI protection.
The Lautenberg Act makes clear that certain types of information are not eligible for protection from disclosure at all, however. Section 14(b)(2) specifically includes in this category, “any health and safety study which is submitted under this Act with respect to . . . any chemical substance or mixture . . . for which notification is required under section 5.” Under § 2(8), TSCA defines the term “health and safety study” as “any study of any effect of a chemical substance or mixture on health or the environment or on both, including underlying information and epidemiological studies, studies of occupational exposure to a chemical substance or mixture, toxicological, clinical, and ecological studies of a chemical substance or mixture, and any test performed pursuant to this Act” (emphases added).
EPA has further expanded on this definition in its regulations and provided specific examples of such ineligible information, e.g. surveys, tests, and studies of a substance’s degradation, bioaccumulation and transport and its chemical and physical properties; acute and chronic toxicity tests; monitoring data; and assessments of workplace exposure. Therefore, existing information that is generally required to be submitted with PMNs, such as toxicity studies, information on worker exposure, and the majority of information in Safety Data Sheets, is not protected from disclosure.
What we found
Based on the PMN public files we received, companies are still making excessive CBI claims in most cases, and substantiating them in very few. As mentioned in our previous blog post, 60% of the documents we received contained no meaningful information because they were wholly or mostly redacted – even when the documents contained information not eligible for protection.
Even beyond these massive redactions, of the 69 PMN files we received, only 19 included a document identified as providing CBI substantiations.
When we examined these “substantiation” documents, however, we found that some in fact did not provide substantiations meeting the law’s requirements, while in others the explanations for the CBI claims were themselves entirely redacted (see P-17-0256). Here are some specific examples:
Despite having no clear connection to “marketing and sales information,” redactions to Safety Data Sheets are generally claimed CBI under this exception and provide no explanation as to how this information constitutes marketing and sales information.
Redactions to the worker exposure and environmental release information in the PMNs are claimed as CBI under the “specific process information” exemption, also without any explanation as to how this information is even arguably related to specific process information.
A number of substantiations broadly state that all of the redacted information in the PMN and accompanying documents, including information clearly not falling under the § 14(c)(2) exemptions, should be protected indefinitely even though TSCA § 14(e) provides protection only for 10 years absent reassertion and approval.
Also, as alluded to in our previous blog post, based on the documents provided to us, EPA is allowing – whether actively or passively – companies to fully redact documents that the companies themselves identify as health and safety studies. This is strong evidence that EPA is NOT even taking a cursory look, let alone reviewing those claims, because otherwise it would have caught this type of glaringly illegal redaction.
The rest of this post details what we found.
1. Health and safety studies
In total, we identified 78 health and safety (H&S) studies in the PMN files we received. These studies do not qualify as CBI under TSCA, yet – as we noted in our earlier post – 55 of the 78 (two-thirds) were fully or partially redacted. For the great majority of these 55 H&S studies, no substantiation whatsoever was provided for those redactions. Only four out of the 17 PMN public files with H&S studies, accounting for only six of the 78 H&S studies, provided substantiations that even purported to address the redactions in those studies. For three of those four PMN files, the reason given for the redactions was to protect the chemical identity (contrary to the law and EPA’s own regulations, as we have previously noted). In the fourth case, the reason given for the redaction was itself redacted.
The principal takeaway here, however, is that we received scores of blank or redacted H&S studies, and for nearly all of them the submitter did not even attempt to substantiate the redactions.
All of this is despite the fact that EPA has made clear to the industry on its CBI webpage that H&S information “may not be protected as CBI.”
2. Safety data sheets
H&S information included in Safety Data Sheets (SDS) is also not eligible for CBI protection, so any redactions in SDSs should only be of non-H&S information. We reviewed the SDSs in the 19 PMN files that included a CBI substantiation document; of these, 17 of the SDS forms were redacted to some extent. Here are the reasons given (if any) for the redactions:
8 submitters claimed that the SDS redactions did not need to be substantiated because the SDS constituted marketing and sales information exempt from substantiation under TSCA § 14(c)(2)(B). Of these SDSs, 5 were entirely redacted or blacked out.
4 submitters entirely redacted the reason for claiming the SDS as CBI.
2 submitters provided partially redacted SDSs but their substantiation documents did not provide any justification for the SDS redactions.
Only 3 submitters provided substantiation for their redaction – and each of them redacted only the company name from their SDSs.
There are a couple of serious concerns with these substantiations. First, SDS forms contain information regarding hazards and toxicity, accidental release and first-aid measures, fire-fighting methods, handling and storage precautions, needed exposure controls including personal protection, disposal and transport considerations, reactivity and stability, and physical and chemical properties for a chemical substance. It is difficult to understand how any of this information can be considered “marketing and sales information.” None of these information elements are identified by EPA as qualifying for this or any of the other TSCA § 14(c)(2) exemptions. Indeed, as we noted earlier, virtually all of this information constitutes health and safety information not eligible for CBI protection in the first place. Moreover, even if some of the information in an SDS arguably counted as “marketing and sales information,” that is no basis for redacting or blacking out the entire form as “marketing and sales information” as did some of the submitters of the SDSs we received.
As with the H&S studies, it is important to note that these deficiencies apply to the few PMN files where the submitters at least attempted to substantiate their claims. Across the rest of the files we received, over 40 SDSs were redacted to varying degrees without any attempt to substantiate those redactions.
Once again, we can only take this as evidence that EPA is not even cursorily reviewing any of these CBI claims, whereas the law requires that EPA must review at least 25% of them (EPA has said it would meet this requirement by reviewing all non-chemical identity CBI claims in every fourth submission it receives that contains one or more such claims).
3. Worker exposure and environmental release information
PMN forms include a section where the submitter must include information on the number of workers potentially exposed to a substance during a particular activity, the duration of exposure, any protective equipment/engineering controls used, and the amount of the new substance released to the environment. Ten of the 19 substantiations claimed this information CBI, and generally asserted without further explanation that these redactions did not need to be substantiated because they fall under exemption § 14(c)(2)(A), i.e. they constitute “[s]pecific information describing the processes used in manufacture or processing of a chemical substance, mixture, or article.”
Notably, EPA does not identify this information as falling under this exemption – yet companies have been allowed to hide the information from workers and the public. It is not at all clear how disclosure of this information would reveal any “specific information describing the processes used in manufacture” of a chemical (emphasis added). Indeed, much of this information arguably constitutes health and safety information not eligible for CBI protection under TSCA. To the extent it does not, these claims must be substantiated under TSCA, yet none of them were.
Here again, these examples are not the worst of this problem: for the great majority of PMNs we received where this information was redacted, the submitters did not even attempt to claim an exemption applied or provide a substantiation. They just made the redactions.
4. Other types of abuses of the law
a. Additional examples of abusing the exemptions under § 14(c)(2)
We also identified a number of instances where the submitter asserted that information fell under one of the § 14(c)(2) exemptions without demonstrating a logical connection. For instance, a number of the substantiations claimed that the numbers assigned to their bona fide submissions and pre-notice consultation letters were exempt under § 14(c)(2)(A) because they revealed specific information on a manufacturing process. While portions of these documents may well include information on such a process, that is not a basis for redacting a number assigned to the submitter.
Additionally, many submitters claimed that disclosing the “number of sites controlled by others” would identify a supplier or customer and hence is exempt under § 14(c)(2)(C). It is hard to comprehend how that number, on its own, could identify a supplier or customer. Even if other parts of this section of the PMN form do require the identity of the other sites to be disclosed, TSCA § 14(b)(1) makes clear that if CBI and non-CBI information are included in the same submission, only the CBI information is eligible for protection while the non-CBI information is to be disclosed. (This is the very reason redactions are supposed to be used in the first place!)
b. More instances of inadequate substantiations
It is also insightful to look at the actual substantiations made by submitters, because in most cases the reasons given are rather perfunctory. For instance, a number of submitters made sweeping, non-specific claims, such as: “disclosing the information stated above would be harmful to our competitive position. It may provide a useful insight into the direction of our research activities.” (see, for example, P-16-0578). This is a problem for a few reasons. First, it lumps together all the information the submitter redacted and provides only one blanket explanation. Each piece of redacted information needs its own substantiation, however, as it is easier to imagine potential competitive harm from revealing a company name than from revealing a generic description of the chemical’s use – the latter being something TSCA § 5(d)(2)(B) already requires EPA to disclose when it publishes its notices of receipts of PMNs in the Federal Register.
Additionally, while the submitters state that releasing information may provide a “useful insight” into their research and a competitor “may replicate [their] product,” the submitters fail to explain how the redacted information would do so. Section 14(c)(1)(B)(iii) of TSCA requires that, in order to assert a claim, the submitter must have “a reasonable basisto conclude that disclosure of the information is likely to cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the [submitter].” Yet the explanations provided here do not say anything concrete about how disclosure of the specific information being redacted could, let alone is likely to, harm the submitters’ competitive positions.
c. Claiming indefinite protection for information subject to time limits
Of the 19 substantiations we received, six of their submitters requested indefinite CBI protection for information that does not fall under any of the § 14(c)(2) exemptions. This is contrary to the Lautenberg Act, which permits protection of information subject to qualifying CBI claims for 10 years, at which point the claimant must reassert and re-substantiate the claim, and EPA must approve it, in order for the protection to be maintained. See TSCA § 14(e)(1)(B), (2). EPA even reminds submitters about this limitation on its CBI FAQ page.
Statements like these should, at a minimum, flag to the agency that submitters are making claims in their substantiations without any regard to the limitations in the statute.
d. Further flaws revealed in a random sampling of 10 PMNs lacking any substantiations
We randomly selected ten of the PMN files that lacked substantiation documents to review the information that the submitters claimed as CBI on the PMN forms. We then compared these redactions to EPA’s list of PMN elements that fall under the § 14(c)(2) exemptions. Here are examples of what we found redacted even though the information does not qualify for any exemption and hence requires substantiation:
7 of the 10 submitters redacted their company names.
6 of the 10 submitters redacted their substances’ generic category of use, which is not “specific” use information under § 14(c)(2)(E) – and which TSCA § 5(d)(2)(B) already requires EPA to disclose when it publishes its notices of receipts of PMNs in the Federal Register.
6 of the 8 submitters that identified the number of sites controlled by others redacted that number.
4 of the 7 submitters that identified the number of workers exposed redacted that number.
Twenty months after passage of the Lautenberg Act, we simply must ask: When will EPA start carrying out its responsibilities on CBI claims – which includes compelling companies to comply with the law?
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/02/16/no-justification-substantiations-for-rampant-new-chemical-cbi-claims-are-deficient-or-lacking-altogether/
-
Trump's Budget Would Erase USGS Impact Research
Feb 16, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
The Trump administration is seeking to zero out federal funding on the environmental effects of oil and gas development.
A detailed breakdown of this week's White House budget proposal shows that the U.S. Geological Survey would receive no money for its environmental health mission area in fiscal 2019. The division is part of USGS's broader energy and mineral resources mission area, which dodged cuts inflicted by a 20 percent reduction across the agency.
USGS's scientific functions would absorb the brunt of the blow (Climatewire, Feb. 13).
Environmental health programs would disappear in favor of "higher priorities," according to the agency's budget justification. The proposal would wipe out $21 million in funding and 119 full-time positions.
The cuts go far deeper than what Trump's White House requested in fiscal 2018. USGS's last budget justification included $17 million for the environmental health mission area, which would have been a 20 percent trim from the prior year.
Those reductions were never realized, but at the time, they raised concerns that USGS would shift its focus more exclusively to oil and gas issues (Energywire, June 5, 2017).
The other two arms of USGS's energy and mineral resources division — the mineral resources and energy resources programs — would receive a $10 million and $1 million bump, respectively. Each would also gain a handful of full-time positions under the fiscal 2019 proposal.
Maintaining those programs will be crucial to the administration's mission to collect new information on the supply and flow of domestic energy, according to USGS budget documents.
"As demands for energy and mineral resources grow, USGS research and assessments become increasingly critical for understanding the occurrence, quality, supply, and use of national and global resources," the budget justification says. "The in-depth science provided by the USGS Energy and Minerals Resources Mission Area informs strategic, evidence-based economic and geopolitical decisions and facilitates responsible natural resource development."
The two remaining programs contain no priorities for understanding the impacts of oil and gas development, one budget supplement shows.
Those studies were a key endeavor under former President Obama. During the previous administration, USGS was assigned to serve as one prong of a multiagency research collaborative on unconventional oil and gas development.
During its time leading the collaboration, USGS produced a small collection of studies on hydraulic fracturing, including one that uncovered a "definitive link" between water quality impacts and wastewater injection (Energywire, May 11, 2016).
In the first six months of the Trump administration, USGS found no evidence that oil and gas development is a major contributor to drinking water pollution (Energywire, June 1, 2017).
Although the research was completed before President Trump took office, the paper fielded some criticism from environmental groups that questioned the agency's objectivity under a pro-energy president.
As of last year, leadership of the multiagency research initiative had flipped to U.S. EPA, which has been targeted for even steeper budget cuts than the Interior Department, where USGS is housed.
Oil and gas industry groups have maintained that the science on extraction impacts is settled.
"We believe the research into the safety of hydraulic fracturing has been done, and no more American taxpayer dollars are needed to research the issue further," Independent Petroleum Association of America spokesman Neal Kirby said of last year's budget cuts.
One aspect of the environmental health program would stay under this week's budget proposal.
Research on algal blooms would be transferred to USGS's water program, shifting $200,000 and one full-time position to the water mission area.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/02/16/stories/1060074101
-
The Energy 202: Trump's Infrastructure Plan Would Make it Harder to Challenge Pipelines
Feb 16, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
The Trump administration’s infrastructure plan released earlier this week is designed to stimulate the construction of more oil and natural gas pipelines across the country.
To make the building of new pipelines easier, the White House wants to make it harder for the next big anti-pipeline movement to win in the courtroom. How? By limiting the legal options available to lawyers at environmental groups opposed to new fossil-fuel infrastructure. Such a move could be a significant blow to the slew of protesters who spent years agitating against the Keystone XL pipeline and more recentlythe Dakota Access one.
But environmentalists can probably rest easy despite the broadside: A new network of pipelines built with little legal opposition is probably a pipe dream for Trump and his allies because it involves the arduous task of getting Congress to rewrite long-standing environmental laws.
"I would hope that Congress would stand up to protect bedrock environmental protections," said Kelly Martin, a deputy director at the Sierra Club.
Among the changes sought by the White House in its infrastructure plan -- a longshot for passage as it requires a lot of new government spending -- is reducing the statute of limitations for challenging permitting decisions under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) from six years to 150 days.
Changing NEPA, which requires that federal agencies prepare environmental reviews of major projects, has been a focus of Republicans on the House Natural Resources Committee, which held an oversight hearing on restructuring the 48-year-old law in November. The law has served as a model for environmental-review legislation in other countries, but Congress has amended NEPA only once, in 2015.
The smaller window for challenging permits would give environmental groups less time to mount legal challenges, although “the reality is that most of the truly controversial projects would be challenged right out of the gate,” said James Coleman, an energy law professor at Southern Methodist University.
The White House also wants to c the standard under which a pipeline project could be temporarily halted by a judge.
A legal challenge under NEPA can currenntly delay the start of a project if a plaintiff demonstrates the possibility of irreparable injury from green-lighting the project, among other criteria. Environmental and Native American activists have sought to delay Keystone XL and Dakota Access through such injunctions.
The Trump administration wants to limit those injunctions to “exceptional circumstances,” with little more explanation, according to its infrastructure proposal.
As the law stands, states can also stall natural gas pipelines that cross through their borders by delaying or denying water permits for them. The state of New York did just that with two projects, the Constitution and Millennium pipelines.
Trump’s infrastructure plan calls for amending the Clean Water Act to change the period for issuing those certifications to “reduce this delay.”
Finally, the infrastructure plan seeks to grant the head of the Interior Department — currently, Ryan Zinke — the power to allow the construction of oil and gas pipelines through national parks. Right now, only an act of Congress can permit the construction of pipelines through the parks.
"The provisions within President Trump’s infrastructure proposal streamlining federal permitting are what will enable success on the ground and maximum return on investment for communities across the country," House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) said earlier this week.
The oil and gas industry is generally supportive of such changes, and has called for the streamlining of permitting for liquefied natural gas terminals and interstate natural gas pipelines by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
"We’re trying to remind people: Keep us part of the broader infrastructure plan," Jack Gerard, president and chief executive of the American Petroleum Institute, said in January.
Trump's proposed changes to NEPA may have a chance of passing the House, but it’s unlikely they could overcome procedural hurdles in the Senate. Environmentalists like Tom Steyer — the billionaire Democrat who was one of the most vocal opponents to Keystone XL during the Obama years and is now leading a charge to impeach Trump — would agitate vocally against such a plan.
Trump’s proposal “neglects crucial environmental protections for our air, water, and wildlife, while allowing the billionaires in his cabinet and his corporate allies to build dirty fossil fuel pipelines," Steyer said in a statement earlier this week.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2018/02/16/the-energy-202-trump-s-infrastructure-plan-would-make-it-harder-to-challenge-pipelines/5a860e5b30fb047655a0679c/?utm_term=.9afc05a6f647
-
Court Orders DOE to Publish Stalled Rules
Feb 16, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Christa Marshall
A federal court yesterday ordered the Trump administration to enact four efficiency standards that have been sidelined for more than a year.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California said the Department of Energy must publish rules for portable air conditioners, uninterruptible power supplies, air compressors and commercial packaged boilers that were finalized in December 2016 but never sent to the Federal Register.
"This failure is a violation of the Department's duties under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act," the court said.
The standards were posted on DOE's website during the last month of the Obama administration but were then subject to a 45-day error correction period.
After the inauguration, DOE did not follow through in completing the process, prompting a lawsuit from 13 attorneys general, the California Energy Commission and the city of New York.
"Today's court decision is an important victory in fighting back against the Trump administration's 'polluter first' agenda," said New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who led the challenge with California Attorney General Xavier Becerra.
Environmentalists filed a related lawsuit (E&E News PM, June 13, 2017).
Administration documents say the standards would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 99 million metric tons over a 30-year period and save consumers $8.4 billion. Three of the four rules never had correction requests, said the court.
An earlier complaint included an efficiency standard for walk-in coolers and freezers that was later published. The Trump administration backed several other efficiency standards, including regulations on ceiling fans, after lawsuit threats (Greenwire, May 26, 2017).
DOE spokeswoman Shaylyn Hynes said the department was reviewing the court's ruling and would have no further comment at this time.
According to the filing, the agency said statutory language gave it discretion in the timing of publication of rules after the 45-day process, an argument rejected by the court.
DOE has been under fire from environmentalists for delaying efficiency standards for multiple appliances that have congressional deadlines.
In a regulatory plan last December, the administration changed multiple timelines from specific dates to "to be determined" (E&E News PM, Dec. 14, 2017).
A budget blueprint released yesterday showed the administration is seeking a more than 70 percent cut to DOE's Building Technologies Office, which oversees efficiency rules.
Separately, DOE is weighing making efficiency standards more like corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) rules for vehicles.
That theoretically could allow efficiency trading, so that manufacturers, companies or industries could buy and sell products below and above a given efficiency level to meet an overall average.
Groups like the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers have urged to DOE to make reforms, saying the current timelines and rulemaking procedures are burdensome.
"For many products, the future opportunities for additional cost effective savings beyond those already achieved are severely diminished as products are nearing maximum efficiency under available technology," AHAM said in comments last year.
The Obama administration finalized more DOE efficiency standards than the previous two administrations combined as part of a broader climate strategy.
Environmentalists say the program has worked well, slashing emissions and saving consumers about $2 trillion on utility bills since the 1980s.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/02/16/stories/1060074143
-
Court Rules Energy Dept. Must Implement Obama Efficiency Rules
Feb 16, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Trump administration must carry out the implementation of four energy efficiency regulations that it has delayed for more than a year, a federal court ruled Thursday.
The Department of Energy (DOE) wrote the rules and made them public in December 2016, under the Obama administration.
But when President Trump took office Jan. 20, 2017, his administration took advantage of a 45-day window for error corrections to review the rules and potentially scuttle them. The DOE still has not published the rules in the Federal Register, the final step to implement them.
“This failure is a violation of the department’s duties under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act,” Judge Vince Chhabria, who former President Obama nominated to the federal District Court for the Northern District of California, wrote in the Thursday ruling.
“Summary judgment is therefore granted to the plaintiffs on this claim, and the department is ordered to publish the standards within 28 days of this ruling.”
The ruling stands as a setback in the Trump administration’s ongoing efforts to delay, weaken or undo major parts of Obama’s aggressive environmental agenda.
Since Trump took office, other judges have ruled against the administration on lawsuits stemming from methane standards for oil and natural gas drilling and royalty standards for fossil fuels on federal land.
At issue in the Thursday case are rules setting energy efficiency standards for portable air conditioners, air compressors, commercial packaged boilers and uninterruptible power supplies.
After the Trump administration’s delay, environmentalists led by the Natural Resources Defense Council and Democratic states led by California and New York sued.
Chhabria said the DOE’s Error Correction Rule mandates that officials publish the regulations in the Federal Register after they fix mistakes.
“The text of the Error Correction Rule creates a clear-cut duty for the department to publish an energy standard in the Federal Register at the end of the error-correction process,” the judge wrote.
“Whether or not an error is identified during the process, the text of the rule makes clear that the department must publish any standard that has gone through the process.”
Federal attorneys told the judge last month that the DOE was “still considering” the four efficiency rules.
DOE spokeswoman Shaylyn Hynes said the agency is reviewing the decision and considering its next steps.
The challengers in the case cheered the ruling.
“Today’s ruling means that the Trump Administration may no longer block common-sense energy efficiency standards. This is a tremendous victory for the American people and for our planet,” said California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D).
“The decision sends an unmistakable message that the Trump administration can’t flout the law,” said Kit Kennedy, head of the climate and clean energy program at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
“The Trump administration’s baffling decision to block the final procedural step could have cost Americans $8 billion in higher energy bills and created uncertainty for U.S. manufacturers.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/374122-court-rules-energy-dept-must-implement-obama-efficiency-rules-it
-
Emissions in Pa. Far Higher than Estimates, Enviro Research Shows
Feb 16, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
The oil and gas industry in Pennsylvania emits almost five times more methane than official estimates, according to new research from an environmental group.
The industry pumped out 522,400 tons of methane in 2015, while the emissions inventory compiled by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection showed 112,100 tons, according to the Environmental Defense Fund.
The study comes as Pennsylvania prepares to finalize a new permit system to control methane emissions from unconventional wells, which tap into the Marcellus or Utica shale formations (Energywire, Dec. 1, 2017).
"I hope this study brings a finer point to the issue and identifies for folks that these studies matter and that there is a problem with methane emissions across the state of Pennsylvania," said Andrew Williams, director of regulatory and legislative affairs for U.S. climate and energy at EDF.
Methane, the primary ingredient in natural gas, traps more heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. EDF and other environmental groups have argued there's no way to control rising global temperatures without cutting back on methane in the atmosphere.
EDF based its calculation on previously published research that measured actual emissions at well sites. The figures that oil and gas companies submit to the state are based on a standardized calculation for each well.
EDF calculated that the shale gas industry, which primarily drills in the Marcellus formation, pumped out 253,500 tons of methane in 2015, more than double the official inventory. The study calculated 268,900 tons in 2015 from the "conventional" oil and gas industry — the companies that operate older, shallower wells.
The distinction is important. The DEP's permit system, which is expected to be finalized in March, will apply only to new shale wells. The agency had planned to impose similar regulations on conventional wells but was forced to write a separate set of rules for them under pressure from the industry.
The regulations for convention wells could be proposed by the end of the year, according to the Pennsylvania Independent Oil and Gas Association.
Industry groups questioned the study. The Marcellus Shale Coalition said emissions from its members have fallen, even while production is rising.
"This activist report, which is not based on any new research, relies instead on outdated emissions data, much of it from outside Pennsylvania, in an effort to drive a political agenda," coalition President David Spigelmyer said in an emailed statement.
The independent oil and gas association, which represents conventional drillers, said it was reviewing the study. Association Executive Director Dan Weaver said any regulations the DEP proposed will have to take into account the narrow profit margins that some of his industry members face.
"We're working with them to meet the needs of the industry," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/02/16/stories/1060074065
-
Colorado Increases Oversight on Natural Gas, Oil Flowlines
Feb 16, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
Colorado regulators this week approved comprehensive rules addressing oil and natural gas flowlines, a response to a fatal explosion last year in a Denver area neighborhood.
The nine-member Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) unanimously approved the updated regulations late Tuesday, which include new and amended rules. The approval followed three days of testimony from the public, local governments, homebuilders, citizen groups, trade associations and members of the energy industry on more than 20 pages of regulations.
“We believe these new rules are another important step in the aftermath of the Firestone tragedy,” said Gov. John Hickenlooper. Last summer he had proposed an overhaul in reaction to an April 2017 flowline explosion at a residence in Firestone.
A flowline from an Anadarko Petroleum Corp. well in Firestone ruptured, leveling a residence and killing two men and severely injuring one man’s wife.
“State government and local municipalities depend on the commitment that industry is doing everything to keep our communities safe,” said the governor.
The flowline rules take several steps to strengthen requirements for design, installation, maintenance, testing, tracking and abandoning flowlines. Flowlines are pipelines that most typically move fluids around specific oil and gas development locations from wells to separators to storage tanks or to larger pipelines.
The new rules include dozens of changes and improvements to flowline oversight.
COGCC approved requirements for more detailed tracking, location data and recordkeeping for flowlines that carry fluids away from a specific oil and gas location. These include lines that may travel from a well to a storage tank not co-located on the same well pad, or to a gathering line.
COGCC would be permitted to share resulting, more specific geospatial information on these flowlines with local governments through a confidentiality agreement.
Regulators also approved rules covering flowlines not in use -- but not yet abandoned. They now must be locked and marked.
All of the lines not in use must continue to undergo integrity testing “under the same standards as active lines until abandonment,” under the revamped rules. Any risers associated with abandoned flowlines also must be cut below grade.
“This rule change makes permanent the post-Firestone order to eliminate above-ground risers connected to abandoned flowlines,” COGCC noted.
More detailed requirements also were approved for operators to demonstrate flowline integrity, including updated standards for integrity-testing lines, more testing options that align with newer technology and eliminating pressure testing exemptions for low pressure lines.
In addition, COGCC approved requirements for full operator participation in the Utility Notification Center of Colorado’s “one-call” program to ensure a centralized home for all data on flowline locations and access to the information through the established 811 “call-before-you-dig” system.
The new flowline rules and enhanced participation by operators in 811 include three key components of state actions outlined by Hickenlooper following a three-month review of oil and gas operations last year.
“Our work with operators last spring and summer to identify, quantify and test all flowlines near residential areas was a significant start,” said COGCC director Matt Lepore. “These rules -- and additional actions ordered by the governor that are still unfolding -- continue to keep our focus on this work.”
The final draft of the proposed rules and an overview of the COGCC’s basis and purpose for the rules were discussed during the public hearing. COGCC also provided all of the documents associated with the rulemaking, including formal statements from parties to the hearing.
COGCC has directed staff to empanel a stakeholder group “representing a cross-section of interests to review current and developing instrument-based technologies and methods for preventing or detecting leaks and spills from flowlines.”
Staff is to issue a final presentation of the results and associated recommendations for changes to COGCC’s policies or rules within a year.
The flowline rulemaking is the latest “in a consistent and long-running effort to strengthen the regulatory oversight of the COGCC, dating to 2008,” the commission noted.
The state has experienced a huge uptick in oil and gas development over the past decade.
In response, the COGCC under the Hickenlooper administration noted that it has crafted rules to increase distances between drilling and neighborhoods; reduce the effects of light, noise and odors; protect groundwater; and reduce air emissions in partnership with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.
The commission also noted that it has implemented rules to disclose hydraulic fracturing chemicals; tighten requirements for spill reporting; increase penalties for operators violating rules; toughen requirements for operating in floodplains; and amplify the role of local governments in siting large operations near communities.
In addition, the COGCC said it had “significantly expanded inspection, engineering, reclamation, and environmental staff; increased ease of access and the volume of data available to the public; intensified collaboration with local governments; sponsored ongoing studies to increase understanding of impacts to air and water; and adopted several formal policies to address health, safety, and environmental issues brought about by new technologies…”
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/113408-colorado-increases-oversight-on-natural-gas-oil-flowlines
-
FRA to Provide $73 Million for PTC, Crossing Improvements
Feb 16, 2018 | Progressive Railroading
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is accepting applications for $73 million in grant funding for capital projects, including positive train control implementation.
The money also could be used to improve grade crossings and mitigate congestion, FRA officials said in a press release. The funding, which was authorized by the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, comes from the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017.
The grants are expected to leverage private, state and local investments to advance a range of rail projects, according to the FRA.
"These grants are important resources in the [U.S. Department of Transportation's] ongoing efforts to strengthen our nation's overall rail systems, deploy positive train control and improve highway-rail grade crossings," said U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao.
The notices of funding opportunity have been submitted to the Federal Register. Grant application deadlines will be revealed after the Register publishes the notices.
https://www.progressiverailroading.com/ptc/news/FRA-to-provide-73-million-for-PTC-crossing-improvements--53972
-
Congress Urges Railroads to Meet Looming Safety Deadline
Feb 16, 2018 | Reuters
By David Shepardson
The chair of a congressional committee on Thursday urged U.S. railroads and transit agencies to meet a looming deadline to install an anti-crash technology called positive train control after a series of recent crashes.
“I think the American public is tired of excuses,” Representative Jeff Denham, a Republican who chairs the panel that oversees railroads, told a hearing on railroad safety. “Ignoring a congressional mandate again won’t be tolerated.”
The technology known as PTC automatically stops a train to prevent a derailment or crash but is in operation on only 45 percent of tracks owned by freight railroads and 24 percent of tracks owned by passenger railways, according to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA).
In 2008, Congress required that PTC be implemented across the country by the end of 2015, then extended that deadline to the end of 2018. The government can stretch the deadline to 2020 to complete some aspects of the system.
Representative Peter DeFazio, a Democrat, said some commuter railroads “have barely made any progress” and may not qualify for extensions. “Let me be very clear. No, we are not extending PTC again. Lives are at stake,” he said.
FRA acting chief Juan Reyes said the agency has met with all 41 railroads and transit agencies since January to discuss PTC. “We’re going to keep pushing them,” Reyes said at the hearing.
Amtrak Chief Executive Richard Anderson said it is likely that the entire PTC system will not be operational by the end of the year on a “significant number of routes” outside the Northeast corridor.
Amtrak will suspend operations on tracks where railroads have not received approval to complete PTC after the end of the year and is debating whether to “continue to operate over such routes until PTC is turned on.”
He said in areas that where PTC is not currently required such as in yards and terminals Amtrak is considering whether it will continue service after the end of year. “We have a question about whether we’re going to operate at all and I doubt we will,” Anderson said.
The project has lagged in part because of the $14 billion cost of installing it on 60,000 miles (96,000 km) of track and 18,500 locomotives, industry officials say.
The National Transportation Safety Board said that a December derailment of a speeding Amtrak train that killed three people near Seattle could have been prevented with operating PTC. The NTSB has investigated 150 crashes since 1969 that could have been prevented by PTC that claimed almost 300 lives.
“The NTSB is gravely concerned that the majority of the nation’s railroads required to install PTC will not have fully operational PTC systems” by the deadline, NTSB Chairman Robert Sumwalt said at the hearing.
Edward Hamberger, the chief executive of the Association of American Railroads, said ensuring trains from one railroad can operate on another’s tracks “has been a significant challenge.”
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-memo/agreement-near-on-democrats-russia-memo-schiff-idUSKCN1G01S4
-
Amtrak May Suspend Use of Tracks Without Crash-Prevention Systems
Feb 16, 2018 | Wall Street Journal
By Ted Mann
Amtrak on Thursday threatened to suspend operations on some tracks it uses outside the Northeast Corridor if the track owners don’t meet a year-end federal deadline to install crash-prevention systems.
In testimony before a House subcommittee hearing on delays in installing the systems, Amtrak chief executive Richard Anderson said the railroad will meet the December 2018 deadline to have so-called positive train control, or PTC, operating on the tracks and trains it owns, including the Northeast Corridor, where the system is already installed and running.
Other railroads are expected to seek extensions of the federal deadline until as late as 2020, including freight operations whose rails Amtrak uses outside the northeast and passenger systems that share parts of the Northeast Corridor with Amtrak.
Mr. Anderson said that, in some of those cases, Amtrak will suspend train operations over sections of track controlled by railroads that don’t meet the federal deadline.
“We have a question about whether we’re going to operate at all” in those territories, he said, “and I doubt we will.”
The railroad didn’t specify which routes might be affected. Amtrak owns and operates most of the Northeast Corridor and owns some other stretches of its national networks, including in Michigan. But on longer rural routes, Amtrak runs over tracks owned by an assortment of other entities, including major freight operators and government-owned passenger railroads.
Amtrak will negotiate with Federal Railroad Administration officials and some commuter systems about how to handle train traffic that won’t have the system running on their locomotives by the 2018 deadline, he said.
“It is going to be very difficult for us to allow anybody to operate on railroad we host without PTC,” Mr. Anderson told the House Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee.
Some major commuter railroads that run over Amtrak-owned rails, including NJ Transit, are expected to seek extensions of the 2018 deadline. Asked whether New Jersey could meet the 2018 deadline, the state transportation commissioner said in late January, “Nobody can say that right now.”
The federal government mandated in 2008 that all passenger railroads and the country’s large freight railroads have PTC in operation by the end of 2015. PTC systems use signals embedded along tracks and on board trains to continuously monitor the speed and location of all trains on a network, empowering computer systems to automatically slow or stop a train to prevent an accident.
In 2015, freight and passenger railroads secured an extension of the federal deadline to the end of 2018, with provision for extensions through as late as December 2020. But safety advocates, including the National Transportation Safety Board, say the failure to put the systems into operation ensures that train crashes caused by human error will continue.
Two recent deadly Amtrak crashes—an over-speed derailment in Washington state and the collision of an Amtrak train and a parked freight train in South Carolina—would have been prevented by PTC, the NTSB says.
In his testimony, Mr. Anderson said that many railroads whose tracks Amtrak uses outside the northeast were expected to seek extensions of the 2018 deadline from the FRA. In those cases, he said, “the question we must ask ourselves is whether we continue to operate over such routes until PTC is turned on, and if so, what additional safety protections are appropriate to reduce risks?”
For areas where railroads haven’t made sufficient progress on installing PTC to qualify for an extended schedule from FRA, Amtrak “will suspend” its operations, he said.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/amtrak-may-suspend-use-of-tracks-without-crash-prevention-systems-1518717222
-
Court Gives Greens Win on '08 Ozone Rule Implementation
Feb 16, 2018 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
The Obama administration wrongly revoked the 1997 ozone standard when it wrote a 2015 rule to implement the 2008 ozone standard, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today in a win for environmentalists.
EPA argued that it can revoke previous air quality standards so long as it includes measures to prevent "backsliding" so areas that meet the standard do not see their air quality worsen.
But the court said EPA did not include "adequate" anti-backsliding measures. The 2015 rule waived any obligation for EPA to reclassify areas that might backslide as nonattainment, which would trigger stronger control requirements. Those relaxed controls are "in contravention of the anti-backsliding requirement," the court ruled.
The judges sided with environmentalists on eight other arguments over specific, often technical parts of the rule. Several other arguments advanced by environmentalists were rejected.
The court also tossed out separate arguments made by California's South Coast Air Quality Management District that EPA should have allowed states to count emissions reductions made outside nonattainment areas. The Clean Air Act clearly requires certain gains be made within the nonattainment area, the judges ruled.
The panel included Chief Judge Merrick Garland and Judge Judith Rogers, both Clinton appointees, and senior judge David B. Sentelle, a Reagan appointee.
WHAT’S NEXT: The court vacated the nine parts of the rule in which it sided with environmentalist challengers. EPA may have to revisit the matter and potentially re-write those segments.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
In Win for Greens, Court Nixes Parts of Obama-Era Ozone Rule
Feb 16, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
A federal court today sided with environmentalists in vacating a significant chunk of an Obama-era rule guiding implementation for the 2008 ozone standard.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that U.S. EPA unlawfully weakened protections when it decided to revoke the 1997 standard as part of the implementation rule.
Senior Judge David Sentelle, a Reagan appointee who wrote the opinion for the unanimous three-judge panel, found that several parts of EPA's rule were "inconsistent with the clear text" of the Clean Air Act.
The decision also likely will affect the Trump administration's efforts to put in place an implementation rule for the 2015 ozone standard, which the Obama administration lowered even further than the 2008 Bush-era level. EPA proposed a rule in 2016 that was partly based on the rule that the court today tore apart.
"This is really good news for people in cities throughout the United States," said Seth Johnson, an attorney at Earthjustice who argued the case for greens. "The court unanimously rejected a whole slew of attempts to weaken important protections against smog."
Ground-level ozone is a key component of smog that's formed when nitrogen oxides react with volatile organic compounds in sunlight. In 2008, during the George W. Bush administration, EPA set the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone at 75 parts per billion.
EPA issued a final rule in 2015 laying out guidelines for states on how to improve air quality in areas that exceed that limit.
Along with setting due dates for state pollution reduction plans and establishing control technologies, EPA eliminated the old 1997 standard of 84 ppb for regulatory purposes. The agency said the standard had become largely superfluous because "it is mathematically impossible to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS without first attaining the 1997 ozone NAAQS."
Led by the Sierra Club, greens challenged a number of aspects of the rule stemming from the revocation of the 1997 standard. They argued that EPA illegally delayed deadlines for areas with bad air pollution to put in place controls and allowed them to avoid "bump-ups" to levels of ozone pollution that come with more stringent regulatory requirements.
Southern California's South Coast Air Quality Management District also filed suit, challenging the rule's requirement that areas found to be out of compliance show "reasonable further progress" toward achieving the 2008 standard.
The panel of three judges of the D.C. Circuit — which also included Chief Judge Merrick Garland and Judge Judith Rogers, both Clinton appointees — heard nearly an hour and a half of oral arguments in September (E&E News PM, Sept. 14, 2017).
'Orphan areas'
In today's opinion, the court agreed with greens that the agency had unlawfully allowed areas that still hadn't met the 1997 standard to avoid deadlines associated with that standard.
"The Final Rule allows areas that fail to timely attain to avoid being subject to more stringent emissions controls," Sentelle wrote.
He also wrote that EPA "failed to introduce adequate anti-backsliding provisions" to ensure that the air pollution in nonattainment areas under the 1997 standard doesn't get worse. Under the Clean Air Act, those measures have to be "not less stringent" than the controls that were in place before the standard was revoked.
Much of today's opinion revolved around "orphan areas," a term greens have used to describe areas at risk under the rule.
Those include "orphan nonattainment areas," which comply with the more stringent 2008 standard of 75 ppb but are still designated in nonattainment with the 1997 level of 84 ppb.
Sentelle wrote that, although it is true that the orphan areas are in compliance with the newer standard, they never went through the formal redesignation process under the old standard. EPA, therefore, was required to keep controls in place to prevent backsliding.
Instead, EPA illegally waived requirements ensuring that transportation projects don't increase air pollution and certain permitting requirements for pollution sources, Sentelle wrote.
Johnson of Earthjustice said the decision will affect big cities — including Boston, Detroit and Milwaukee — that had fallen into those so-called orphan areas.
The court also vacated what EPA had termed the "redesignation substitute," a process by which areas could be redesignated into less stringent pollution levels under the 1997 standard.
"This had the effect of greatly narrowing the set of sources that are subject to New Source Review protection," Johnson said.
Sentelle also sided with greens in vacating EPA's decision to allow states to choose an alternative baseline against which to measure reasonable progress in achieving the 2008 standard.
The court, though, sided with EPA in a few areas where the Clean Air Act was ambiguous and the agency's interpretation was "reasonable."
That included upholding EPA's choice of 2011 as the baseline year for reasonable progress and its treatment of areas designated in nonattainment under both the 1997 and 2008 standard.
'Grammar and context'
While the D.C. Circuit largely sided with environmentalists, it soundly rejected the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
The court devoted two pages of the 31-page opinion to South Coast's petition for review, which had argued that changes in the rule made it harder for areas like the Coachella Valley — where air pollution drifts in from upwind areas — to show progress in achieving the standard.
EPA has historically allowed a nonattainment area to demonstrate progress in part by relying on emissions reductions in upwind areas. But in its rule for the 2008 standard, the agency required that reductions come from within the nonattainment area.
South Coast had argued it would be "absurd" for reductions to only come from within the boundaries of the nonattainment area.
"Grammar and context" won out, according to today's opinion.
Sentelle wrote that the Clean Air Act was clear in requiring that emissions reductions come from "in the area." And he wrote that South Coast's absurdity argument failed to take into account a number of alternatives in the Clean Air Act for nonattainment areas to show reasonable progress, including putting in place controls on a broader range of pollution sources.
Agency's options
In 2015, the Obama administration lowered the ozone standard once again, to 70 ppb.
The Trump administration has yet to finalize a 2016 proposal for putting in place that lower limit.
That proposal is modeled on its counterpart of the 2008 standard but lays out two options for revocation of that earlier benchmark.
One, similar to the approach struck down today by the D.C. Circuit, would revoke the 2008 standard in all areas one year after the effective date of the attainment designations for the 2015 benchmark, with anti-backsliding requirements put in place for all areas that still don't meet the 2008 standards at that point.
The other would leave the 2008 standard in place in all areas designated as being in nonattainment for that threshold until they are reclassified as in attainment.
While the Trump administration has taken no action to finalize the draft implementation rule for the 2015 standard, an EPA spokeswoman indicated earlier this week that the agency could be moving forward with it after dropping a separate "supplemental" proposal related to classification of nonattainment areas (E&E News PM, Feb. 14).
Johnson of Earthjustice said today's court decision "is helpful in clarifying what the agency's options are not."
EPA officials are reviewing the opinion, a spokesman said in an email this morning.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/02/16/stories/1060074153
-
Facing Lawsuits, San Diego Approves New Climate Plan
Feb 16, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
San Diego County's board of supervisors has unanimously approved a new climate action plan it hopes will fend off lawsuits from environmentalists.
The Sierra Club three years ago convinced a court to order the county to redraw its old climate blueprint, arguing the old plan lacked enough details on how to achieve emission cuts. The new one leans on creating a program that would allow developers to offset emissions by purchasing international carbon credits.
"I'm interested in resolving this issue with the court. That's the biggest issue to me," Supervisor Bill Horn said, adding he was certain environmentalists would nevertheless file another lawsuit "the minute we vote on this."
The plan calls for reducing emissions 2 percent below 2014 levels by 2020, 40 percent by 2030 and 77 percent by 2050. It also calls for renewables to constitute 90 percent of the county's energy mix by 2030.
But the carbon credit plan is a sticking point for critics, with environmentalists saying it's easy to game and the benefits are hard to verify.
"I'm really disappointed that you've wasted all our taxpayer money when you're not really going to address the issue," said Joy Frew, a local resident.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/02/16/stories/1060074075
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested