Preview Newsletter
ACC AM Feb 16
-
(ACC Mentioned) Why Oil Refinery Workers Are Striking For the First Time in Decades
Feb 13, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Lydia DePillis
Jim Savage, the leader of United Steelworkers Local 10-1 at an oil refinery on the south side of Philadelphia, hasn't walked out yet. But he's ready: Nine plants across the country have been on strike since Feb. 1 in the first nationwide oil worker strike since 1980. And if contract negotiations between the union and oil industry negotiators don’t wrap... -
(ACC Mentioned) Dow Plans to Raise US Polyethylene Prices 5 Cents/Lb in Mid-March
Feb 13, 2015 | Platts
By Chris Ferrel
Dow Chemical plans to raise US polyethylene prices by 5 cents/lb in March, the company said Friday. The increase would take affect on March 15 and would cover all grades of polyethylene resin, Dow said in letter to customers obtained by Platts. -
(ACC Mentioned) Action to Prevent Marine Litter: Plastics Makers Call for Global Cooperation
Feb 16, 2015 | Recycling Portal
"Science magazine” has published a new study on marine debris from the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The study’s authors say it is the first research to quantify debris coming from land into our oceans. It also offers insights on potential strategies and solutions. -
(ACC Mentioned) The Plastics Industry Trade Association Calls on Plastics Companies and Consumers to Prevent Marine Debris
Feb 14, 2015 | Heath News Digest
A report released by the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) at the University of Southern California, Santa Barbara, and recently published in Science magazine provided an estimate of the amount of debris found in the planet's oceans. William R. Carteaux, president and CEO of SPI... -
Chemical Reform for Your Valentine
Feb 14, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Joseph Perrone, Sc.D.
Valentine’s Day can be a stressful holiday. Have you picked out the perfect gift? The right dinner reservation? And that’s just if you’re part of a couple—for everyone else, there’s the stress of the constant barrage of jewelry and flower ads reminding you of your single status. -
Michigan Panel Affirms State's Guidelines For Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal
Feb 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nora Macaluso
An advisory panel appointed by Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) found that the state's guidelines for disposal of low-level radioactive waste are adequate to ensure protection of public health and the environment. The panel, which was established in August 2014 after reports surfaced that a Detroit-area landfill... -
Chemical Substitutions Tussle
Feb 16, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alex Scott
Environmental groups and some companies are complaining that Europe’s system for phasing out hazardous chemicals isn’t doing the job. Substances of very high concern (SVHCs) can be used—or authorized—in certain applications under Europe’s chemicals regulation, known as the Registration... -
Online Chemical Management Tools Launched
Feb 13, 2015 | Environmental Leader
The Reach Centre has launched chemtrac 4.0, a suite of online tools for chemicals management, and a new website. The website offers detailed information on what chemtrac is and what it can do for organizations. Chemtrac 4.0 is designed to manage product stewardship activities and to ensure compliance with ever-developing... -
Beyond BPA: Court Battle Reveals A Shift In Debate Over Plastic Safety
Feb 16, 2015 | NPR
By Jon Hamilton
BPA-free isn't good enough anymore, if you're trying to sell plastic sippy cups, water bottles and food containers. The new standard may be "EA-free," which means free of not only BPA, short for bisphenol A, but also other chemicals that mimic the hormone estrogen. -
Echa Committee Agrees Draft Substance Evaluation Decisions
Feb 13, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Echa’s Member State Committee (MSC) unanimously green lighted draft decisions on six substances under evaluation at its meeting on 3-5 February. All but one were modified before agreement was reached. Two substances got prior written agreement, while the remaining four received the go ahead after discussion during the meeting. -
(ACC Mentioned) Congress Sends Bill On Keystone XL Pipeline To President
Feb 13, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
After the House of Representatives this week accepted Senate changes to the Keystone XL pipeline bill, Congress sent the measure to President Barack Obama, who has promised to veto it. Neither the House nor the Senate has a sufficient number of supporters of the legislation to override a veto. -
(ACC Mentioned) Bill Requires EPA Reports on Safe Drinking Water
Feb 13, 2015 | The Hill - Regulation
By Lydia Wheeler
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) is cheering the Drinking Water Protection Act, which passed the House Energy and Commerce Committee this week and was recently reintroduced in the Senate. Developed in response to high micocystin levels in the Western Lake Erie Basin... -
Murkowski Bill Would Allow Limited Drilling in ANWR, Ending 35-Year Ban
Feb 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Oil and gas development would be allowed on a limited basis in Alaska's energy-rich Arctic National Wildlife Refuge under legislation introduced by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), ending a prohibition in place since 1980 on fossil fuel production in the pristine wilderness area. -
Earthquakes and Fracking Activities Linked In Environmental Protection Agency Report
Feb 16, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jessica Morrison
Increasingly, wastewater from oil and gas operations is pumped into the ground for disposal, and the pressure it creates might be causing small earthquakes, says a report released by EPA. Concern about a connection between wastewater injection and seismic activity arose following a series of earthquakes in 2011... -
Republicans Sign Keystone Bill, Will Make Obama Wait on Veto
Feb 13, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Laura Barron-Lopez
Congressional Republicans plan to hold back legislation approving the Keystone XL pipeline to prevent President Obama from vetoing it while lawmakers are away from Washington. While Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) staged a signing ceremony for the bill on Friday morning, the legislation will not... -
Senate Energy Subcommittee Positions Announced
Feb 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) announced the chairmen and ranking members, respectively, of the Energy and Natural Resources subcommittees Feb. 12. They are Sens. James Risch (R-Idaho) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Subcommittee on Energy; Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Subcommittee on Public Lands... -
Moniz, Senators Joust Over DOE Budget
Feb 13, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Daniel Bush
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz yesterday defended the Obama administration's proposed fiscal 2016 energy budget to Senate lawmakers, reiterating the pitch he made earlier in the week to members of a House energy panel. Testifying before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in a second straight day of hearings... -
Coal Company Can't Show Harm From Proposed Power Plant Rule, EPA Tells Court
Feb 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The potential for coal companies to be affected by the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed Clean Power Plan is not sufficient to demonstrate standing to challenge the rule, the agency told a federal appeals court (In re Murray Energy Corp., D.C. Cir., No. 14-1112, brief filed 2/12/15; Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 14-1151, brief filed... -
Louisiana Lawmakers Critical of EPA Plan To Curb Carbon Dioxide From Power Plants
Feb 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
Louisiana lawmakers criticized the Environmental Protection Agency's plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants during a Feb. 12 meeting of the House Natural Resources and Environment Committee, saying the goals were unattainable and would increase the price of electricity. -
EPA Can Make the Clean Power Plan Even Better
Feb 14, 2015 | The Huffington Post - Green Blog
By David Doniger
The summer deadline is approaching for finalizing the Environmental Protection Agency's first-ever limits on dangerous carbon pollution from the nation's power plants, and opponents are ratcheting up their complaints. Some 1500 mostly coal- and gas-fired power plants spew out more than two billion tons of heat-trapping carbon... -
Senate GOP Unveils Bill to Let States Develop Energy on Federal Tracts
Feb 13, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Scott Streater
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe of Oklahoma is going after Obama administration land-use policies that Republicans have long complained favor conservation to the detriment of domestic energy production. -
Lawmakers Again Targeting EPA Authority To Veto Dredge-and-Fill Permits at Any Time
Feb 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Attempts to limit the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to veto dredge-and-fill permits are under way in the 114th Congress, with introduction of one bill in January, another on Feb. 11 and a third on the way. The debate over the EPA's authority under Clean Water Act Section 404(c) will involve many of the same players... -
Senators Call for More Funding to Improve Safety at Rail Crossings
Feb 15, 2015 | The New York Times
By Emma G. Fitzsimmons
Senators Charles E. Schumer of New York and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut on Sunday called for more federal funding for safety measures at rail crossings after a deadly crash at a Metro-North Railroad crossing this month. The two lawmakers, both Democrats, said they planned to introduce a bill to allocate an additional $50 million a year...
Congressional Hearings - There are no clips to report at this time.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Mentioned) Why Oil Refinery Workers Are Striking For the First Time in Decades
Feb 13, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Lydia DePillis
Jim Savage, the leader of United Steelworkers Local 10-1 at an oil refinery on the south side of Philadelphia, hasn't walked out yet. But he's ready: Nine plants across the country have been on strike since Feb. 1 in the first nationwide oil worker strike since 1980. And if contract negotiations between the union and oil industry negotiators don’t wrap up soon, he might be called up, as well.
"People are nervous,” said Savage, standing in a gaggle of refinery workers waving flags at a rally last weekend. "We picked a fight with the wealthiest, most powerful people in the history of the world. So we’re either very courageous, or the stupidest people walking.”
Most of them don’t remember the oil workers’ last general strike. Since then, the Steelworkers (and predecessor unions) have managed to come to agreements with the 20 or so oil companies that negotiate as a group, ironing out a contract that now covers 30,000 workers — down from 50,000 in 1984 — and two-thirds of the nation’s refining capacity.
But this year, talks broke down. So, what’s the holdup?
At a time when membership has sunk, unions that control critical infrastructure -- like oil refineries -- are digging in. And the fact that the economy is finally recovering gives them more solid ground to stand on, since unions figure that companies have the margins to share a little extra.
Unlike many labor disputes, though -- and in contrast with the AFL-CIO’s new focus on raising wages -- this one isn’t about pay. While incomes for many Americans have stagnated or even declined, refinery workers’ earnings have kept pace with inflation over the past decade, staying around $62,000 per year in current dollars, plus substantial health care and retirement benefits. Most of the workers at the Philadelphia plant had little college education, if any, and the most experienced can make $35 an hour.
"We do pretty well,” says Savage. "This is about the best-paying job a guy like me is going to get.”
Rather, the Steelworkers say, this is about safety. There aren’t enough people working in the plants, they argue, and the companies work around industry standards to keep employees on the job more days in a row than they can handle without losing focus. “I’ve never been so exhausted since they instituted a fatigue policy,” Savage says. “They wouldn’t have to work people like this if they were staffing refineries properly, and they’re just not.”
Plus, the Steelworkers are upset by the number of maintenance staff that have been contracted out, coming in to do temporary jobs rather than staying with the refinery year-round. Though those contract workers are often unionized themselves, that means fewer jobs for the Steelworkers, who say that outsiders aren’t equipped to do the best job.
“The truth is, the people who work there on a day-to-day basis, they sort of have an inherent interest in making sure the job’s done right the first time,” says Tom Conway, the union’s International vice president, who’s taken the lead in the oil bargaining. “We just think that all needs to come to an end.”
But have staffing and safety precautions really gotten so much worse in the three years since the last three-year contract expired?
There certainly have been a number of horrifying accidents over the past decade, from the explosion at Texas City in 2005 that killed 15 people to a flash fire last year that killed two in Galveston, Tex. In response, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration instituted tougher inspections, and the state of California just issued a report recommending stricter regulation and oversight.
Cumulatively, however, the rate of injuries is lower in petroleum refining than it is in other industries. The American Chemistry Council says that the OSHA-recorded injury rate of companies that belong to its safety membership program — which includes many of the major oil refiners — has been declining. And there’s no public data on staffing within the refineries, so it’s difficult to tell whether the oil workers are actually more overloaded than they used to be.
Here’s what may really be going on: As business has improved for the oil industry, companies haven’t put as much pressure on purely economic issues, like wages. The Steelworkers figure it’s finally time to get stronger health and safety language in their contract, which they haven’t been able to achieve in previous years.
“When the economy is in a recession, it’s usually not the time that these other issues come up,” says Michael Noel, an associate economics professor at Texas Tech who specializes in oil and gas. “Now that their jobs are more secure, it’s time to fix these safety issues.”
At the same time, this year Shell Oil — which bargains on behalf of the industry — brought on new labor experts for its negotiating team. Shell is fighting hard against the Steelworkers’ desire to have a say in staffing levels or the use of contractors. "One of the issues on the table is the company’s fundamental rights to staff operations according to business needs,” Shell said in a statement.
That tougher approach is apparent to the Steelworkers, as well. “Just in the last couple years, it’s gotten more focused, and it’s like the companies have no intention of doing anything on their own,” says Conway. “I’m truly surprised that they’ve taken it to this level, and have this sense that 'no one will tell us about any of our operations.’"
Thus, they’re at an impasse, and on strike — at a time when labor unions rarely exercise that right. There were only 11 strikes involving more than 1,000 workers last year, down from hundreds annually in the 1970s.
Unlike most workers in the modern economy, the oil workers have real leverage. Just like the longshoremen — who have been fighting with the operators of the west coast shipping ports, in a dispute that will shut down freight traffic over the weekend — they are key to the operations of critical infrastructure. The oil companies can’t keep their refineries running on back-office labor forever. And if they’re actually forced to shut down, the impact on gas prices could be swift.
As for the Steelworkers? Their resolve lasts as long as their strike fund, which pays out a few hundred dollars a week for people who’ve walked off the job. It’s taken a long time to build.
“I don’t know how this ends, but we’ve had enough broken promises,” says Jim Savage. “We always talk, but never fix."
-
(ACC Mentioned) Dow Plans to Raise US Polyethylene Prices 5 Cents/Lb in Mid-March
Feb 13, 2015 | Platts
By Chris Ferrel
Dow Chemical plans to raise US polyethylene prices by 5 cents/lb in March, the company said Friday.
The increase would take affect on March 15 and would cover all grades of polyethylene resin, Dow said in letter to customers obtained by Platts.
Some market sources have said a spike in domestic demand is expected during the first quarter as buyers take advantage of lower prices to restock inventories. Other market sources contend that any attempts by producers to raise prices right now could be an attempt to stop a price slide.
US polyethylene contracts have fallen 11 cents/lb since November, and another decrease is expected for February, market sources said. One producer has dropped prices by 5 cents/lb, and there are strong indications that others could follow suit, particularly after preliminary data from the American Chemistry Council this week showed additional inventory builds for producers in January. It would mark six consecutive months of inventory growth, according to the ACC data.With the market wide implementation of a 4 cents/lb drop in January, US PE contracts were at their lowest level since September 2013, according to Platts data.
January contracts were assessed for low density polyethylene at 84-85 cents/lb ($1,852-1,874/mt) delivered-rail car basis and for linear-low density polyethylene contracts at 71-72 cents/lb ($1,565-1,587/mt) for delivered rail cars.
High density polyethylene contracts were assessed for blowmolding at 75-76 cents/lb ($1,653-1,675/mt) delivered-rail car basis; at 75-76 cents/lb ($1,653-1,675/mt) for injection grade; and at 78-79 cents/lb ($1,720-1,742/mt) for high-molecular weight film. -
(ACC Mentioned) Action to Prevent Marine Litter: Plastics Makers Call for Global Cooperation
Feb 16, 2015 | Recycling Portal
"Science magazine” has published a new study on marine debris from the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The study’s authors say it is the first research to quantify debris coming from land into our oceans. It also offers insights on potential strategies and solutions.
The following statement may be attributed to Steve Russell, vice president, Plastics Division: “Scientists are working to answer many questions about marine debris, but one thing is certain: The most important thing we can do right now is to keep all trash, including plastics, from getting into our oceans in the first place. The global dimensions of marine debris are creating opportunities for world leaders, NGOs, and the private sector to work together, and America’s plastics makers will continue to partner with these and other stakeholders to develop solutions for a cleaner ocean.
Recommending wider waste management
“Researchers from around the globe are recommending wider adoption of modern, integrated waste management, such as recycling, composting and energy conversion technologies, to reduce marine litter. These findings are reflected in work from the Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP, an advisory group to the United Nations) and the Honolulu Strategy (2011). The American Chemistry Council’s Plastics Division and America’s plastics makers support these recommendations.
“Used plastics should be treated as valuable resources and recycled whenever possible or recovered for their energy value when recycling is not feasible.
“It is up to all of us to work together to protect our oceans, waterways, and marine ecosystems. In the United States and around the globe, plastics makers are working to prevent and address marine litter. In 2011 leaders from many of the world’s plastics associations signed The Declaration of the Global Plastics Associations for Solutions on Marine Litter, a public commitment designed to contribute real solutions.
Global declaration signed by 60 plastics associations
“The Declaration focuses on education, public policy, best practices, plastics recycling and recovery, plastic pellet containment, and research. Today, 60 plastics associations in 34 countries have signed on to the Global Declaration, and since 2011, 185 projects have been completed or are in progress in various parts of the world.
“In the United States, some of these efforts include helping to sponsor the Curbside Value Partnership, a leader in promoting community recycling programs; funding for Keep America Beautiful’s national consumer-focused recycling campaign, ‘I Want to Be Recycled'; supporting legislation to phase out microbeads in personal care products in Illinois, New Jersey and elsewhere; and placing hundreds of recycling bins on California’s beaches through the ‘Plastics. Too Valuable to Waste. RecycleTM’ initiative.”
-
Feb 14, 2015 | Heath News Digest
A report released by the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) at the University of Southern California, Santa Barbara, and recently published in Science magazine provided an estimate of the amount of debris found in the planet's oceans. William R. Carteaux, president and CEO of SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association, issued this statement in response to the report:
"The pursuit of zero waste is chief among the goals set forth by SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association. We're working with our members to establish practices and policies that will result in plastics products designed with expanded end of life and collection opportunities.
"Ocean litter is a global problem that threatens our health, our marine wildlife and the livelihoods of millions who depend on a healthy ocean. SPI and other plastics industry trade associations are working to combat these problems, both by taking actions to stop plastic materials from entering the marine environment and by promoting a change in attitudes to prevent the waste of plastic materials.
"SPI has always worked to support efforts to keep our oceans and waterways free of plastic debris. Nearly 30 years ago, our association helped organize the nation's first formal beach cleanup as part of the International Coastal Cleanup Campaign, organized by the Ocean Conservancy. That event has grown from its humble beginnings on a Texas beach to a worldwide event that garners participation from more than 650,000 volunteers and removes millions of pounds of trash from beaches around the world.
"More than 20 years ago, we founded Operation Clean Sweep (OCS), one of SPI's most successful programs. OCS is an industry stewardship program specifically designed to prevent resin pellet loss and help keep pellets out of the marine environment. The tools it provides to the plastics industry are being used in thousands of plants across the globe, and by all indications the program is working. Last year a study by the SEA Association documented an 80 percent decrease in concentration of pellets in the water from 1986 to 2010.
"SPI is proud to have contributed to these efforts, and continues to promote their use internationally, working with the American Chemistry Council's Plastics Division to provide a royalty-free license to any global plastics organization that would like to implement the program. But we also support the cause of eliminating marine debris by supporting recycling and educating the public about the value of plastic materials. SPI works tirelessly to create new markets for recycled plastic materials, and to spur innovation that makes recycling plastic products easier and more widespread for all consumers and for all types of plastics, from polystyrene foams to rigid packaging to plastic bags and everything in between.
"SPI will continue to work and collaborate with other industry organizations to facilitate programs that increase recycling and eliminate the loss of plastic pellets and materials that end up in our oceans and waterways. By working together, we can drive the meaningful recovery of plastics products that will stop marine debris at its source."
-
Chemical Reform for Your Valentine
Feb 14, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Joseph Perrone, Sc.D.
Valentine’s Day can be a stressful holiday. Have you picked out the perfect gift? The right dinner reservation? And that’s just if you’re part of a couple—for everyone else, there’s the stress of the constant barrage of jewelry and flower ads reminding you of your single status.
Now, environmental activists want to add one more stress to your holiday: worrying whether you’re gifting your sweetheart (or yourself) valentine chocolates laced with lead and cadmium.
California environmentalists are stoking fears across the country with their lawsuit claiming major candy makers are violating the state’s chemical warning law, known as Proposition 65. The law requires manufacturers and retailers to include a warning label if a product contains one of over 800 chemicals that California regulators have identified as possible causes of cancer or reproductive harm.
Naturally, no one wants to eat chocolate or any product that contains dangerous chemicals. But products that display a Proposition 65-mandated warning label aren’t necessarily hazardous to your health.
That’s because California’s law doesn’t give consumers any context to tell them how much risk a product poses. The threshold for determining whether a chemical poses a health risk is incredibly low: A chemical earns a place on the state’s list of dangerous chemicals if California regulators find that exposure causes one excess case of cancer in 100,000 individuals over a 70 year period.
In the case of your Valentine’s Day candy? The environmentalists in this lawsuit claim that 26 products they tested had higher levels of lead and cadmium than allowed under Proposition 65. But that shouldn’t send you scrambling to throw out perfectly good chocolate.
You may not realize it, but heavy metals are in a lot of food products. As the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) states, “Because lead may be present in environments where food crops are grown and animals used for food are raised, various foods may contain unavoidable but small amounts of lead that do not pose a significant risk to human health.”
The California environmentalists didn’t say how much lead or cadmium they found in the dark chocolate samples, but looking at other research of heavy metal levels in chocolate, you’d have to eat copious amounts of chocolate to even begin to worry about your lead or cadmium exposure.
Last year, a study in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry examined the levels of lead and cadmium in white, milk, and dark chocolate sold in Brazil. They concluded that dark chocolates had the highest amounts of lead and cadmium, but all levels fell below maximum consumption limits from Brazil, the European Union, and the World Health Organization (WHO) and most fell below the U.S. FDA’s limits. The researchers also pointed out that only a tiny fraction of the lead or cadmium present in chocolate would actually absorb into an individual’s bloodstream.
Number crunching by Confectionary News (and confirmed by the study’s authors) revealed that in order to exceed the WHO’s guidance for monthly cadmium exposure, a child would have to eat 174 regular sized dark chocolate bars or 789 regular sized milk chocolate bars.
That’s way more chocolate than children (or adults) actually eat.
California’s Proposition 65 has needlessly scared consumers much more than it’s actually improved public health and safety. This latest headline-seeking chocolate lawsuit is just another reason why it’s time for Congress to finally update our 1970s national chemical safety law and get rid of California’s ability to scare the entire country about the safety of millions of every day products.
Dark chocolate was first considered an aphrodisiac by the Aztecs. Let’s not let California environmentalists kill the mood this Valentine’s Day.
-
Michigan Panel Affirms State's Guidelines For Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal
Feb 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nora Macaluso
An advisory panel appointed by Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) found that the state's guidelines for disposal of low-level radioactive waste are adequate to ensure protection of public health and the environment.
The panel, which was established in August 2014 after reports surfaced that a Detroit-area landfill was accepting radioactive waste from a Pennsylvania hydraulic fracturing operation, said in a Feb. 13 report that hazardous waste landfills could have adequate protections to handle higher concentrations of technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive materials (TENORM) (165 DEN A-5, 8/26/14).
The advisory panel did recommend that the state take additional steps, including requiring landfills to place TENORM waste at least 10 feet below the bottom of the landfill cap, restricting the annual total volume of TENORM waste received at landfills to minimize worker exposure, requiring landfills to monitor leachate and groundwater for Radium-226, and developing regulatory guidelines for the safe handling of TENORM contaminated with Lead-210.
According to the report, the panel of industry, health, environmental and regulatory representatives reviewed current federal and state regulatory standards, changes to risk assessment methodology since the 1990s, the nature of TENORM and how it decays over time, methods of mathematical modeling dose assessment to workers and members of the public, and the design and operation of modern landfills.
The report is open to public comment for 30 days.
-
Feb 16, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alex Scott
Environmental groups and some companies are complaining that Europe’s system for phasing out hazardous chemicals isn’t doing the job.
Substances of very high concern (SVHCs) can be used—or authorized—in certain applications under Europe’s chemicals regulation, known as the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation & Restriction of Chemicals, or REACH. But environmental groups and firms such as AkzoNobel and Ikea argue that these exceptions are too readily made and that more substitutions of SVHCs should be taking place.
For example, AkzoNobel phased out lead chromate in its industrial paints in 2011, but “we are surprised that the EU looks set to grant an authorization for the continued use of lead chromate in these paints for at least 12 more years under REACH,” says Julian Hunter, AkzoNobel’s senior manager for product stewardship and regulatory affairs.
To date, 31 SVHCs have been identified and are subject to restricted use. Of the 31, manufacturers have chosen not to apply for authorization to use seven substances, indicating that these seven are being substituted.
The European Environmental Bureau, an advocacy group, says this number would be higher if a socioeconomic analysis was not part of the authorization process. The group says REACH too readily accepts the cost of removing an SVHC as a reason for continued use.
The European Chemicals Agency, which is responsible for implementing chemical regulations across Europe, defends the robustness of its system. The authorization process “now works well and is fair and transparent,” and it has had a “tangible impact” on the substitution of SVHCs, claims Geert Dancet, ECHA’s executive director.
-
Online Chemical Management Tools Launched
Feb 13, 2015 | Environmental Leader
The Reach Centre has launched chemtrac 4.0, a suite of online tools for chemicals management, and a new website.
The website offers detailed information on what chemtrac is and what it can do for organizations.
Chemtrac 4.0 is designed to manage product stewardship activities and to ensure compliance with ever-developing chemicals regulations in the supply chain.
New features include:
Chemtrac Hub: The Hub enables to access, manage and administer all chemtrac applications from one place. You can manage your users, set up user profiles and customize the interface with your company logo. You can also access the Hub from your mobile or tablet.
All chemtrac applications are now stand-alone functions. This means you can access for example the Regulations Guide or the Product Risk Assessor straight from the Hub, without having to go into the Substance Database first.
Substance Database: The Reach Centre improved the interface to make it more user-friendly and enhanced the reporting function for you to get even better data out of your reports.
Additional Global Regulations and list have been included; increasing the number of regulations by 40 percent.
Chemtrac Support and Training: The help function has been improves and there is a now a dedicated customer service.
The integrated chemtrac applications provide live information on the regulatory status and hazard classification of specific chemicals. Covering more than 150,000 chemicals and more than 150 global regulations comprising more than 400 lists, chemtrac enables organizations of all sizes and in all industry sectors to prioritize and focus their resources and to manage business risk more efficiently, saving time and money, the Reach Centre says.
-
Beyond BPA: Court Battle Reveals A Shift In Debate Over Plastic Safety
Feb 16, 2015 | NPR
By Jon Hamilton
BPA-free isn't good enough anymore, if you're trying to sell plastic sippy cups, water bottles and food containers.
The new standard may be "EA-free," which means free of not only BPA, short for bisphenol A, but also other chemicals that mimic the hormone estrogen.
At least that's the suggestion of a recent legal battle between a chemical company and an academic scientist with business interests in the plastics industry. The proceedings offer a glimpse of the struggle for the hearts and minds of consumers concerned about the safety of plastics. Health Plastic's New Frontier: No Scary Chemicals
The roots of the legal conflict go back to 2002, when Eastman Chemical began developing a new plastic called Tritan. It was designed to be "a tough, clear, high-temperature, chemically resistant and also dishwasher-resistant product," says Chris Killian, a vice president for specialty products at Eastman.
And Tritan had another desirable quality. Unlike many plastics, it didn't contain BPA, a chemical that, in large doses, caused hormone-related health problems in animals.
The absence of BPA in Tritan was a fortunate accident, Killian says, one that gave the new plastic a big boost when Eastman began selling it in 2007.
By then, many consumers were avoiding products made with BPA. And the FDA was still trying to decide whether these products posed any health risk. The uncertainty surrounding BPA gave Tritan a big boost, Killian says.
"We certainly became aware of the growing interest from both the consumers and from some of our customers with respect to having a BPA-free alternative," he says. "But none of us could have predicted the magnitude of that interest."
Tritan became a hit. And that's when a scientist and businessman named George Bittner entered the picture.
Bittner is a professor of neuroscience at the University of Texas at Austin. Long before Tritan came along, he had concluded that BPA wasn't the only chemical in plastics that could act like estrogen.
"There are a couple of hundred or maybe a couple thousand other chemicals that are used to make some kinds of plastics that are almost certainly as much a problem as BPA," Bittner says.
Bittner believed this so strongly that he founded PlastiPure, a company involved in making plastics without estrogenic chemicals, and CertiChem, a company that tests plastics for what's known as estrogenic activity. Over the years, Bittner would put millions of dollars into these ventures.
As he worked to get his companies going, Bittner, and some other scientists, began preaching the gospel that consumers shouldn't settle for products that were merely free of BPA. They should demand products that were free of any chemical with estrogenic activity.
And by the time Tritan arrived in 2007, people were starting to listen. "This trend, if you will, or this consumer preference began to evolve and grow in the same way BPA did," says Killian.
In response, Eastman added "EA-free" to Tritan's resume. There was just one problem. PlastiPure had begun distributing marketing materials saying that Tritan products were not free of estrogenic activity under certain conditions.
So, in 2012, Eastman sued PlastiPure. Each side trotted out experts and studies backing its position. They argued at length about which tests should be used to establish whether a product had estrogenic activity.
In 2013, a federal jury sided with Eastman and the court told PlastiPure and CertiChem to change their marketing tactics. In December 2014, an appeals court upheld that ruling.
As a result, Bittner's companies have changed their tactics a bit, says Mike Usey, the CEO of PlastiPure. "We don't talk about Tritan, or Eastman, in a commercial context concerning the testing results that we have," he says. "But that doesn't limit our discussing our research in a scientific context."
That means Bittner and his companies are getting their message out by publishing scientific papers about estrogenic plastics that specifically mention Tritan and products made with it.
And the tactic seems to be effective, Bittner says. "I think people are recognizing that it's not the courts that determine scientific questions," he says.
So the struggle for consumers hearts, minds, and wallets goes on. Eastman reports that sales of Tritan continue to grow. PlastiPure has announced plans for a new line of baby bottles that meet its own definition of EA-free.
Meanwhile, the FDA has reached a conclusion about BPA, the chemical that first got consumers worried about plastics that could act like hormones. Late in 2014, the agency issued a statement reiterating its position that products made with BPA are safe.
-
Echa Committee Agrees Draft Substance Evaluation Decisions
Feb 13, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Echa’s Member State Committee (MSC) unanimously green lighted draft decisions on six substances under evaluation at its meeting on 3-5 February. All but one were modified before agreement was reached.
Two substances got prior written agreement, while the remaining four received the go ahead after discussion during the meeting. These were:
3,5,5-trimethylcyclohex-2-enone. There are concerns that this compound could have endocrine disrupting properties and the dossier does not include a reproductive toxicity study, such as the extended one generation study OECD TG 486. The MSC considers this should be provided at a later stage. The compound has also been considered by the US EPA as part of its Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP), and the committee has included a request for these reports in the draft decision. Depending on the information available, the design of the extended one generation study can be adjusted to provide optimum information.
1,4,5,6,7,7-hexachloro-8,9,10-trinorborn-5-ene-2,3-diccarboxylic anhydride. The committee has requested an OECD TG 203 fish, acute toxicity test which would determine an LC50 value. However, it points out that a new study could be used instead, OECD TG 236 which tests acute toxicity to fish embryos. The MSC advises that there are important considerations to be taken into account with this test and to use it would be breaking new ground. It says it is up to the registrant to make a case for using the alternative.
n,n-dicyclohexylbenzothiazole-2-sulphenamide: There is concern that this is highly persistent in soil and sediment. The committee agrees that a bioaccumulation test such as OECD TG 305 is unnecessary as the substance seems to be very bioaccumulative. However if the substance is found to be very persistent, further testing on toxicity would not be necessary as it would achieve SVHC status as very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB).
furfuryl alcohol: The committee proposes mutagenicity testing as tumours have been observed when the chemical was tested in an NTP study on carcinogenicity in mice. Committee chairman, Watze de Wolf, says the MSC considered these could be caused by irritation or a mutagen genotoxic effect resulting from bioactivation of the substance. The latter should be tested by an in vivo Comet assay such as OECD TG 489.
Once agreed by the MSC, ECHA finalises the substance evaluation decision and provides it to the registrant.
The MSC also received a presentation from an Echa expert on its mutagenicity testing strategy. At its December meeting the committee concluded that the in vivo mutagenicity test OECD TG 489 should be extended to include germ cell tissue to make the best use of experimental animals (CW 18 December 2014).
-
(ACC Mentioned) Congress Sends Bill On Keystone XL Pipeline To President
Feb 13, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
After the House of Representatives this week accepted Senate changes to the Keystone XL pipeline bill, Congress sent the measure to President Barack Obama, who has promised to veto it. Neither the House nor the Senate has a sufficient number of supporters of the legislation to override a veto. The bill would back the building of a pipeline connecting western Canadian oil sands fields with U.S. refineries along the Gulf Coast. The American Chemistry Council, a chemical industry group, supports the measure, saying it would boost U.S. manufacturing. In a 270-152 vote on Feb. 11, the House endorsed Senate amendments to the bill (S. 1), including one that affirms that climate change is real. Twenty-nine Democrats joined Republicans in voting for the measure. Because of Obama’s veto threat, GOP lawmakers are already considering other legislative vehicles to make future vetoes of Keystone XL approval difficult. Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) says, “We will continue to press for approval by attaching an approval measure to another bill, perhaps an energy bill or must-pass appropriations legislation.”
-
(ACC Mentioned) Bill Requires EPA Reports on Safe Drinking Water
Feb 13, 2015 | The Hill - Regulation
By Lydia Wheeler
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) is cheering the Drinking Water Protection Act, which passed the House Energy and Commerce Committee this week and was recently reintroduced in the Senate.
Developed in response to high micocystin levels in the Western Lake Erie Basin, the bill would direct the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to publish a health advisory and submit reports on what level of toxins in drinking water are expected to be safe for human consumption.
Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) are sponsoring the legislation, which unanimously passed the upper chamber in December 2014.
“We commend Senators Portman and Brown for helping to protect America’s drinking water from cyanotoxins caused by harmful algal blooms,” the ACC said in a statement.
“A strategic plan will improve coordination among federal agencies and facilitate consultation with key authorities, including public water systems, research institutions and companies that provide relevant water treatment options."
According to the EPA, cyanotoxins affect the nervous system, liver and skin. High levels in recreational and drinking water can cause fever, headaches, muscle and joint pain, blisters, stomach cramps, diarrhea, vomiting, mouth ulcers and allergic reactions. In severe cases, people have suffered from seizures, liver failure, respiratory arrest and, in rare instances, death.
-
Murkowski Bill Would Allow Limited Drilling in ANWR, Ending 35-Year Ban
Feb 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Oil and gas development would be allowed on a limited basis in Alaska's energy-rich Arctic National Wildlife Refuge under legislation introduced by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), ending a prohibition in place since 1980 on fossil fuel production in the pristine wilderness area.
The bill (S. 494) would allow development of up to 2,000 acres of ANWR's nearly undisturbed coastal plain, one of the refuge's most promising prospects, or 0.01 percent of ANWR's 19 million acres, according to Murkowski's office, which announced the bill Feb. 13.
“For more than 30 years, Alaskans have shown that we can responsibly develop our natural resources without harming the environment,” said Murkowski, who chairs the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. “Alaskans overwhelmingly support responsible development in the non-wilderness portion of ANWR—and there is simply no valid reason why we should not be allowed to access the world-class resources within just a tiny fraction of this immense area.”
15 Billion Barrels
Energy production in the wildlife refuge, which is estimated to contain as much as 14.6 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil, has been debated for more than 50 years, according to a 2012 Congressional Research Service report.
Major oil companies such as Chevron Corp., ConocoPhillips Co., and ExxonMobil Corp. have advocated lifting the limits, while environmentalist's have argued for making the coastal plain permanently off limits to drilling, noting the area's fragile ecosystem is home to polar bears, caribou, Dall sheep, wolves, musk oxen, and more than 200 species of migratory birds.
“The consequences of drilling on the coastal plain are stark and permanent,” the Washington-based environmental group Defenders of Wildlife said in a fact sheet. “Oil drilling would require harmful seismic blasting and create a vast industrial complex across the coastal plain. The wilderness and habitat values would be forever destroyed by a steel spider's web of hundreds of miles of pipelines from dozens of well pads, along with airstrips, gravel mines, and other support facilities.”
Revenue for Alaska
Murkowski, who introduced the bill Feb. 12 with Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), said the legislation would help ensure U.S. energy security, help keep domestic fuel prices low, and generate government revenue, including funds for Alaska, which has seen its economy and state government coffers hit hard by a steep decline in oil prices.
“Production and development of those resources will also prolong the life of the trans-Alaska oil pipeline, provide revenues to federal, state and local governments, support job creation, and strengthen America's energy security,” Murkowski said. “Since the ANWR coastal plain is less than 60 miles from the trans-Alaska oil pipeline, development there is the quickest, most environmentally sound way to increase oil production in Alaska and ensure the pipeline will operate well into the future.”
According to Murkowski's office, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline is threatened because of declining throughput, and its closure would shut down all oil production in northern Alaska, “devastating Alaska's economy and deepening U.S. dependence on unstable petrostates throughout the world.”
Uphill Battle
The legislation likely faces an uphill battle in the Senate, where it would need several Democratic supporters to pass, and would almost certainly face a veto-threat from the White House.
President Barack Obama proposed in January making all of ANWR a wilderness area, a move that automatically classifies the land as a wilderness study area, thereby blocking oil and gas exploration, according to Robert Dillon, a spokesman for Murkowski and other Republicans on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
An amendment by Murkowski to the Keystone pipeline bill (S. 1) that declared that land designated as a wilderness study area by the Interior Department would revert to its prior designation if Congress doesn't make a decision on the designation within one year fell by a vote of 50-48 on Jan. 28. The amendment needed 60 votes to pass.
Murkowski Not Bothered by Vote
Murkowski said the vote was not indicative of congressional support for opening ANWR.
“The fact that it did not pass does not concern me,” Murkowski told reporters during an extensive question and answer session. Asked for more details on her plans for ANWR, Murkowski demurred: “I can't expand on my ANWR strategy right now—it's a secret.”
A 2012 vote to open ANWR for energy exploration in the form of an amendment to a transportation funding bill fell by a vote of 41-57.
-
Earthquakes and Fracking Activities Linked In Environmental Protection Agency Report
Feb 16, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jessica Morrison
Increasingly, wastewater from oil and gas operations is pumped into the ground for disposal, and the pressure it creates might be causing small earthquakes, says a report released by EPA.
Concern about a connection between wastewater injection and seismic activity arose following a series of earthquakes in 2011, says Peter C. Grevatt, director of EPA’s Office of Ground Water & Drinking Water. “We thought it was very timely to ask a group of experts to look into this issue.”
The report was prepared by the Underground Injection Control National Technical Workgroup, a group of regional and state experts.
Advanced oil and gas recovery techniques, which include horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, bring ancient seawater to the surface along with oil and gas. At the surface, the brine and other wastes are separated from the economically valuable hydrocarbons. The water’s high salinity renders it too expensive to treat and discharge at the surface. Instead, it is often injected into deep wells for disposal. Over time, as pressure builds underground, release through ground-shaking tremors is possible, researchers say.
“Where individual cases of suspected induced earthquakes have been studied, the common denominator has been one or more high-volume injections wells,” says William L. Ellsworth, a seismologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, who is not a member of the workgroup.
The workgroup studied sites where wastewater injection is suspected of causing small to moderate earthquakes. It evaluated earthquake history, the proximity of disposal wells to these events, and the behavior of the wells.
“It’s very difficult to conclusively link any particular injection activity with a seismic event,” Grevatt says.
A series of Oklahoma quakes in 2011 with magnitudes greater than 5.0 brought attention to a possible connection between hydraulic fracturing and induced earthquakes. A recent study called one of these earthquakes, with a magnitude of 5.7, the largest yet associated with wastewater injection (J. Geophys. Res. 2014, DOI: 10.1002/2013jb010612).
The report offers guidance to state and federal officials who want to minimize and manage seismic activity that might be a result of injection, the agency says.
-
Republicans Sign Keystone Bill, Will Make Obama Wait on Veto
Feb 13, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Laura Barron-Lopez
Congressional Republicans plan to hold back legislation approving the Keystone XL pipeline to prevent President Obama from vetoing it while lawmakers are away from Washington.
While Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) staged a signing ceremony for the bill on Friday morning, the legislation will not be sent to the White House until after next week’s Presidents Day recess, according to a top Republican aide.
"Keystone isn’t just a pipeline, it’s a lifeline for our construction workers. And the overwhelming majority of the American people know it as well," Boehner said Friday. "So to the president, I would just say this: do the right thing, sign this bill."
Once Obama receives the bill, he will have 10 days, excluding Sundays, to sign or veto it.
Asked about the timeline provided by the aide, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) suggested the bill could be sent to Obama the week of Feb. 23.
"I expect [the bill] will be [at the White House] by the day we’re back,” said McConnell spokesman Don Stewart.
The White House has repeatedly promised that Obama will veto the legislation, arguing the review of the $8 billion project at the State Department should be allowed to run its course.
"The president has been pretty clear that he does not think circumventing a well-established process for evaluating these projects is the right thing for Congress," White House press secretary Josh Earnest said last month.
The State Department just finished collecting comments from agencies on whether the oil sands project is in the nation's best interest, potentially setting the stage for a determination this spring.
Once Secretary of State John Kerry finishes reviewing the comments, he will send a recommendation to Obama, who will make the final decision.
Even after the veto, opponents of the pipeline are exceedingly optimistic that Obama will reject the project, noting the president has taken a skeptical tone toward the pipeline in recent months.
“It’s very good for Canadian oil companies, and it’s good for the Canadian oil industry but it’s not going to be a huge benefit to U.S. consumers, it’s not even going to be a nominal benefit to U.S. consumers,” Obama said in December.
Republicans and some Democrats have blasted the holdup on the pipeline, rallying at the start of the new Congress to approve legislation that would take the decision out of Obama’s hands.
Still, supporters of Keystone appear to be well short of the two-thirds majorities that would be needed to override Obama’s coming veto.
Republicans this week urged Obama to reconsider his veto threat, arguing the pipeline will create thousands of jobs and make the country more energy independent.
Boehner at a press conference this week accused the president of siding with "left-fringe extremists and anarchists" by holding up Keystone, while McConnell calledthe project "common sense."
If Obama follows through on his threat to reject the Keystone bill, it will be only the third veto of his presidency, and the first under the new Republican Congress.
The veto, Republicans have said, will only boost their argument that Obama is obstructing “common sense” legislation that will create jobs.
Earlier this week, Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) told The Hill that the new Republican majority will continue sending the president bills that make him choose between “hard-working Americans” and “extremists on the left.”
Republicans and pipeline developer TransCanada have also said even if Obama rejects the pipeline, it will still be built.
TransCanada has said shippers and producers in Canada don't plan to give up on the pipeline and will reapply if Obama rejects it.
-
Senate Energy Subcommittee Positions Announced
Feb 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) announced the chairmen and ranking members, respectively, of the Energy and Natural Resources subcommittees Feb. 12. They are Sens. James Risch (R-Idaho) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Subcommittee on Energy; Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Subcommittee on Public Lands; Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Subcommittee on National Parks; and Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Subcommittee on Water and Power.
-
Moniz, Senators Joust Over DOE Budget
Feb 13, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Daniel Bush
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz yesterday defended the Obama administration's proposed fiscal 2016 energy budget to Senate lawmakers, reiterating the pitch he made earlier in the week to members of a House energy panel.
Testifying before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in a second straight day of hearings on Capitol Hill, Moniz said DOE's $30 billion budget request included funding for both renewable energy programs and fossil fuel research and development in areas like clean coal technology.
"We feel that we are very strongly committed to [an all-of-the-above energy strategy] as we drive to lower the costs of clean energy technologies," Moniz said.
DOE's energy and science programs would receive $10.7 billion under the spending plan. The proposed budget would provide $562 million for fossil energy research, about $10 million less than the amount lawmakers appropriated last year.
Democrats on the panel cheered the DOE plan, while Republicans voiced their opposition to President Obama's energy agenda.
ENR ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) called the budget request a "forward-looking perspective" on the nation's energy needs.
Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said she hopes Senate Republicans and the administration can find "some common ground" on energy policy this year, but added that she is concerned that the administration's energy strategy is too focused on renewable sources of power.
"I worry that it's all of the above in words and not necessarily in practice," Murkowski said.
Still, Senate Republicans were noticeably less critical of DOE than some of their GOP counterparts at a House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power hearing the previous day. House lawmakers spent much of that hearing debating Moniz on energy policy and U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan (E&E Daily, Feb. 12).
-
Coal Company Can't Show Harm From Proposed Power Plant Rule, EPA Tells Court
Feb 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The potential for coal companies to be affected by the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed Clean Power Plan is not sufficient to demonstrate standing to challenge the rule, the agency told a federal appeals court (In re Murray Energy Corp., D.C. Cir., No. 14-1112, brief filed 2/12/15; Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 14-1151, brief filed 2/12/15).
Murray Energy Corp. is relying on conjecture when it argues that the EPA's proposed carbon dioxide emissions guidelines for existing power plants would negatively impact its business, thus giving it standing to challenge the rule, the agency told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a Feb. 12 brief. The EPA said its proposal could be significantly revised before it is finalized in response to comments the agency has received.
“At this stage, when EPA is still evaluating and has not yet responded to the millions of comments it received, any predictions about what state-specific guidelines EPA might adopt in a final rule—let alone what requirements each state, in turn, independently may impose on power plants pursuant to such guidelines—are pure conjecture,” the EPA said.
The EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33) would establish unique carbon dioxide emissions rates for the power sector in each state. The rule would be implemented by state officials, who would determine how best to achieve the emissions targets. It is expected to be finalized this summer as part of a package of regulations limiting carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector.
Murray Not Directly Affected
Even if the rule were final, the EPA argued that Murray Energy, a coal producer, would not be directly affected by the proposed standards for existing power plants. The company would have a difficult time demonstrating that the harms purported to come from the rule were not the result of other economic factors such as the abundance of cheap natural gas and other regulations curbing power plant emissions, the agency said.
“As a coal producer, Murray would not be subject to any requirements if such a rule were promulgated,” the EPA said. “It therefore bears a heightened burden to establish that the downstream economic effects it complains of are genuinely traceable to EPA's action rather than to third parties’ independent choices, and are redressable here.”
Additionally, the EPA argued that the D.C. Circuit lacks jurisdiction to the hear the challenge because the proposed Clean Power Plan does not reflect final agency action.
EPA Seeks Deference
Should the court reach the merits of Murray Energy's argument, the EPA argued that its interpretation of the ambiguously worded provisions of Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act are due deference by the judges.
“Given the convoluted, ungrammatical and ambiguous nature of the text as set forth in the U.S. Code, it could reasonably be interpreted as authorizing EPA to address non-hazardous emissions from power plants,” the EPA said.
Murray Energy had argued in its December 2014 brief that the proposed rule violates the explicit meaning of the Clean Air Act and should be blocked before it is finalized (242 DEN A-5, 12/17/14).
At the crux of Murray Energy's argument is that the Clean Air Act bars the EPA from issuing carbon dioxide standards for power plants under Section 111(d) because power plants already are subject to hazardous air pollutant limits issued under Section 112. Power plants are subject Section 112 standards as part of the EPA's mercury and air toxics standards.
When the Clean Air Act was amended in 1990, the House and Senate approved conflicting amendments to Section 111(d). The Senate amendment would bar the EPA from regulating pollutants under Section 111(d) if they already subject to hazardous air pollutant standards under Section 112. The House amendment can be read as barring the agency from regulating industrial sources under Section 111(d) if they are subject to standards under Section 112. Both provisions were included in the final bill.
Supreme Court Recognized Authority
Environmental groups, including the Environmental Defense Fund, the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council, argued in a Feb. 12 brief in support of the EPA that the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the EPA's legal authority to regulate carbon dioxide from power plants as part of its decision in Am. Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut (131 S. Ct. 2527, 72 ERC 1609 (2011)).
“No party suggested in AEP that EPA's authority to regulate carbon dioxide would go away with the promulgation of a section 112(n)(1) standard for power plants,” the environmental groups said, referring to the mercury and air toxics standards. “And it is highly implausible that the court believed the statutory authority underlying its displacement analysis would disappear within months if EPA finalized the emission standards for power plants’ [hazardous air pollutants] emissions that it had already proposed.”
Murray Energy's reply brief is due Feb. 26.
D.C. Circuit will hear oral argument in the lawsuit as well as two other lawsuits challenging the power plant proposal April 16 (19 DEN A-2, 1/29/15).
-
Louisiana Lawmakers Critical of EPA Plan To Curb Carbon Dioxide From Power Plants
Feb 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
Louisiana lawmakers criticized the Environmental Protection Agency's plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants during a Feb. 12 meeting of the House Natural Resources and Environment Committee, saying the goals were unattainable and would increase the price of electricity.
“We hope we can convince our colleagues that this is the wrong thing to do for the state of Louisiana,” state Rep. Raymond Garofalo (R) said during the meeting.
The Obama administration's Clean Power Plan would make electricity unaffordable to the poorest residents of the state, while having a negligible effect on climate change, Garofalo said.
“People will have to choose between food and electricity,” he said. “It's unconscionable.”
During the meeting, representatives from the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) and American Electric Power outlined their concerns over the EPA's timeline and goals, while a representative from the Sierra Club spoke on behalf of several local environmental groups in support of the plan.
Under the Clean Power Plan, announced by President Barack Obama in June 2014, each state will have to develop a plan to achieve a prescribed state-specific carbon dioxide reduction goal (RIN 2060-AR33), with state agencies administering those emissions standards under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act.
The EPA anticipates that the proposal could reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants by 30 percent by 2030 compared with 2005 levels (106 DEN A-1, 6/3/14).
Louisiana's state specific goal was set by the EPA, said Bryan Johnston, senior environmental scientist in the LDEQ air permits division. Plans will be due by June 30, 2016, but states may ask for a one-year extension or a two-year extension if Louisiana plans to collaborate with other states.
Goal Represents 40% Reduction
“EPA's goal for Louisiana is to reach 883 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour by 2030,” Johnston said. “The 2030 goal represents an approximately 40 percent reduction from the 2012 baseline.”
Louisiana's steps to reach this target, as suggested by the EPA, would include a 6 percent increase in efficiency of coal-fired power plants; increasing the use of natural gas combined cycle units to 70 percent, which would displace electricity generated by coal fired boilers; an increase in the use of renewables from 2 percent to 7 percent of annual generation; and an increase in demand-side energy efficiency. The final EPA power plant rule is anticipated in summer 2015.
While the EPA made it clear that Louisiana isn't locked into using these building blocks, the agency said it considers the steps the best system of emission reduction, according to Johnston.
LDEQ: EPA Targets Too Stringent
The LDEQ calculated that Louisiana's goal based on the same methodology used as the EPA should be 1,131 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour, not 883, Johnston said. This calculation was submitted to the EPA in comments submitted in September 2014.
LDEQ is concerned that there is insufficient natural gas combined cycle generation and transmission capacity to replace forced reductions in the uses of coal-fired plants, Johnston said. The department also is concerned that the renewable energy goal for Louisiana is unrealistic and not cost–effective.
“We are concerned that EPA's strategy unfairly imposes vastly different percent reduction obligations on states,” Johnston said. “Louisiana's target is on the stringent side.”
Finally, the department is concerned that the proposed rule doesn't provide enough time for states to develop comprehensive plans. If Louisiana doesn't submit a plan that meet federal approval, then owners and operators of affected electric generation units will have to comply with the federal implementation plan.
Member Raises Concern About Cost
State Rep. Joe Harrison (R), a member of the natural resources committee, responded to the presentation by stating his concern over the cost of the EPA plan.
“It's going to increase the cost of electricity to people and industry to the point that people cannot afford it,” Harrison said. “We already know that India and China and the pollution they create is a major issue. Ten times more than what we produce here. But to impose this on the American people is a tragedy.”
Garofalo asked Johnston what the net effect on climate change or sea level rise would be if the rule is implemented in the U.S.
“My understanding is that it's negligible,” Johnston replied.
“You can't simply ramp up a natural gas plant to replace a coal-fired plant that's been shut down,” Johnston told the committee when asked by state Rep. James Morris (R) why the department felt the targets might be unattainable.
Morris asked Johnston if LDEQ has told the EPA that the state is unable to make a plan to reach the targets.
“We've raised our concern through formal filings and spoke to EPA,” Johnston replied.
AEP: Not Enough Time Allowed
American Electric Power's biggest concern about the EPA rule is the compressed time frame to move from the proposed rule to the compliance deadline of Jan. 1, 2020, Brian Bond, Southwestern Electric Power vice president of external affairs, told the committee. SWEPCO is a unit of American Electric Power.
“We believe that's clearly unattainable,” Bond said. “The Southwest Power Pool, which dispatches our power, indicated there would be a negative reserve margin of minus 4 percent by 2024.”
AEP also has invested $750 million in retrofitting coal-fired power plants to comply with mercury and air toxic standards, Bond said. Under the Clean Power Plan, by 2020, several of those units would be shut down.
Sierra Club: Work with Other States
Haywood Martin, a representative of the Sierra Club, who spoke on behalf of seven environmental organizations, outlined several suggestions to the committee, including taking a regional approach and working with other states to come up with an implementation plan.
“The Clean Power Plan gives Louisiana the flexibility to work with other states,” Martin said. “This could help Louisiana meet its targets for affordability.”
Louisiana also should take advantage of other areas of flexibility under the plan and try to use efficiency as a way to meet the target, Martin said. It also is important to stay ahead and for Louisiana to come up with its own tailored plan so the state won't have to follow the federal plan.
“We can do better than the feds and come up with a more cost effective plan,” Martin said.
Compete With Texas
Martin also urged Louisiana to compete with Texas as the best energy state.
“Texas uses an all-of-the-above approach to their energy portfolio,” Martin said. “Complying with the Clean Power Plan gives us a way to come up with new sources of wind and solar energy.”
Natural gas is a local fuel and Louisiana needs to move away from using coal and using more natural gas, which is both cleaner and costs less, Martin said.
“Louisiana spends about $450 million a year, under a 2012 number, to import Wyoming coal,” Martin said. “That money could be reinvested in Louisiana.”
-
EPA Can Make the Clean Power Plan Even Better
Feb 14, 2015 | The Huffington Post - Green Blog
By David Doniger
The summer deadline is approaching for finalizing the Environmental Protection Agency's first-ever limits on dangerous carbon pollution from the nation's power plants, and opponents are ratcheting up their complaints.
Some 1500 mostly coal- and gas-fired power plants spew out more than two billion tons of heat-trapping carbon dioxide each year -- 40 percent of the nation's total. The vast majority of the millions of public comments submitted last fall express strong support for the Clean Power Plan, which as proposed last June starts in 2020 and ramps emissions down gradually over the next decade.
But big coal polluters and their political allies have big megaphones.
Many hope to kill the proposal outright. But for others the back-up agenda is to get the standards weakened and delayed past 2020. Their comments and speeches read like Armageddon is coming if power plants have to start limiting their carbon pollution in 2020 -- five years from now. Republican members of the Senate environment committee banged that drum over and over at a hearing last week. As on so many issues, they hope endless repetition will make their story seem true.
The truth is that the standards and timeline EPA proposed last June are quite modest and readily achievable. They can be met without any threat to the reliability of electric power. A new report from the highly respected Brattle Group shows that states can meet the EPA's proposal "while maintaining the high level of electric reliability enjoyed by U.S. electricity customers." That's because of the proposal offers many compliance strategies and because the U.S. power system is already transitioning away from older, higher polluting technologies of the past to a cleaner energy future. (My colleague John Moore has more on this report here.)
Indeed, we have the clean energy resources to significantly strengthen the standards. NRDC has done the analysis to show how we can cut dangerous carbon pollution faster while saving customers billions of dollars on their bills and creating hundreds of thousands of new clean energy jobs. This would bring huge public health and climate protection benefits worth 10 times their cost. You can find the full deal in our public comments; here's a quick summary.
The plan as proposed in June sets state-by-state targets that, on an overall national basis, would cut power plants' carbon pollution by 26 percent by 2020 and 30 percent by 2030, when compared to 2005 levels.
We found that with three specific improvements - I'll describe them below - the plan could achieve 50 percent more carbon pollution reductions (36 percent by 2020 and 44 percent by 2030).
Here are the three factors:
First, the costs of clean energy are falling dramatically, and EPA's June proposal was based on out of date cost and performance data for renewable electricity and efficiency energy. An NRDC issue brief published last fall details how sharply the cost and performance of energy efficiency and renewable energy have improved. When we factored in up-to-date data, our analysis shows that the Clean Power Plan's state-by-state targets as proposed in June 2014 can be met at a net savings to Americans of $1.8-4.3 billion in 2020 and $6.4-9.4 billion in 2030. More reliance on energy efficiency and renewables will also create hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs that can't be shipped overseas.
The lower cost of clean energy technologies opens the door to getting substantially more carbon pollution reductions from the nation's largest emitters.
We also took two other specific improvements into account:In an October 2014 notice seeking further public comment, EPA explained that the formula it had used to calculate state targets in the June 2014 proposal did not correctly account for the emission reductions made by renewables and energy efficiency. The formula did not fully account for the reduction in generation at coal and gas power plants that occurs when additional renewables are added to the grid and when businesses and homeowners reduce how much electricity they need by improving the efficiency of our buildings, appliances, and other electricity-using equipment. NRDC corrected the formula in our updated analysis to capture the full emission reduction associated with ramping up renewables and efficiency.EPA also asked for comment on an approach to better balancing state targets by adopting a minimum rate of transition from older high-emitting generation to lower-emitting sources. NRDC analyzed state targets that include conversion of 20 percent of coal generation in 2012 to natural gas generation over the period between 2020 and 2029.
These three factors -- updating the cost and performance data for renewables and efficiency, correcting the target-setting formula, and including a minimum rate of transition from higher- to lower-emitting plants -- produce the substantial additional carbon pollution reductions in our analysis, all at very reasonable costs.
With the extra carbon reductions will come large additional reductions in other power plant pollutants (sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides) that researchers from Harvard, Boston and Syracuse universities have shown contribute to thousands of premature deaths and tens of thousands of asthma attacks.
These much larger carbon and other pollution reductions can be accomplished at a cost of $6.4 billion in 2020 and $10.3 billion in 2030 for substantially the same cost that EPA predicted in June 2014 ($7.5 billion in 2020 and $8.8 billion in 2030).
Here's the big difference: The extra pollution reductions produce quantifiable climate protection and public health benefits that dwarf their compliance costs. We found health and climate benefits worth up to $76 billion in 2020 and up to a whopping $119 billion in 2030.
That's more than 10 times the costs.
And these are just the benefits on which economists can place a dollar value; the damages from turning our climate upside down goes well beyond that.
Here's another benefit: By capturing additional carbon reduction potential from renewables and efficiency, our analysis shows lower natural gas consumption than EPA projected in the June proposal -- about 10 percent less gas consumed in 2020, and 17 percent less in 2030.
At the Senate hearing last week, Janet McCabe, who leads EPA's air office, testified that the agency was looking "very, very closely" at the comments on the 2020 question. Some reporters mistakenly thought that was news and tried to divine hints of changes to come. But Administrator Gina McCarthy and Ms. McCabe have giving the same answer for months, on this and many other issues. Indeed, it's the proper answer to give when the agency is still reviewing comments and moving towards the final rules.
We're confident that when EPA looks at the facts and sorts away the hype, it will see that we can do more, not less, to cut the power plant that's driving dangerous climate change.
-
Senate GOP Unveils Bill to Let States Develop Energy on Federal Tracts
Feb 13, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Scott Streater
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe of Oklahoma is going after Obama administration land-use policies that Republicans have long complained favor conservation to the detriment of domestic energy production.
The Oklahoma Republican introduced a bill today that would give states authority to develop energy resources on federal lands.
The "Federal Lands Freedom Act of 2015" -- co-sponsored by Republican Sens. Ted Cruz (Texas), Jeff Sessions (Ala.), David Vitter (La.), Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.), Mike Crapo (Idaho), Mike Lee (Utah), James Lankford (Okla.) and Tom Cotton (Ark.) -- would allow states to "establish programs to lease, permit and regulate the development of all forms of energy resources on federal lands, including renewables," according to a bill summary provided by Inhofe's office.
"Once a state makes a declaration that such a program has been established, the state would receive the rights to develop the energy resources located on the federal lands within its borders," the summary says.
The bill would apply only to federal lands with a multiuse mandate, such as those overseen by the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service. It would exempt federal lands with special designations, such as congressionally approved wilderness areas, and would not apply to national parks. It also would not affect the federal royalty structures or ownership of the resources.
But the legislation's intent is to open federal lands to increased energy production -- be it oil and gas drilling rigs or wind turbines.
"While we have seen an energy revolution in the United States the past year, this is in spite of the president's policies that are intended to stifle the development of our domestic resources," Inhofe said in a statement. "One of the leading ways he can control our energy resources is by dictating what can take place on federal land across the states. The states, not the federal government, are the ones best equipped to tend to the extensive unused and unprotected lands across the nation that the federal government has staked a claim to."
The proposal drew a swift rebuke from some conservation and government watchdog groups, including Chris Saeger, director of the Western Values Project, who accused the bill's sponsors of "bowing to Cliven Bundy-esque extremists." Nevada rancher Bundy last year participated in a high-profile standoff with the government over efforts to round up his cattle over unpaid grazing fees.
"The U.S. is the number-one producer of oil in the world right now," Saeger said in a statement. "And while industry (and now Sen. Inhofe) complain about a lack of access to our American lands for drilling, they're not even bidding on available federal oil and gas leases or using their drilling permits. When they do, they frequently stockpile them without developing. This maneuver represents a true failure of leadership by Western senators."
But Inhofe, while acknowledging that domestic oil and natural gas production is significantly higher today than in 2009, when Obama took office, said "this increase has occurred on state and private lands."
He pointed to statistics from the Congressional Research Service that show oil production on federal lands fell by 6 percent and natural gas production fell by 28 percent between 2009 and 2013.
"Currently about 60 percent of federal land is off limits to energy production," Inhofe said in his statement. "The Federal Lands Freedom Act takes a necessary step toward restoring the Constitution's trust in the states while also ensuring an ongoing energy revolution across the United States."
Inhofe first introduced the bill in June 2013, and last year he attempted to attach the bill, via an amendment, to the "Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act," S. 2363, which was defeated last year.
With the new GOP majority in the Senate, the bill's chances are likely improved.
Heritage Action, the R Street Institute and the American Legislative Exchange Council support the bill, according to Inhofe.
So does the Denver-based Western Energy Alliance, which represents more than 400 energy companies that collectively account for nearly a quarter of the nation's natural gas and 21 percent of its oil production.
"This bill is on the right path to creating a better federal-state partnership when it comes to energy development," said Kathleen Sgamma, the energy alliance's vice president of government and public affairs. "States have the expertise and an exemplary safety record developing oil and natural gas. Rather than duplicating that work at the federal level, this bill would make it more efficient and give states more control over what happens within their borders."
-
Lawmakers Again Targeting EPA Authority To Veto Dredge-and-Fill Permits at Any Time
Feb 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Attempts to limit the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to veto dredge-and-fill permits are under way in the 114th Congress, with introduction of one bill in January, another on Feb. 11 and a third on the way.
The debate over the EPA's authority under Clean Water Act Section 404(c) will involve many of the same players as during the last Congress, when six bills were introduced, but none went to a floor vote.
Lawmakers could target Section 404(c) authority by means other than stand-alone legislation, such as by attaching riders to appropriations bills, one environmental lobbyist told Bloomberg BNA. Either way, he said, if bills are passed and sent to the White House, President Barack Obama is unlikely to sign them.
The business community is concerned about the EPA's authority to withdraw approval of disposal sites at any time because it could hinder certainty and discourage investment. However, opponents of the bills have said restricting the EPA would hinder the agency from fulfilling its duty of protecting the environment from irreparable harm.
“Protecting businesses from government overreach is certainly a priority. It is ridiculous and unacceptable for the EPA to claim authority they don't have under the law, then use that authority to abuse the permitting process,” Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) said in a statement to Bloomberg BNA.
Vetoes Get Congress's Attention
The Section 404 permit application process is run by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; however, the EPA has oversight authority. Under Section 404(c), the EPA may veto a permit at any time to prevent “unacceptable adverse impacts” to the environment.
The corps processes roughly 60,000 permit actions per year under Section 404, according to the EPA. The agency has exercised its final veto authority 13 times.
Two mining projects specifically have brought the EPA's authority into the limelight.
The EPA vetoed in January 2011 portions of a dredge-and-fill permit for a surface coal mine in West Virginia after the corps had issued the permit, and in March 2014 the Supreme Court declined to review a lower court ruling that the EPA has the authority to do so (230 DEN A-1, 12/1/14).
The EPA is in the middle of a review-and-consultation process to determine whether it should restrict disposal sites for the Pebble Mine, a potentially huge open-pit, gold and copper mine in Alaska. The Pebble Limited Partnership hasn't yet submitted a permit application (13 DEN A-11, 1/21/15).
Gibbs Introduces House Bill
Now members of Congress who previously introduced bills to restrict the EPA's authority are resubmitting legislation to keep up the momentum in the 114th Congress.
Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio) on Feb. 11 introduced the Regulatory Certainty Act (H.R. 896), which would allow the EPA to deny or issue restrictions for a Section 404 permit for at least 30 days after the Corps of Engineers has completed processing a permit application, but before the corps issues the final permit. Gibbs introduced the same bill in the 113th Congress.
“It is my priority to keep government in check,” Gibbs said in a statement to Bloomberg BNA. “The Regulatory Certainty Act ensures certainty for businesses across every sector of industry under EPA regulation.”
Gibbs told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 12 that he plans to hold hearings on the bill in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Vitter and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) introduced a bill (S. 234) in January that would only allow the EPA to object to a permit's disposal sites after the corps has issued a notice naming a specific mine or site. The EPA could then object until the corps approves the permit. Vitter and Manchin introduced the same bill in the previous Congress (15 DEN A-11, 1/23/15).
A spokesman for Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.) told Bloomberg BNA the congressman also would be introducing legislation similar to his bill from the previous Congress (22 DEN A-3, 2/3/15).
Groups on Both Sides Continue Fight
Environmental groups and industry said they will continue to lobby Congress on the issue (78 DEN A-6, 4/23/14).
The National Mining Association and the Pebble Limited Partnership told Bloomberg BNA that limiting EPA veto authority to ensure regulatory certainty would remain a high priority for them. Environmental groups contacted by Bloomberg BNA—the Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, the Sierra Club and American Rivers—said they also would continue to lobby Congress to protect EPA veto authority.
Arch Coal, Inc., the former owner of the Mingo Logan Coal Co. surface mine, declined to comment. CONSOL Energy Corp. didn't respond to messages from Bloomberg BNA requesting comment.
Chris Espinosa, legislative representative for Earthjustice, told Bloomberg BNA it is unclear whether the shift in the makeup of Congress will give these bills a better chance of passage, but he said his group's strategy will not change.
The prospects for the bills will largely be in the hands of House and Senate leaders, Espinosa said.
Presidential Veto Expected
Espinosa's group isn't only concerned about stand-alone legislation targeting EPA's veto power over permits. If the bills aren't successful on their own, there is the possibility they could be added as riders to appropriations bills, similar to past riders that have successfully barred the definition of “fill material” from being altered .
Espinosa said that based on Obama's record of placing value on making science-based decisions, he “couldn't imagine” the president would sign bills that would restrain the EPA's veto authority. The EPA uses this authority sparingly and only in cases where the environment would be irreparably harmed, he said.
“I can only imagine that would be a very high priority to preserve the EPA's ability to make those determinations based on science,” Espinosa said.
-
Senators Call for More Funding to Improve Safety at Rail Crossings
Feb 15, 2015 | The New York Times
By Emma G. Fitzsimmons
Senators Charles E. Schumer of New York and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut on Sunday called for more federal funding for safety measures at rail crossings after a deadly crash at a Metro-North Railroad crossing this month.
The two lawmakers, both Democrats, said they planned to introduce a bill to allocate an additional $50 million a year to a federal program for gates, lights and other safety improvements to rail crossings. The proposal would also provide more than $100 million a year for state grants and for a federal program that helps pay to relocate crossings.
“Many of New York’s metropolitan-area rail crossings are truly accidents waiting to happen,” Mr. Schumer said at a news conference at Grand Central Terminal on Sunday. “It’s critical that the federal government do more to make engineering safety upgrades, particularly at accident-prone crossings.”
Six people were killed on Feb. 3 when a Metro-North train struck a sport utility vehicle stopped on the tracks at a crossing in Valhalla, N.Y. The driver of the S.U.V. and five train passengers were killed in the crash, which was the deadliest in the railroad’s history.
When the trains approach and the barriers descend, motorists sometimes have little time to reverse to safety at one rail crossing in Elmwood Park, N.J. Video by Stephen Farrell on Publish Date February 12, 2015. Photo by Nicole Bengiveno/The New York Times.
The crash has brought renewed attention to safety at grade crossings, where roadways intersect with rail tracks at street level. There are hundreds of accidents each year at grade crossings across the country. Mr. Schumer cited an analysis last week by The New York Times that found several crossings in the New York City region that were rated among the nation’s most hazardous by the Federal Railroad Administration.
The National Transportation Safety Board is planning to release a preliminary report next week on its investigation into the Valhalla crash. One of the questions investigators are trying to answer is how pieces of the electrified third rail were ripped from the track bed and pierced the train’s cars.
While the cause of the crash is still under investigation, Mr. Schumer said it was clear that the crossing played a role. The layout of the crossing, on a curved road, he said, coupled with the traffic light at a nearby intersection may have confused the driver of the S.U.V., Ellen Brody, especially if she was not familiar with the crossing.
Experts say that building a bridge over a single crossing can cost as much as $40 million, and Mr. Schumer said it would be too expensive to replace all grade crossings with bridges. The bill, he said, “will go a long way to making us safer at rail crossings, but at the same time not break the bank.”
The senators plan to introduce the bill, called the Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety Act of 2015, when Congress reconvenes this month. It would increase funding for the Federal Highway Administration program that distributes money to states for safety improvements. The additional $50 million would increase the annual funding for the program, known as Section 130, to $270 million.
Mr. Schumer’s office said the proposal and funding was likely to be included as part of a broader transportation reauthorization bill expected to be considered by Congress this year.
On Friday, Representative Bill Pascrell Jr., a New Jersey Democrat, called on the state’s Department of Transportation to improve safety at a crossing in Elmwood Park, N.J., which was identified by The Times as the most hazardous in the region.
In a letter to the department’s commissioner, Mr. Pascrell, whose district includes Elmwood Park, asked for information about the crossing’s history and any plans to address safety concerns.
“I would like to work with your department,” he wrote, “to find a permanent solution to this grave public safety issue.”
Congressional Hearings - There are no clips to report at this time.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested