Preview Newsletter
acc am feb 18
-
(ACC Mentioned) WPI Appoints Internationally Recognized Scholar as Provost
Feb 17, 2015 | Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) President Laurie Leshin today announced the appointment of Bruce E. Bursten, Distinguished Professor of Chemistry and former dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, as the university's new provost. The appointment is effective June 1. -
(ACC Mentioned) WPI Selects Award-Winning Chemist as Provost
Feb 17, 2015 | Worcester Magazine
By Tom Quinn
Worcester Polytechnic Institute announced its new provost today - Bruce E. Bursten, former dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, will step in effective June 1. As WPI provost, Bursten will be responsible for the university’s academic and research programs... -
Health Effects of Low Doses of Chemicals Subject of EPA Query to National Academies
Feb 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency is seeking help as it addresses a disconnect between the chemical testing strategies that underlie its regulations and observations scientists are making in research on human exposure to chemicals. The agency and the National Academies signed a contract in early February in which the EPA... -
EPA to Conduct Preliminary Assessment On Putting Part of Hackensack River on NPL
Feb 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Matthew Berger
The Environmental Protection Agency will conduct a preliminary assessment to review whether a section of the Hackensack River in New Jersey should be added to the Superfund program's National Priorities List. The assessment comes in response to a petition filed with the agency by an advocacy and recreation group Feb. 10. -
2015 Outlook: Fatoumata Keita-Ouane, UNEP
Feb 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Fatoumata Keita-Ouane
As 2014 came to a close, the international chemical management community gathered to set out next steps of the international chemical management agenda. Following the 47th session of the Global Environment Fund’s (GEF) council and the 6th session of the intergovernmental negotiating committee (INC) of the Minamata Convention... -
An Update to the Purple Book and Beyond
Feb 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Emilia Vassileva
The Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) is an international guidance system, intended to harmonise the classification and labelling of hazardous chemicals in order to improve workplace and environmental safety, and to ensure consumer protection. -
2015 Outlook: Mark C Rohr, ICCA
Feb 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Mark C Rohr
As ICCM4 and the UN’s post-2015 development era draw near, global chemical manufacturers see 2015 as our year to fully raise the curtain on the role chemistry can play in tackling the world’s biggest challenges. 2015 will be a landmark year for two reasons. First, it’s been nearly fifteen years since world leaders met... -
2015 Outlook: Geert Dancet, Echa
Feb 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Geert Dancet
After a stock-taking year in 2014, when we did not have any legal deadlines, 2015 will be more challenging. We have two deadlines to meet; one for Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) and one for the biocidal products Regulation. We will also launch our efforts to raise awareness and support industry ... -
DEHP and Its Endocrine Effects
Feb 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Herb Estreicher, Partner, Keller & Heckman, LLP
On 17 December 2014, Echa amended the entry for Bis (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) on the candidate list of substances of very high concern (SVHCs) to indicate that the substance meets the Article 57(f) criterion of equivalent level of concern, based on endocrine effects on environmental organisms. -
Los Angeles Says Kern County's New Zoning Ordinance for Biosolids Units Violates CEQA
Feb 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
Kern County, Calif., violated the California Environmental Quality Act by adopting a new zoning ordinance imposing new requirements on the recycling of biosolids—treated sewage—the city of Los Angeles alleges in a lawsuit (City of Los Angeles v. Kern Cnty., Cal. Sup. Ct., No. S-1500-CV-28100, 2/10/15). -
Chromium Trioxide Consortium Readies Authorisation Applications
Feb 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
A group of more than 150 manufacturers, importers and downstream users of chromium trioxide has finished preparing draft authorisation dossiers for six of the substance’s uses. The substance was recommended for authorisation by Echa, due to its classification as a category 1A carcinogen and 1B mutagen... -
Dow Cleanup of Contaminated Flood Plain In Michigan Will Be Based on Dioxin Levels
Feb 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nora Macaluso
Cleanup of dioxin-contaminated soil from the Tittabawassee River floodplain near Dow Chemical Co.’s Midland, Mich., chemical plant will be based on the dioxin levels at each site, the Environmental Protection Agency said Feb. 10. Not all areas in the floodplain, which covers about 4,500 acres along 21 miles of the river, will require cleanup... -
ND saltwater Spill at Oil Well Contained
Feb 17, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Laura Barron-Lopez
A saltwater spill at a North Dakota oil well spill on Tuesday has been contained after leaking 21,000 gallons. North Dakota's oil and gas division said the spill was at a site roughly 5 miles south of Fortuna, the Associated Press reports. -
US EPA Proposes to Amend the National Contingency Plan Governing the Use of Dispersants in Response to Oil Spills
Feb 17, 2015 | The National Law Review
By Reed W. Sirak
On January 22, 2015, US Environemental Protection Agency announced that it is proposing to amend the requirements governing the use of dispersants and other chemical and biological agents used in response to oil spills, which are contained in Subpart J of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan... -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Finalizes State Requirements For 2008 Ozone Standard
Feb 17, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Peterka
U.S. EPA has finalized long-awaited requirements for states with areas that exceed the 2008 national ozone limit. Along with setting due dates for states to submit plans to address ground-level ozone pollution, the agency's final rule establishes control technologies for meeting the standard, emissions inventory requirements and processes... -
Amid Surge in Seismicity, States Join Effort On Regulating Saltwater Disposal Wells
Feb 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Stinson
Faced with increased levels of seismic activity and ongoing concerns over potential links to hydraulic fracturing, a number of states are working together to develop a framework of best practices to regulate saltwater disposal wells, Oklahoma's top environmental official told Bloomberg BNA. -
Local Oil, Gas Drilling Restrictions Struck Down by Ohio Supreme Court
Feb 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bebe Raupe
State law supersedes home rule when it comes to oil and gas drilling, the Ohio Supreme Court said Feb. 17 in a case that could roll back local ordinances banning hydraulic fracturing (State v. Beck Energy Corp., Ohio, No. 2013-0465, 2/17/15). In a 4-3 decision, the court said Munroe Falls' local drilling and zoning ordinances... -
Resuming Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling in the Atlantic
Feb 18, 2015 | The New York Times - A Room for Debate
By Rob Wittman, Richard Lazarus, Sierra Weaver, and Randall Luthi
Despite a record slump in oil prices, the Obama administration moved last month to open up a stretch of the Atlantic, from the Virginia to Georgia, to offshore drilling exploration. The government plans to sell leases in federal waters there, and in new portions of the Gulf of Mexico, but limit drilling off the coast of Alaska. -
ConocoPhillips Receives Federal Approval For Oil Production From NPR-Alaska Site
Feb 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
A plan to start the first production of oil from the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska has received its final federal stamp of approval, but a ConocoPhillips Co. spokeswoman said Feb. 17 the timing of a final decision by the company to start drilling is uncertain. -
Funding Dries up for New U.S. Gas Export Terminals
Feb 17, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Tim Puko
Look for financing to slow down for U.S. natural gas exports this year. This burgeoning industry is running out of customers and investors to fund new multibillion-dollar projects, according to panelists who spoke Tuesday at a New York University symposium on U.S. gas exports. Oil and gas producers... -
EPA Open to Interim Goal Changes In Final Power Plant Rules, McCarthy Says
Feb 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The Environmental Protection Agency remains open to modifying interim targets for reducing carbon emissions under final rules for existing power plants but believes interim goals are necessary to ensure states get on a path to meeting their long-term goals, Administrator Gina McCarthy said Feb. 17. -
Cost, Legality, Feasibility of Clean Power Plan Are Key Concerns for State Utility Regulators
Feb 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan exceeds the agency's statutory authority, fails to account for existing state efforts to reduce carbon emissions, includes goals that are not achievable and will result in unaffordable electricity prices, several state utility commissioners said Feb. 17. -
State Regulators Sharply Criticize Clean Power Plan
Feb 17, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jean Chemnick
When it comes to U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, Texas' best bet might be to "just say no," its regulatory utility commissioner said today. EPA would have to provide substantial new "relief" in its final version of the rule for existing power plants in order to give Texas confidence that complying would be a good idea, Commissioner Kenneth... -
McCarthy Offers 'Big Hint' On Weakening Interim GHG Targets In ESPS
Feb 17, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Lee Logan
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy is strongly suggesting that the agency will weaken the controversial interim greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets in its pending rule for existing power plants, noting there is “a lot of concern” that overly strict early goals would undermine EPA’s oft-heralded pledge of compliance flexibility. -
EPA Finalizes Implementation Requirements for 2008 Ozone Standards
Feb 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency finalized requirements for implementing the 2008 national ambient air quality standards for ozone, just under seven years after the current standards of 75 parts per billion were set in March 2008. The final rule (RIN 2060-AR34), signed Feb. 13 by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, includes various requirements... -
U.S. EPA Chief Hints at Softening Carbon Rule Interim Timeline
Feb 17, 2015 | Reuters
By Valerie Volcovici
The Environmental Protection Agency said on Tuesday that it may ease an interim deadline for states to meet tougher carbon emission standards after regulators and electric utilities complained a lack of time may destabilize electricity supplies. -
EPA Considers Delaying Carbon Deadline After Utilities Object
Feb 17, 2015 | Bloomberg
By Mark Drajem
The Obama administration may ease off on a deadline for power companies to start meeting new rules to cut carbon emissions, the top environmental regulator said, a win for utilities that complained too much was required too soon. Gina McCarthy, the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, offered Tuesday what she said... -
Climate Change May Be ‘Polarizing’; Energy Efficiency Shouldn’t Be
Feb 17, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By J.D. Gordon
With so many mixed messages and competing narratives on climate change, no wonder why so many Americans are confused. Is it real? If so, is it really our greatest threat? Forgive the pun, but it’s one of the most ‘polarizing’ issues in our country today. For instance, the two leading national figures on climate change, President Barack Obama... -
How Did the Port Shutdown Affect L.A. Air Quality?
Feb 17, 2015 | LA Times
By Tony Barboza
Dozens of ships backed up off the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports in recent days, unable to unload cargo because of a protracted labor dispute. Work resumed at the ports Tuesday, but the slowdown in shipping traffic raised concerns that emissions from waiting vessels would degrade Southern California air quality. -
Rep. Gibbs Says Congress Needs to Write Rule Clarifying Clean Water Act Jurisdiction
Feb 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio) acknowledged, in an on-camera interview with Bloomberg BNA, the need for a rule to clarify the Clean Water Act's jurisdiction over certain types of waters and wetlands to remove confusion and uncertainty. “The thinking is that we do need to have a rule, but it has to be set by Congress, and really bring clarity and certainty... -
Report Sent to UN Calculates Carbon Dioxide Cuts From Eliminating Fossil Fuel Subsidies
Feb 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Marcus Hoy
A report recently presented to the United Nations showed how merely cutting fossil fuel subsidies could significantly help the world reduce carbon dioxide emissions, one of the authors told Bloomberg BNA. The report said it calculated that governments worldwide subsidize fossil fuels by around $543 billion annually. -
Oil Train Derailment, Fire in West Virginia Prompt Investigation by Safety Regulators
Feb 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nancy Moran and Edward Dufner
U.S. regulators joined the investigation into a fiery CSX Corp. oil-train derailment in West Virginia that forced residents to flee their homes in frigid weather and threatened drinking water. The crash, the second in 10 months involving a CSX train laden with Bakken crude oil, promises to add to the public-safety... -
Lawmakers Visit Oil Train Explosion Site
Feb 17, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Federal lawmakers representing West Virginia traveled to the site of Monday’s massive oil train derailment and explosion to help residents and officials recover from the incident. Sen. Joe Manchin (D) and Rep. Evan Jenkins (R) said on Twitter that they went to Mount Carbon, where a train carrying more than 100 tank cars full of crude... -
Oil Train Accident Brings Calls For Tougher U.S. Safety Rules
Feb 17, 2015 | Reuters
By Patrick Rucker
A fiery oil train derailment in West Virginia this week exposes lax safety standards and strengthens the case for tougher U.S. rules governing such shipments, safety advocates said on Tuesday. A 109-car delivery of crude oil from North Dakota's Bakken energy patch derailed in West Virginia on Monday, setting at least nine cars ablaze. -
W.Va. Oil Train Derailment Was 1 of 3 With Safer Tank Cars
Feb 18, 2015 | AP (in the Washington Post)
The fiery derailment of a train carrying crude oil in West Virginia is one of three in the past year involving tank cars that already meet a higher safety standard than what federal law requires — leading some to suggest even tougher requirements that industry representatives say would be prohibitively costly.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Mentioned) WPI Appoints Internationally Recognized Scholar as Provost
Feb 17, 2015 | Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) President Laurie Leshin today announced the appointment of Bruce E. Bursten, Distinguished Professor of Chemistry and former dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, as the university's new provost. The appointment is effective June 1.
As WPI provost, Bursten will be responsible for the university's academic and research programs. His primary charge will be to ensure continued excellence in the undergraduate curriculum, strengthen graduate studies and research, recruit, retain, and support outstanding faculty, and elevate the university's stature and impact.
"Bruce Bursten brings decades of experience as an educator and researcher, and has an outstanding record as a dynamic and effective leader," said President Leshin. "He has shown the ability to work cohesively with faculty, students, and other key stakeholders, and he possesses the vision and energy required to help take this university to the next level of achievement. I am thrilled to welcome him to the WPI community. In Bruce we have clearly found a distinguished and gifted scientist to join our ranks."
Bursten received a bachelor of science in chemistry, with honors, from the University of Chicago in 1974, and a PhD in chemistry from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1978.
He has a strong reputation as a chemist, with more than 160 peer-reviewed publications, and is co-author of one of the leading textbooks in general chemistry—currently in its 13th edition. Before his current role at University of Tennessee, Knoxville, he had a fruitful career at Ohio State University, where he was named Distinguished University Professor and served as chair of the Department of Chemistry.
Over the years, Bursten has received numerous national and international honors for his academic accomplishments and has been elected to leadership roles in the American Chemical Society (ACS), which he served as president, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), where he is the current chair of the Chemistry Section. An elected fellow of AAAS and ACS, he has received the Spiers Medal and Prize from the Royal Society of Chemistry in the United Kingdom and the Catalyst Award from the American Chemistry Council (a national award for chemistry teaching).
"I'm very excited about joining such a premier academic institution that has long recognized that excellence in science and technology can truly address human needs across the global stage," Bursten said. "As WPI seeks to expand its academic reach and impact, I'm looking forward to working with the faculty, staff, students, and the broader academic community to strengthen WPI's academic programs and research at all levels."Bursten will succeed Eric Overström, who has served as provost since 2011, and who announced last summer his intention to step down once a successor was on board.
A Chicago native who was raised in Milwaukee, Wis., Bursten will be joined in Worcester by his partner, Carol Edelstein, a talent management strategist. His daughter, Julia, was recently appointed an assistant professor of philosophy at San Francisco State University. -
(ACC Mentioned) WPI Selects Award-Winning Chemist as Provost
Feb 17, 2015 | Worcester Magazine
By Tom Quinn
Worcester Polytechnic Institute announced its new provost today - Bruce E. Bursten, former dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, will step in effective June 1.
As WPI provost, Bursten will be responsible for the university’s academic and research programs, according to a press release sent out by the school. His primary charge will be to ensure continued excellence in the undergraduate curriculum, strengthen graduate studies and research, recruit, retain, and support outstanding faculty, and elevate the university’s stature and impact.
Bursten has a strong reputation as a chemist, with more than 160 peer-reviewed publications, and is co-author of one of the leading textbooks in general chemistry. He has received the Spiers Medal and Prize from the Royal Society of Chemistry in the United Kingdom and the Catalyst Award from the American Chemistry Council.
"I'm very excited about joining such a premier academic institution that has long recognized that excellence in science and technology can truly address human needs across the global stage," Bursten said. "As WPI seeks to expand its academic reach and impact, I'm looking forward to working with the faculty, staff, students, and the broader academic community to strengthen WPI's academic programs and research at all levels."
-
Health Effects of Low Doses of Chemicals Subject of EPA Query to National Academies
Feb 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency is seeking help as it addresses a disconnect between the chemical testing strategies that underlie its regulations and observations scientists are making in research on human exposure to chemicals.
The agency and the National Academies signed a contract in early February in which the EPA asked the academies' National Research Council to convene a scientific committee charged with offering advice on the topic “Unraveling Low Dose—Case Studies of Systematic Review of Evidence,” William Kearney, director of media relations for the academies, told Bloomberg BNA in a Feb. 17 e-mail.
“We really do not grapple with chronic low-dose exposures,” Tina Bahadori, who manages the EPA's Chemical Safety for Sustainability research program, said during a recent meeting with academic scientists receiving exposure science grants.
The advice the agency gets from this report is one part of its broader effort to address that gap, she said.
The new committee will explore concerns raised in a 2014 National Research Council committee report, “Review of the Environmental Protection Agency's State-of-the-Science Evaluation of Nonmonotonic Dose-Response Relationships as they Apply to Endocrine Disrupters,” Kearney said.
That report said the EPA had failed to show that a proposed chemical testing strategy would detect health or ecological harms that may result from exposure to endocrine disruptors, which are chemicals that mimic, block or alter how hormones function in animals and people (86 DEN A-9, 5/5/14).
The academies expects to post on its website by the end of April a description of the committee's work and an invitation to comment on a provisional list of toxicologists, molecular biologists, epidemiologists and other scientists that would serve on the panel, Kearney said.
Regulatory Disconnect Cited
During a Feb. 3-4 exposure science meeting, Bahadori said chemical regulations are based on information gleaned from the agency's toxicity and exposure testing strategies and subsequent risk assessments.
There is a disconnect, however, between the testing and risk assessment strategies that the EPA and other regulators commonly use and human health observations by epidemiologists, she said.
Part of that disconnect is due to the limitations of epidemiological studies that can't address cause and effect, Bahadori said.
The disconnect also results from limits in current toxicity testing and risk assessment strategies, she said.
Chemical testing and risk assessment strategies often don't address chronic low dose exposures, nor do they address people's total exposures to various chemicals that affect their bodies in similar ways and the multiple sources—diet, water and air—of such chemicals, she said, referring respectively to cumulative and aggregate exposure to chemicals.
Initiatives Taken to Address Disconnect
To address that disconnect, the agency's research and regulatory offices have undertaken several initiatives, Bahadori said.
These include seeking the academies' committee's advice on chronic low-dose exposures.
-
EPA to Conduct Preliminary Assessment On Putting Part of Hackensack River on NPL
Feb 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Matthew Berger
The Environmental Protection Agency will conduct a preliminary assessment to review whether a section of the Hackensack River in New Jersey should be added to the Superfund program's National Priorities List.
The assessment comes in response to a petition filed with the agency by an advocacy and recreation group Feb. 10.
In its petition, Hackensack Riverkeeper cited the negative effects of toxic pollution in the river on its members' recreational boating businesses, such as kayak and canoe rentals, because people don't want to risk contact with toxic pollutants. Fears of disturbing toxic compounds in sediments make river restoration activities difficult, the group added.
The group also wrote that it believes expanding existing nearby Superfund sites to include parts of the main river is unlikely to be sufficient because of the complexity of the river and its pollution. It would like the lower 17 miles of the river, from Oradell Dam to Newark Bay, listed as a new site.
Elias Rodriquez, a spokesman for the EPA, confirmed that the agency has received the petition and will conduct a preliminary assessment.
The agency is required to conduct an assessment when asked to do so by any party affected by a potentially hazardous contaminant. Rodriguez couldn't provide a timeline for the assessment's completion.
Currently, the Standard Chlorine Site in Kearney, N.J., and the PJP Landfill Site in Jersey City are the only Superfund sites along the Hackensack, although there are more along the neighboring Passaic River and throughout the Meadowlands region generally.
Mercury, dioxins, chromium and other contaminants are found in the Hackensack's waters. Under its Superfund authority, the EPA since 2008 has been assessing contaminants and threats at Berry's Creek, which empties into the Hackensack and is contaminated with mercury and other substances.
-
2015 Outlook: Fatoumata Keita-Ouane, UNEP
Feb 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Fatoumata Keita-Ouane
As 2014 came to a close, the international chemical management community gathered to set out next steps of the international chemical management agenda. Following the 47th session of the Global Environment Fund’s (GEF) council and the 6th session of the intergovernmental negotiating committee (INC) of the Minamata Convention on Mercury which initiated substantive preparation for the COP1 of the Convention when it enters in force, the Strategic Approach to Sound Chemicals Management (Saicm) convened for the second open-ended working group (OEWG2) meeting to prepare for the fourth session of the International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM). At OEWG2, delegates considered several chemical management issues that will pave international discussions and work throughout 2015 in a proposal for Overall Orientation and Guidance (OOG) for achieving the 2020 goal of sound management of chemicals.
Earlier in 2014, the first session of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA1) of UNEP adopted a resolution on chemicals and waste covering; the continued strengthening of the sound management of chemicals and waste in the long term, the integrated approach to financing sound management of chemicals and waste, and the continuous work to integrate sound chemicals management into future sustainable development goals (SDGs). The meeting established the need to: recognise the continued relevance of the sound management of chemicals and waste beyond 2020; adopt the terms of reference for a special programme to be funded by voluntary contributions, to support institutional strengthening at the national level to enhance implementation of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm (BSR) conventions, the Minamata Convention, and Saicm; and strengthen Saicm, emphasising the need for continued and strengthened multisectoral and multi-stakeholder involvement.
UNEA1 emphasised that sound management of chemicals and waste is an essential and integral cross-cutting element of sustainable development and is of great relevance to the sustainable development agenda. It requested facilitation of the cooperation, as appropriate, between the interim secretariat of the Minamata Convention on Mercury and the Secretariat of the BSR Conventions.
While the world is grappling with many highly visible environmental agendas, the importance of chemicals and waste as a sustainable development issue made significant advances. Therefore, 2015 is promising to be a pivotal year with the scheduling of the joint COPs of the BRS, the conclusion of the SDG work and the crucial fourth session of the ICCM.
Reaching the 2020 goal
The overarching goal of Saicm, namely that chemicals will be produced and used in a manner that will minimise their negative impacts on human health and the environment is progressing in implementation but significant work still needs to be undertaken at all levels in order to achieve the 2020 goal. With only five years until the 2020 goal, there is a sense of urgency. While significant achievements have been made towards achieving the 2020 goal, changes that have occurred since the establishment of Saicm in 2002, and since it was adopted in 2006, have resulted in a need to review plans and strategies. To ensure lasting achievements by 2020 and beyond, stakeholders must respond to the advances made in the overall chemicals and waste cluster, build on the solid foundations and momentum that the Strategic Approach and the Quick Start Programme have helped to create, and make optimal use of resources.
The OOG document for Saicm for the period until 2020 was reviewed by the OEWG2 in December 2014. It is organised around 11 basic elements identified as critical at the national and regional levels to the attainment of sound chemicals management and six core activities that provide directions and approaches for Saicm stakeholders to achieve the 2020 goal. The six core activities include: enhance responsibility of stakeholdersstrengthen national legislative and regulatory frameworks for chemicals;mainstream sound management of chemicals and waste in the sustainable developments agenda;promote risk reduction and information sharing on emerging policy issues;promote information access; andassess progress towards the 2020 goal.
ICCM4 will provide an important platform for Saicm stakeholders to renew the initiative’s momentum, committing to the concrete actions identified in the guidance to achieve the 2020 goal. The meeting will mark the tenth anniversary of the adoption of the Strategic Approach in Dubai in February 2006 and will include a high level international forum for multi-stakeholder and multisectoral discussion and exchange of experience.
Strengthening link between Environment and Health
Unep is placing an increased focus on integrated approaches to promote the natural linkages between health and environment in its strategic vision. The SDGs being discussed by governments and other stakeholders in New York, responds to the Rio+20’s expectations to both strengthen institutional framework for sustainable development and implement policies that break the vicious cycle linking poverty, environmental degradation, ill health and continued inequities related to gender and vulnerable groups. Action at the junctures of health and environmental linkages is critical to meeting this challenge.
Synergies in implementation
The momentum created by the synergy process, to enhance cooperation and coordination among the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions and the establishment of a joint secretariat should be harnessed and channelled to improve implementation at the national level through the use of existing tools, institutions and programmes. The joint COPs of the BRS in May 2015 will be an Important fora to further these initiatives.
Comprehensive, broad and preventive policies that link the many national agencies responsible for chemicals management into an integrated system are essential to strengthen the chemicals management capacities of national institutions and businesses. Effective implementation and enforcement of both the chemical-related international conventions and the Saicm requires that the policies of the relevant sectors are aligned with each other, and that there exists strong institutional mechanisms to facilitate collaboration with other sectors.
The Minamata Convention on Mercury
Last year saw the first year of action on this new legally binding agreement, with a round of capacity building and awareness raising workshops working with countries at the subregional level, as well as meetings of the expert group on emissions and the sixth session of the intergovernmental negotiating committee. In 2015, the interim secretariat will build on these initial activities, planning a series of further workshops, in cooperation with the BRS secretariat, to further encourage countries to ratification and effective implementation. The expert group intends to conclude the first round of its work, producing draft guidance which will be made available for consideration by the seventh session of the committee. As agreed by the sixth session, an intersessional ad hoc working group on financing will meet, to develop further plans which can also be considered by the seventh session of the committee. Additionally, the interim secretariat will work closely with the secretariat of the GEF, and with implementing agencies, to progress the delivery of support to countries as they move towards ratification. Starting the year with nine Parties to the Convention, the ambition target of ’50 in 2015’ is still potentially achievable.
Chemicals management and the SDGs
The synthesis report of the UN Secretary-General on the post-2015 agenda entitled “The Road to Dignity by 2030: Ending Poverty, Transforming All Lives and Protecting the Planet” will be central to this year’s agenda. The report refers to the sound management of chemicals in three of the proposed SDGs: on healthy lives and well-being, on availability and sustainable management of water, and on sustainable consumption and production.
Financing the sound management of chemicals…
A critical element on the landscape of chemical management in 2015 will relate to the sustainable financing of activities at national and international levels. The implementation of the Special Programme to support institutional strengthening at the national level, and the establishment of GEF’s focal area on chemicals and waste offer a window of opportunity for a more integrated approach to financing towards the 2020 goal.
Although these initiatives are raising enthusiasm, translation of the commitment into action for sustainable, predictable, adequate and accessible financing for the chemicals and wastes agenda is awaited by the recipient countries.
To spearhead the agenda there is a need to find sustainable approaches to the financing of sound chemicals management. Mainstreaming goals, targets and indicators for sound chemicals management within the national sustainable development plans and programmes of developing country partners is critical. Failing such integration the complex and interlinked range of hazards and risks of chemicals requiring the development of integrated policies that address health, environment and development goals coherently will remain an illusion.
Countries should take measures to further encourage industry involvement, including the development of policies on the responsibilities of the industry sector and national administrations, and should develop financial solutions, appropriate mechanisms and economic instruments to cover the costs of chemicals management regimes at the national level.
In seeking dedicated external financing, Strategic Approach stakeholders should secure funds from new and innovative donor sources and provide guidance on the use of resources available under the sixth replenishment of the GEF, within the chemicals and waste cluster, and also provide resources to support the effective implementation of the special programme on institutional strengthening of the chemicals and wastes cluster to support institutional strengthening at the national level for implementation of the Basel, Rotterdam, Stockholm and Minamata conventions and the Strategic Approaches.
-
An Update to the Purple Book and Beyond
Feb 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Emilia Vassileva
The Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) is an international guidance system, intended to harmonise the classification and labelling of hazardous chemicals in order to improve workplace and environmental safety, and to ensure consumer protection. The official text of the GHS, also known as the “purple book”, was first published in 2003 and is amended every two years. All amendments are prepared, taking into consideration the latest scientific achievements by the UN’s Sub-Committee of Experts on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (UNSCEGHS), and are officially approved by the UN’s Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods and on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (UNCETDG/GHS).On January 27, the final report of the 7th session of the UNCETDG/GHS was published. It came with proposed amendments to the existing text of the GHS – adopted during the 25th, 26th, 27th and 28th sessions of UNSCEGHS. Included were topics for discussions within the UNSCEGHS working groups, during the next 2015/2016 biennium. Among the proposed amendments to the 5th revised edition of GHS are: a new hazard class and category, a new addition to the safety data sheets (SDS) guidance and examples of labelling of small packaging. Since the amendments are not published yet, all analyses are based on the content of the reports of the UNSCEGHS latest four sessions (25-28). These are the main changes expected:
New hazard class and category –desensitised explosives are the newest hazard class to be added as a new Chapter 2.17 in part 2 of the GHS “Physical hazards”.
They are defined as substances or mixtures, which can be exempt from the hazard class “explosives” because they are “phlegmatised to suppress their explosive properties, in such a manner that they do not mass explode and do not burn too rapidly”. The class includes four hazard categories, classified according to specified criteria, and incorporates solid or liquid forms. Moreover, depending on the purpose, different regulations may be applicable to a desensitised explosive. For transportation, the solid desensitised explosives have to be referred for classification to the UN’s Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods.
The newly added hazard category consists of the group of pyrophoric gases, which are defined as gases that may ignite spontaneously when exposed to air at certain temperatures. Taking into consideration a US proposal, the UNSCEGHS had prepared an amendment to add them as a sub-category in the flammable gases hazard class.
SDS – regarding the safety data sheet, the draft amendment revises section 9 of Annex 4 “Physical and chemical properties and safety characteristics” of the GHS. The updated text includes detailed additional instructions about the properties and safety characteristics, presented in the newly created table A4.3.9.1, ”Basic physical and chemical properties”. Supplemental information, containing data relevant to the physical hazard classes, is introduced in table A4.3.9.2. The newly added note in the updated table 1.5.2 in chapter 1.5 (part 1) of the GHS will allow government authorities to determine the order or re-arrange the properties listed in section 9 of the SDS.
Labelling of small packaging – the proposed amendment to small package labelling includes a new example No 8 in Annex 7 of the GHS. It is designed to improve the graphic representation of the labelling elements on small packages and to differentiate the inner from the outer package labelling.
These recommended amendments for the 5th revised edition of GHS are the culmination of discussions to improve the text of the guidance in relation to certain topic areas. However, the UNSCEGHS has other subject areas it is planning to work on. Annex III of the 28th UNSCEGHS session report contains a work programme for the 2015/2016 biennium, with areas listed for further evaluation and development by the GHS Sub-Committee, including additional guidance on explosives, further review of the classifications of flammable gases and applicability of the GHS to nanomaterials.
Under the leadership of Australia, the UNSCEGHS experts will explore the need to develop additional guidance on classification and hazard communication requirements for explosives in manufacturing, storage and usage applications other than transport.
The plan for the next biennium also includes a review of the classification of flammable gases. A joint Transport of Dangerous Group (TDG)-GHS informal working group will continue to explore possibilities of establishing additional flammable gases classification criteria in order to form new hazard class subdivisions.
With regard to labelling, eliminating redundancy in the hazard (H) and precautionary (P) statements will continue to be the main task for the UNSCEGHS experts, led by the UK. The task group will also concentrate its attention on expanding the guidance and precedent rules for use of H and P statements.
Nanomaterials: – the UNSCEGHS nanomaterials task force will continue its exploratory work on establishing whether nano-forms of substances are within the scope of the GHS and will determine the applicability of the existing GHS classification and labelling criteria to nanomaterials, including substances in bulk.
With the latest proposed amendments, the UNSCEGHS continues a trend of improving GHS efficiency, in relation to the safe handling of chemicals during their lifecycle. The topics included in the work programme for the next biennium will apply the same practical and straighforward approach, which should motivate more governments and private stakeholders to look to the GHS for guidance in the proper management of chemicals.
-
2015 Outlook: Mark C Rohr, ICCA
Feb 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Mark C Rohr
As ICCM4 and the UN’s post-2015 development era draw near, global chemical manufacturers see 2015 as our year to fully raise the curtain on the role chemistry can play in tackling the world’s biggest challenges.
2015 will be a landmark year for two reasons. First, it’s been nearly fifteen years since world leaders met in New York City to agree to one of the UN’s most ambitious initiatives to date: the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). At the time, UN member states envisioned 2015 to be the tipping point in their efforts to bring real, tangible improvements to people’s lives around the world. The global chemistry industry recognised it had an important role to play in helping to make this happen.
Today, thanks to the solutions provided by our industry and others, more people around the world have access to safe drinking water than they did at the turn of the millennium. Over that same period, investments in medicine and other tools to combat malaria, AIDS and tuberculosis have saved millions of lives. And the number of child deaths over the last fifteen years has declined dramatically.
This news is encouraging for the International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) and the more than 20 million men and women around the world working to create the innovative products and technologies that can help solve such large-scale, global challenges. At the same time, we recognise that the contributions chemistry can make to improve the lives of everyone on the planet are far from complete.
The second reason is two upcoming conferences: the 4th International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM4) in September, and the 21st session of the Conference of the Parties (COP-21) in December. In the lead up to both events, ICCA is focused on prioritising the goals on which we can make tangible progress on the sound management of chemicals worldwide through to 2020.
Our first priority is continuing to drive the development of products and technologies that can enhance our quality of life and enable a more sustainable future. Advances in chemistry play an instrumental role in increasing agricultural production to feed a growing world population. Chemistry makes possible the new technologies and materials developed for sustainable construction and urban mobility, as well as new materials used in insulation, adhesives, sealants and lightweight materials used by both the construction and transport sectors. As governments work together to finalise the sustainable development goals (SDGs), agreed at the 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio, and design a post-2015 development landscape, we urge them to recognise the ongoing importance of innovation in the development of new chemistries, materials and products.
At the same time, global chemical manufacturers are committed to continuously improving our products and the processes we follow to help enhance health, safety and sustainability. That’s why our second priority in 2015 is to stand by our commitment to the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (Saicm). Some of our strongest contributions include encouraging industry partners around the world to join Responsible Care® and implement the Global Product Strategy (GPS). These two industry-designed programmes can help ensure chemicals are produced and used in ways that minimise significant adverse impacts on human health and the environment.
Last year, ICCA was hard at work updating the Responsible Care Global Charter. This year, our member associations are reaching out to chemical companies around the world to encourage them to commit to perform excellence in the safe management of chemicals throughout their lifecycle as required by the revised Global Charter.
2015 is also our opportunity to advance the Global Product Strategy (GPS). We designed this product stewardship program to make available plain language safety summaries about our products while improving the overall management of chemicals throughout the product lifecycle. At the close of 2014, industry stakeholders could access at least 4,400 GPS Safety Summaries from Asia, Europe, the Middle East, Latin America and North America through our GPS Chemicals Portal. More than 150 top chemical companies and more than 40 associations currently implement GPS.
Finally, in collaboration with Unep and other Saicm stakeholders, the industry is committed to help those countries that currently lack the capacity to manage chemicals safely. For example, ICCA is partnering with Unep to provide key port stakeholders in Ghana and Kenya with basic training on dangerous goods handling and capacity building for emergency preparedness and response. We see these projects as the most effective use of available resources in promoting measurable progress on sound chemicals management around the world.
Given the critical role of the chemical industry for the broader manufacturing sector, regulatory frameworks that work with industry-led initiatives will not only strengthen chemicals management; they will also help promote broader economic development around the world.
-
2015 Outlook: Geert Dancet, Echa
Feb 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Geert Dancet
After a stock-taking year in 2014, when we did not have any legal deadlines, 2015 will be more challenging. We have two deadlines to meet; one for Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) and one for the biocidal products Regulation. We will also launch our efforts to raise awareness and support industry to meet the last REACH registration deadline of 2018.
Classify your mixtures by 1 June
From 1 June 2015, the CLP Regulation will be the only legislation to apply to the classification and labelling of both substances and mixtures. In short, it requires companies to classify, label and package their hazardous chemicals appropriately, before placing them on the market.
Its purpose is to ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment, as well as the free movement of substances, mixtures and articles. An enormous number of products must be re-labelled to comply with CLP, including consumer items such as paints or detergents, as well as industrial mixtures.
Though the obligations under the CLP Regulation are quite similar to the previous EU legislation, there are some differences. It is important, early on, to decide on the classification of your mixtures and label them accordingly.
Biocides: 1 September – apply now to stay on the market
From 1 September, a biocidal product consisting of, containing, or generating a relevant substance, cannot be made available on the EU market if the substance or product supplier is not included in the Article 95 list for the product type(s) to which the product belongs.
I would encourage companies affected to check within their supply chain, whether their products are covered by a substance or product supplier on the Article 95 list. If they want to submit applications to be included in the list themselves, I would advise them to apply as soon as possible, and, in any case, several months before 1 September. This would allow Echa to assess the applications by the legal deadline and give sufficient time for companies if the Echa draft decision is negative and they need to provide additional data.
Seven steps to REACH 2018
The last REACH registration deadline for existing chemicals will be on 31 May 2018. This deadline concerns companies that manufacture or import substances in low volumes, between 1-100 tonnes/year, for which registration was not previously required. We expect a lot of small and medium-sized enterprises will register for the first time, and large companies may have hundreds of chemicals in their portfolios to register.
We here at Echa are committed to supporting those companies. Over the past months, we have consulted our stakeholders and prepared a four-year plan with them on our actions for the deadline. This REACH 2018 Roadmap is available on Echa’s website. It contains different milestones for improved support services provided to the registrants from now until the deadline. We have also invited all our stakeholders to complement our actions to make sure that the widest possible support network exists for registrants.
As a first step, last October, we published new web pages for REACH 2018. Their look and feel is based on the feedback received from our stakeholders, and they guide registrants through seven steps in the registration process. We have also structured our support in a way that makes it easier to find and follow, and we plan to improve these pages as new material becomes available in the coming years.
The REACH 2018 deadline may seem distant but I urge companies to start preparing now in order to meet the deadline successfully.
All of the above mentioned web pages are already, or will soon be, available in 23 EU languages. I hope that industry will find them easy to work with and relevant to their operations.
-
DEHP and Its Endocrine Effects
Feb 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Herb Estreicher, Partner, Keller & Heckman, LLP
On 17 December 2014, Echa amended the entry for Bis (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) on the candidate list of substances of very high concern (SVHCs) to indicate that the substance meets the Article 57(f) criterion of equivalent level of concern, based on endocrine effects on environmental organisms. DEHP is currently listed on Annex XIV as toxic for reproduction (Article 57(d)).
The revised entry followed the unanimous agreement of the Echa Member State Committee (MSC) at its 39th meeting in response to an Annex XV dossier, submitted by Denmark (CW 16 December 2014). The committee decided not to list DEHP as an endocrine disruptor in humans and rejected Denmark’s proposal to revise the candidate list entries for three other phthalates (DBP, BBP and DIBP).
The European Council for Plasticisers and Intermediates (ECPI) has expressed concern that the second listing of DEHP on the candidate list has the potential to trigger a second authorisation process, with “uncertainty, complexity and cost” for European producers and “no environmental benefit” (CW 19 December 2014). Indeed, in response to comments by Finland during the consultation process, Echa stated “identification of DEHP under Article 57(f) for the environment may lead to a higher level of protection for the environment, since this is not included in identification under 57(c) for reproductive toxicity,” and as such there appears to be some basis for the ECPI concern.
This article examines the background and legal implications of the second listing of DEHP on the candidate list, based on endocrine effects on environmental organisms.
Background to DEHP listing
DEHP has been under intense regulatory pressure in the European Union and Denmark has been leading the charge. In 2011, Denmark proposed a REACH restriction of DEHP and three other phthalates (DBP, BBP, and DIBP) in certain consumer articles (CW 21 April 2011). Echa’s Committees for Socio-economic Analysis (Seac) and Risk Assessment (Rac) concluded that there is no scientific basis to support the Danish proposal (CW 13 December 2012).
Denmark then proposed to issue a national ban on the four phthalates. The European Commission considered lodging an infringement action against Denmark for going against an EU-wide decision which led Demark to withdraw its national legislation. Denmark then notified Echa that it intended to propose, under Annex XV, that DEHP and the other three phthalates, which are already on the REACH candidate list based on their reprotoxic properties, also be designated as endocrine disruptors (CW 2 July 2014). Denmark’s stated motivation for this proposal was to ensure that authorisation decisions would not be based on an assumed safe threshold as is often the case for reprotoxins, but instead the presumption would be against a safe threshold. This is in line with the Commission’s recent opinion in a document on endocrine disruptors, discussed at the Caracal meeting in April 2014 (CW 5 June 2014). Applications for authorisation of substances without a safe threshold must proceed by the so-called ‘socio-economic analysis (SEA) route’, which is much more difficult than the alternative “adequate control route” reserved for threshold toxicants.
During the consultation on the Denmark Annex XV proposal, most member states were opposed to the listing of DEHP as an endocrine disruptor for human health effects because it was felt that the existing reprotoxin entry on the candidate list was sufficiently protective of human health. There was no agreement that the other three phthalates were endocrine disruptors either for mammalian or environmental organisms.
Next steps – the legal framework
Five applications for authorisation of DEHP, covering ten uses, were submitted by the 13 August 2013 deadline under Annex XIV. Rac and Seac have adopted favourable opinions on a number of these applications, based on the adequate control route, although in some cases the recommended expiry of the review is short (as short as four years), and several applications are still pending. The European Commission has adopted one recommendation for the authorisation of the use of DEHP in the manufacture of aircraft engine blades (CW 13 August 2014) and will take final decision on the other recommendations by the regulatory procedure with scrutiny. This procedure allows either the member states (on the basis of a qualified majority vote) or the European Parliament to veto the proposed Commission decision.
Impact on the Commission’s decision making on DEHP applications
There is an interesting question as to whether the Commission will follow, or will face political opposition if it decides to follow, the pending Rac and Seac recommendations to grant authorisation, now that Echa and the MSC have decided that DEHP is an endocrine disruptor for environment organisms. The Commission’s stated motivation for any departure from Rac and Seac opinions could not be based on the new endocrine disruptor entry as that was not a part of the decision-making process. But it could play a role behind the scenes. A close examination of the opinions for certain of the applications raises questions as to whether adequate control has been achieved and whether suitable alternatives are, in fact, not available in each case, and it would seem that the Commission has significant discretion on how to proceed. At a minimum, industry efforts to lobby the Commission to increase some of the short Rac and Seac recommended review periods for some of the uses may prove more challenging as a result of the new candidate listing.
Impact on the work of Rac and Seac
As a legal matter the new entry in the listing of DEHP on the candidate list should not impact by itself the work of Rac and Seac on the pending authorisation applications. This is a consequence of Article 58.1(b) which requires that the intrinsic toxic property of the substance under Article 57 form a part of the Annex XIV listing. This means that as DEHP is currently only listed for reproductive effects in Annex XIV, any authorisation recommendation must be based on that intrinsic property and the assumption of a safe threshold.
In order to impact the future work of Rac and Seac, the Annex XIV entry for DEHP will need to be amended. Although Article 58.7 and 58.8 make provision for the removal of substances from Annex XIV in certain situations, there is no explicit provision under REACH for the revision of existing entries. Article 131 allows the Commission to amend the REACH annexes by the regulatory procedure with scrutiny but this is a multi-year process. As a practical matter, decisions are likely to have been taken on the pending authorisation applications well before the Annex XIV entry is amended, given the strict deadlines for decision making on authorisation under REACH. Once this has happened, any applications for renewal of authorisation would need to address endocrine disruption.
Other impacts
In the event the Annex XIV entry is revised, a significant issue for uses of DEHP that currently enjoy exemptions from authorisation, notably use in medical devices and food contact materials, will be created. This is a consequence of the fact that the existing exemptions for the use of DEHP in such products is based on the current Annex XIV listing, which is limited to human health effects, like reprotoxicity. Cosmetic uses would have also been impacted but DEHP but this is not a permitted use in the EU as per Commission Directive 2004/93/EC. In addition, the current exemption in the Annex XIV listing for use in the immediate packaging of medicinal products would be at risk. It is difficult to argue that this would qualify for exemption under Article 58.2 in light of the environmental effects now attributed to the substance.
Any new restrictions on the marketing and use of DEHP as such, or in mixtures, or for incorporation into articles would still be barred by Article 58.5. There is an interesting question as to whether the designation of DEHP as an endocrine disruptor would provide additional motivation for Denmark, or other member states, to submit proposals to restrict the import of articles containing DEHP as permitted by Article 58.6.
Contrary to the expressed concern that the second listing of DEHP on the candidate list has the potential to trigger a second authorisation process, a lengthy legislative procedure would be needed to amend the Annex XIV listing for DEHP and any such amendment is likely to come too late to impact the pending applications for authorisation. If this happens, the most significant impact will be on applications for renewal of granted authorisations and on certain current exempted uses.
The fact that Echa and the MSC agree that DEHP is an endocrine disruptor for environmental organisms could play a behind the scenes role in Commission decision making on the currently pending DEHP authorisation applications, with the likely consequence that certain review periods may be shortened or at least not increased from that recommended by Rac and Seac.
-
Los Angeles Says Kern County's New Zoning Ordinance for Biosolids Units Violates CEQA
Feb 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
Kern County, Calif., violated the California Environmental Quality Act by adopting a new zoning ordinance imposing new requirements on the recycling of biosolids—treated sewage—the city of Los Angeles alleges in a lawsuit (City of Los Angeles v. Kern Cnty., Cal. Sup. Ct., No. S-1500-CV-28100, 2/10/15).
Filed Feb. 10 in state Superior Court, the complaint comes in the wake of Kern County's long-running effort to restrict the imports of biosolids from Southern California communities for spreading on a Los Angeles-owned farm.
The new ordinance comes just two months before a trial is set to begin in a lawsuit the city filed to overturn a 2006 voter initiative (Measure E) that seeks to ban the application of biosolids in unincorporated areas of the county, which would include the city's Green Acres Farm (Los Angeles v. Kern County, Cal. Sup. Ct., No. 189564, hearing 2/5/15 ).
At issue in the Measure E case is whether the ban violates the California Integrated Waste Management Act.
In its latest action, Los Angeles is challenging the validity of the county's January changes to a zoning ordinance that would transform Green Acres Farm's recycling operation to “a nonconforming use” and restrict the city's ability to alter or extend its operations, according to the complaint.
The Orange County Sanitation District, the California Association of Sanitation Agencies and companies that transport the biosolids to the farm are co-plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
County counsel couldn't be reached for comment on the lawsuit or the new ordinance.
Would Impose ‘Onerous' New Requirements
The city accuses the county of surreptitiously adopting the new ordinance “to impose onerous new requirements on the recycling of biosolids.”
In the complaint, the city said the “county officials concealed the purpose of [the] ordinance” with deception and misleading notices that never mentioned the word “biosolids.” Also, the county, instead of completing the environmental analysis required by CEQA, issued a negative declaration exempting the ordinance from the review process, the lawsuit said.
Los Angeles said it was never notified of the planning commission hearing in which the ordinance was discussed, according to the complaint.
The complaint also alleges the hearing notice posted on the county's website described the amendments to the ordinance as a revision to ensure land use complies with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements to protect water quality.
-
Chromium Trioxide Consortium Readies Authorisation Applications
Feb 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
A group of more than 150 manufacturers, importers and downstream users of chromium trioxide has finished preparing draft authorisation dossiers for six of the substance’s uses. The substance was recommended for authorisation by Echa, due to its classification as a category 1A carcinogen and 1B mutagen, and was added to REACH Annex XIV (the authorisation list) in 2013 (CW 13 December 2012).
The dossiers, prepared by the Chromium Trioxide Authorisation Consortium (Ctac), cover all but two – leather production and wood protection – of the substance’s main industrial applications.
According to Jones Day, the law firm managing Ctac, the consortium has made draft applications available for the following uses:
The prepared applications are available to Ctac members as well as other companies, for a fee. In a statement, the consortium says chromium trioxide continues to be an essential compound for certain industrial processes and products pursued in the EU by its members and their customers. It says, because of this, applications for REACH authorisation for these uses will be filed with Echa. The last application date for authorisation for chromium trioxide is 21 March 2016, and the sunset date is 21 September 2017 – when any uses that are not covered by an authorisation, other than those exempted, have to cease.
Speaking at Echa's authorisation conference, last week, Dr Martin Kleban of Lanxess, one of the ten chromium trioxide importers in Europe (There are no manufacturers.), said a submission group of ten Ctac members plans to submit a joint application in May, which will include all the big importers and safeguard chromium trioxide in the marketplace. This doesn't mean, he added, that Ctac members or other companies won't submit their own applications as well.
ChemSec's Theresa Kjell says authorisation applications this broad make it “virtually impossible” for Echa's committees for risk assessment (Rac) and socio-economic analysis (Seac), and, eventually, the Commission, to correctly judge if there is adequate control, and suitable limitation for the authorisation, and its socio-economic consequences.
Ms Kjell also says it makes it very difficult to make a correct assessment on alternatives. She says ChemSec would like to see applications limited in uses. “This would improve the Commission's ability to promote substitution and innovation, while still granting longer authorisation periods for uses, where there truly are no alternatives available.”
The only reasonable outcome, if this application is to be granted, is to set the time limit for the authorisation very short, she says. “The substances on Annex XIV have been put there for a reason. They should be phased out, due to their hazardous properties.”
-
Dow Cleanup of Contaminated Flood Plain In Michigan Will Be Based on Dioxin Levels
Feb 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nora Macaluso
Cleanup of dioxin-contaminated soil from the Tittabawassee River floodplain near Dow Chemical Co.’s Midland, Mich., chemical plant will be based on the dioxin levels at each site, the Environmental Protection Agency said Feb. 10.
Not all areas in the floodplain, which covers about 4,500 acres along 21 miles of the river, will require cleanup, the EPA said. In homeowners' property with contamination levels higher than 250 parts per trillion of dioxin, the soil will be dug up and hauled away, and replaced with new soil, grasses and plants.
In areas such as farms, parks and commercial properties, if tests show a contamination level greater than 2,000 ppt, soil will either be dug up and hauled away or covered with clean soil, the agency said. The EPA said it will “work with each property owner on the right approach, and after cleanup, these areas will be replanted.”
The EPA, Dow and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality believe the plan is “protective of everyone who lives, works and plays in the floodplain,” Dow spokesman Nate Kerns told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 17. Cleanup will begin in late spring or early summer, depending on weather, he said.
Under terms of a consent order reached in August 2014, Dow will perform the work under EPA oversight (157 DEN A-11, 8/14/14).
The floodplain plan is part of a broad cleanup of contamination, the result of now-discontinued manufacturing processes at the century-old plant that extends along the river to the Saginaw Bay of Lake Huron.
-
ND saltwater Spill at Oil Well Contained
Feb 17, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Laura Barron-Lopez
A saltwater spill at a North Dakota oil well spill on Tuesday has been contained after leaking 21,000 gallons.
North Dakota's oil and gas division said the spill was at a site roughly 5 miles south of Fortuna, the Associated Press reports.
Roughly 500 barrel of saltwater, or brine, which is a byproduct of oil production, were contained and recovered.
-
Feb 17, 2015 | The National Law Review
By Reed W. Sirak
On January 22, 2015, US Environemental Protection Agency announced that it is proposing to amend the requirements governing the use of dispersants and other chemical and biological agents used in response to oil spills, which are contained in Subpart J of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The proposed amendments come as a result of US EPA’s experience with the authorized use of dispersants in connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in April 2010.
Subpart J concerns authorization of the use of products contained in the Schedule of Dispersants and other Chemicals to Treat Oil Spills (the Schedule) and specifies some of the conditions under which On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs) may authorize the use of dispersants. If approved in its current form, the proposal would significantly affect the testing, labeling and reporting requirements — as well as drastically reduce the amount of information that qualifies as confidential business information (CBI) — for manufacturers and users of chemical and biological agents. The Schedule is intended to aid Regional Response Teams and Area Committees as well as OSCs in determining whether to use a certain product in response to a given event. In order to list a product on the Schedule, Subpart J requires that product manufacturers submit a range of information about the product (which can be designated as CBI) to the US EPA. The listing of a product in the Schedule, however, does not mean that US EPA endorses the product for the use listed nor is the product recommended for use in response to a specific oil discharge. According to the US EPA, the use of chemical and biological agents in response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill helped establish their importance as a response tool; but the agency believes that more information concerning toxicity, efficacy, proper use and human health impacts is necessary so that the planning and response community is better equipped with the proper information to authorize the use of such products.
The new rule would strengthen the role of the Schedule by including meaningful testing requirements and authorized use procedures. To this end, the proposal would, among other things, require OSC approval before using any chemical or biological agent contained in the Schedule, prevent the use of products that have exceeded their expiration date unless certain retesting requirements are satisfied, require the responsible party to conduct additional monitoring associated with the use of dispersants, and require that products submitted to US EPA include a Safety Data Sheet, sample product label, and recommended use procedures. The proposal would also establish new toxicity and efficacy testing requirements.
As for CBI, the law currently provides that all information contained in the product package submission to US EPA may be designated as CBI and protected from public disclosure. This typically means that the chemical identity, chemical abstract number, concentration level of each chemical component contained in the product, and technical product data qualifies as CBI. If approved in its current form, the proposal would provide CBI protection only for concentration levels of chemical components, microbiological cultures, enzymes, and nutrients. All other information contained in the product package submission would be made available to the public. US EPA considered but decided against maintaining the current CBI approach. US EPA also considered other options, including making the component identity and concentration information available to the public in the event of a major discharge and allow manufacturers to waive CBI claims only for certain chemical components for monitoring purposes after a major discharge. While US EPA did not propose these options, it is requesting comment on them.
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Finalizes State Requirements For 2008 Ozone Standard
Feb 17, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Peterka
U.S. EPA has finalized long-awaited requirements for states with areas that exceed the 2008 national ozone limit.
Along with setting due dates for states to submit plans to address ground-level ozone pollution, the agency's final rule establishes control technologies for meeting the standard, emissions inventory requirements and processes for areas to demonstrate compliance.
The final rule also revokes the 1997 ozone standard for regulatory purposes but contains a number of "anti-backsliding" measures to ensure that the air quality in areas still in nonattainment with that standard does not get worse.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy signed the final rule Friday. It will go into effect upon publication in the Federal Register. In a fact sheet, EPA said that meeting the 2008 standard was a "shared responsibility" under the Clean Air Act and that it would provide states with assistance where needed.
The final rule "includes provisions that give the EPA's partners flexibility to minimize administrative burdens while still ensuring the public health protections achieved by meeting the 2008 ozone standards," the agency said.
In 2008, EPA tightened the standard for ozone -- a component of smog that's linked to reduced lung function -- to 75 parts per billion. Four years later, it named 46 areas of the country that do not meet the standard and, under the Clean Air Act, must develop state implementation plans, or SIPs, to reduce pollution levels.
The agency issued its proposed rule establishing requirements for meeting the standard in June 2013. While not specifically required by the Clean Air Act, the rule is meant to help states develop and put in place their plans.
EPA's final rule lays out several deadlines for state submissions depending on the severity of ozone pollution in a nonattainment area. It also establishes a 10-year time frame before the most severe nonattainment areas must begin putting in place Clean Air Act penalty fee programs for sources of ozone pollution.
The final rule adheres to the Clean Air Act's established deadlines, according to EPA. The agency had originally proposed to give states an option that would provide more time for some state submissions and less time for others, but EPA said it concluded that that approach -- which would give states more flexibility -- was not legal under the law.
The final rule also eliminates the 1997 ozone standard of 84 ppb for regulatory purposes.
The proposal to revoke the standard had gotten some pushback from public health advocates, which argued that EPA should continue to hold states with nonattainment areas under the 1997 standard to the requirements of the Clean Air Act.
"We don't think that's appropriate to revoke those standards," Paul Billings, senior vice president of advocacy and education at the American Lung Association, said last week. "We think that there are still benefits to be accrued to the breathers of the air, and the requirements that were established to help attain and maintain and comply with those standards should be in place."
EPA said that it included measures in its final rule, such as pollution thresholds for major sources, that will keep the air in those areas improving.
"These anti-backsliding measures will ensure that certain emission controls remain in place and air quality in the nonattainment areas does not get worse after the 1997 standard is revoked," EPA said, "while at the same time minimizing administrative and planning burdens associated with the transition to the more stringent 2008 standard."
EPA's final rule comes as the agency considers whether to tighten the ozone limit. In November, EPA proposed a new standard between 65 and 70 ppb based on science showing the 2008 standard was no longer adequate to protect public health (Greenwire, Nov. 26, 2014).
EPA said that it expected states' actions under the 2008 standard to help with a potentially tighter limit. The agency is expected to finalize its decision on the standard by an Oct. 1 court-ordered deadline.
"Implementation activities undertaken to meet the 2008 ozone [national ambient air quality standard] are expected to help many areas make progress toward meeting any future revised ozone standards," EPA said.
Industry groups have used the delay in issuing the final 2008 implementation rule as an argument for EPA to not tighten the standard. Some industry groups and GOP members of Congress have called on EPA to issue implementing guidance at the same time it issues a new air quality standard, rather than years later.
"It seems like we can make a pretty compelling case," Cal Dooley, president and CEO of the American Chemistry Council, said in a recent interview. "EPA should have the guidance and implementation rule finalized before moving forward with a further reduction."
EPA has maintained that the delay in issuing the implementation guidance would not hinder states, since they are already familiar with the general state implementation plan process from having to meet previous standards (Greenwire, Jan. 13).
-
Amid Surge in Seismicity, States Join Effort On Regulating Saltwater Disposal Wells
Feb 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Stinson
Faced with increased levels of seismic activity and ongoing concerns over potential links to hydraulic fracturing, a number of states are working together to develop a framework of best practices to regulate saltwater disposal wells, Oklahoma's top environmental official told Bloomberg BNA.
“We spent yesterday talking about induced seismicity and what regulatory framework we should put together—kind of best practices if you will—that the states could use to regulate Class IID injection wells [saltwater disposal wells] as part of a traffic light system,” said Oklahoma Secretary of Energy and Environment Michael Teague.
Speaking by phone from Austin, Texas, Teague offered the comments Feb. 10 following attendance at an underground injection control conference jointly hosted by the Groundwater Protection Council (GWPC) and the Interstate Oil & Gas Commission.
In addition, drawing on input from Ohio, Arkansas, Colorado and Texas officials, Teague said a “working group” is in the process of further evolving the currently used traffic light control system of well permitting protocols that would be applied to an instance of induced seismicity.
Taken from a 2012 recommendation from the National Academy of Sciences, under a green light, an operator would be free to inject fluids; under a red light, injection would be stopped to allow for further investigation. Yellow would allow low levels of seismicity but require additional monitoring and mitigation requirements, the academy said (148 DEN BB-1, 8/1/14).
Serving as something of a traffic light system blueprint or playbook of what needs to be done in terms of data collection, parameter building and public awareness campaigns, Teague said the “end stage” of the process will see the production of “a report that can be shared among the states on a regulatory traffic light system.”
System Used to Shut Two Wells
Highlighting a recent instance of the system's use, Teague pointed to the early February state-ordered shut-in of an Alfalfa County disposal well in Northern Oklahoma operated by SandRidge Energy Inc. following a 4.1 magnitude earthquake.
The order marked the second of its kind following the 2013 closure of a disposal well in Love County suspected of triggering a swarm of earthquakes.
Following a 1975-2008 era that saw 56 earthquakes of magnitude 3.0 or greater, Oklahoma registered an estimated 109 earthquakes in that category and more than 500 in 2014, according to Oklahoma Geological Survey data.
“Seismic activity from 2009–2014 far exceeds historic seismicity and, in a few cases, has been correlated to subsurface fluid injection in the midcontinent,” a report published Dec. 30 by the Oklahoma Geological Survey said.
-
Local Oil, Gas Drilling Restrictions Struck Down by Ohio Supreme Court
Feb 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bebe Raupe
State law supersedes home rule when it comes to oil and gas drilling, the Ohio Supreme Court said Feb. 17 in a case that could roll back local ordinances banning hydraulic fracturing (State v. Beck Energy Corp., Ohio, No. 2013-0465, 2/17/15).
In a 4-3 decision, the court said Munroe Falls' local drilling and zoning ordinances cannot be enforced because they conflict with state law (R.C. 1509.02) regulating oil and gas well operations.
Beck Energy Corp. received a state permit in 2011 to drill an oil and gas well on residential property in Munroe Falls, but the city obtained a court order stopping the project until the company complied with a local law that included obtaining municipal permits.
Ohio's Ninth District Court of Appeals reversed the decision, and the city appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court (39 DEN A-19, 2/27/14).
Justice Judith L. French (R), writing for the state supreme court majority, said home rule does not allow a municipality “to discriminate against, unfairly impede, or obstruct oil and gas activities” that are permitted by R.C. 1509.02, which she termed “general law.”
Justice William M. O'Neill (D), in a dissenting opinion, said the court's decision has taken local control of oil and gas drilling developments away from Ohio's citizens and given the drilling industry what its campaign contributions “bought and paid for.”
City Must Yield
Environmental advocacy groups have been awaiting the court's ruling. It is the first time the court has considered the question of whether state law supersedes local laws enacted under the home-rule amendment of the Ohio Constitution.
The majority opinion said home rule does not grant the city of Munroe Falls “power to enforce its own permitting scheme atop the state system.”
R.C. Chapter 1509 gives the state “sole and exclusive authority” to regulate the permitting, location and spacing of oil and gas wells in Ohio, French wrote.
Home rule gives municipalities the broadest possible powers of self-governance regarding matters that are strictly local and do not impinge upon matters of a statewide nature, she said, but the constitutional amendment doesn't allow cities to exercise police powers in a fashion that “conflict[s] with general laws” such as R.C. 1509.
French said a municipal ordinance must yield to a state statute if:
• it is an exercise of police power rather than local self-government,
• the state statute is a general law and
• the ordinance is in conflict with the statute.
“Under this three-step analysis, we conclude that the city's ordinances must yield to R.C. 1509.02,” she said.
‘Unfortunate' Ruling
Ohio Environmental Council attorney Nathan Johnson told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 17 that the plurality decision is “unfortunate” in that it does not definitively settle the state-versus-local authority issue.
As written, the opinion applies strictly to Munroe Falls, which tied zoning restrictions into city permitting, Johnson said.
“The decision is anticlimactic because it can't be applied more broadly,” he said. Munroe Falls could have zoned to keep drilling out, but the authority to permit wells belongs to the state, Johnson said, and the challenge failed on that count.
Justice Terrance O'Donnell (R), the swing vote in this case, concurred with the majority on the permit question but said it remains to be decided whether R.C. 1509.2 “wholly supplants” all local zoning ordinances. Johnson said that under slightly altered circumstances, O'Donnell might have sided with a different majority.
Johnson said the court failed to address another issue that environmentalists were hoping to see clarified: whether municipalities can pass ordinances assessing fees on drillers to cover the costs of any damages. Ohio has case law from the 1980s establishing this can be done in hazardous waste situations, he said, but with drilling it is uncertain.
Statewide Interest
Shawn Bennett, executive vice president of the Ohio Oil & Gas Association, told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 17 he commends the ruling for upholding state law concerning extractive activities.
“We strongly believe that oil and gas development is a matter of statewide interest and should be managed by professionals with the expertise to adequately regulate and oversee the industry,” said Bennett.
Tish O'Dell, Ohio organizer for the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 17 the decision adds to the “mounting evidence that the people of Ohio do not live in a democracy and are not free to determine what corporate projects can come into their communities.”
While critical of the court, she praised O'Neill's dissent in which he said of the majority opinion, “The oil and gas industry has gotten its way, and local control of drilling-location decisions has been unceremoniously taken away from the citizens of Ohio.”
-
Resuming Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling in the Atlantic
Feb 18, 2015 | The New York Times - A Room for Debate
By Rob Wittman, Richard Lazarus, Sierra Weaver, and Randall Luthi
Introduction
Despite a record slump in oil prices, the Obama administration moved last month to open up a stretch of the Atlantic, from the Virginia to Georgia, to offshore drilling exploration. The government plans to sell leases in federal waters there, and in new portions of the Gulf of Mexico, but limit drilling off the coast of Alaska.
Should off-shore drilling be increased for long-term needs, or do low prices show we have enough oil already? Are the environmental risks too great?
A Long-Term Need for Oil Can Be Safely Met
Rob Wittman is a Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives from the state of Virginia.
To view the Obama administration’s proposal to allow energy exploration off the Atlantic coast solely in light of the current price of oil is to miss the long-term strategic value of safely, and effectively, harnessing our domestic resources.
Global energy demands are expected to rise in the future, making it all the more risky for the U.S. to depend on the unstable Middle East for a significant portion of its energy supply. At the same time, the administration is unlikely to sell a drilling lease before 2021, so we could be a decade away from actual production in the Atlantic. While drastic fluctuations in the price of crude oil are certainly noteworthy, they should not preclude the safe, purposeful development of our existing resources.
But long-term forecasts and future uncertainties necessitate a thoughtful, all-inclusive approach to domestic energy policy.
The value of developing alternative energy sources, such as wind and solar, certainly cannot be overstated, and we must increasingly harness these resources. However, we cannot ignore that fossil fuels — including natural gas, a significant supply of which is expected to be found in Virginia's offshore reserves — will remain the dominant source of energy for years to come. For the foreseeable future, our citizens and industries will rely largely on fossil fuels, and we must encourage responsible exploration and development of our domestic supplies in order to satisfy this need even as we cultivate alternative energy sources.
I fully believe that this can be done safely. A biologist by training, I’ve spent the bulk of my adult life as a public health specialist dealing specifically with marine ecosystems. I understand that diverse natural habitats — plant, animal and human — depend on the health of the ecosystem off the Atlantic coast, and I care deeply about protecting its long-term health and sustainability. One of my proudest moments in public office was getting my bipartisan bill to improve cleanup efforts in the Chesapeake Bay — the largest estuary in the U.S. — signed into law last year.Advanced safety measures should be applied to any energy extraction efforts in the America. I – along with a Democratic White House and a bipartisan majority of Virginia’s congressional delegation – would not support the idea if I doubted our ability to put environmental safeguards in place.
Public discourse is at frequent risk of distraction by short-sighted, reactionary impulses that overshadow the long-term solutions our nation needs. While drastic fluctuations in the price of crude oil are certainly noteworthy, they should not, by themselves, preclude the safe, purposeful development of our existing resources. Responsible energy exploration off the Atlantic coast will help to reinforce the lasting stability of our energy supply and strengthen U.S. economic competitiveness for years to come.No Safety Net
Richard Lazarus, the Howard J. and Katherine W. Aibel professor of law at Harvard University, was the executive director of the presidential commission responsible for identifying the root causes of the 2010 Gulf oil spill.
The President’s decision to open up the Atlantic coast to offshore drilling exploration is a clear expression of his “all-of-the-above" energy strategy. It is also a clear exercise of political horse-trading. No doubt the President hoped to take the sting out of his decision to eliminate drilling off of parts of Alaska by offering parts of the Mid- and South-Atlantic, which have been closed since 1990, in return.
In April 2010, in a similar political gambit, the President courted conservative support for his then-pending climate bill by proposing to open the Atlantic coast for drilling. Anticipating environmental opposition, the President confidently asserted that “oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills.” Congress has failed to enact a single statute increasing safety in offshore drilling in response to the huge regulatory gaps revealed by Deepwater Horizon.
It proved an unfortunate choice of words. Within the next three weeks, the nation witnessed a catastrophic well blowout off the Louisiana coast — the nation’s worst oil spill ever — and the administration soon thereafter suspended its Atlantic drilling proposal. Over three million barrels of oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico. The economic cost was in the tens of billions of dollars; the potentially massive environmental cost will take years to assess. And in the 87 often chaotic days before the well was capped, the public learned that no one had adequately guarded against a deepwater well blowout or had the resources readily available to cap the well and contain the spill, despite longstanding claims by the government and industry to the contrary.
And it is that final lesson from the 2010 Gulf spill that makes it hard not to be a bit skeptical of the President’s latest proposal. Offshore drilling can be safely done when subject to a rigorous safety regime. But, Congress has failed to enact a single statute increasing safety in response to the huge regulatory gaps revealed in 2010. Not a single one.
So why take the risk in the Atlantic? Domestic production today is 58 percent greater than in March 2010, thanks to an explosion of onshore domestic production that has caused oil prices to plummet. Our dependence on foreign oil is at a 20-year low.
An Atlantic quid for an Alaskan quo may sound good to the President’s political advisors, but it still falls far short on the merits, especially when it undercuts the President’s own otherwise commendable climate policies. The
Environmental Threat of Atlantic Drilling Is Too Great
Sierra Weaver is a senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center.
The administration’s proposal to open the Mid- and South Atlantic to risky offshore drilling for the first time in 30 years doesn’t add up. For those who love the region —our seafood, our stretches of white sand beaches, our close-knit coastal communities — the risk is far too great for the questionable benefits given how little oil is estimated to be off the Southeastern coast. Almost five years after the oil spill that devastated the Gulf Coast, many families and communities are still feeling its effects.
So why is the proposal being pushed, especially now when oil prices are so low? It may be the oil and gas industry’s ties to Southern governors, who have been pushing for leasing off their states. Others suggest that opening the Atlantic may be a tradeoff for preserving the Arctic. Whatever the political calculus, it’s clear the formula was flawed.
It certainly doesn’t make environmental sense. Almost five years after the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill that devastated the Gulf Coast, many families and communities are still feeling its effects. Oil still lurks beneath the surface of the water, its effects lingering on the fish and dolphins struggling to live and reproduce in the Gulf of Mexico. Tar still washes up on the shore.
But it also doesn’t make economic sense given the billion-dollar coastal economies in the Southeast that depend on clean water and beaches. By the government’s own estimates, ocean-dependent tourism in the mid- and South Atlantic contributes $6.5 billion and $4.4 billion annually to coastal communities. Recreational fishing alone generates $3.5 billion in the Mid-Atlantic and $1.3 billion in the South Atlantic. A single spill would threaten the economic livelihood of thousands.
The administration stated that the Arctic is “too special a place” for offshore drilling. Those who live, work, and vacation on our Southern shores bristle at the suggestion that places like Charleston, the Outer Banks, Chesapeake Bay, and countless other coastal treasures are expendable.
Washington must not prioritize outside oil and gas interests over the health, safety, and well-being of life along the Atlantic coasts and in our communities.
America Needs the Oil Under the Atlantic
Randall Luthi is the president of the National Ocean Industries Association.
America is in the midst of an economic boom and a manufacturing renaissance because it has developed new domestic oil and gas resources. However, some argue that with oil prices so low, it makes no sense to pursue offshore Atlantic oil and natural gas. Even in the face of low prices, exploration and production companies plan for the long term, and for good reason. The oil and gas business is cyclical, and the price of oil will rise again as the market continues its natural cycles. Also, offshore production doesn’t happen overnight; it can take 8-10 years on average from the time a company acquires a lease until first production is achieved. Even in the face of low prices, exploration and production companies plan for the long term, and for good reason.
It has been estimated that by 2035, Atlantic offshore exploration and development could add $23.5 billion to the U.S. economy, create 280,000 jobs, generate $51 billion in state and federal revenue and produce an additional 1.3 million barrels of oil equivalent per day.
The proposed Atlantic lease sale is part of a process that has been in place for over 50 years and has generated billions of dollars in revenue for the federal treasury and for localities across the country. That this issue has garnered significant public and political support in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia should speak to its value.
About 85 percent of our offshore areas, including the Atlantic, have been locked away and unexplored for decades . The potential for increased economic and energy opportunities make all new U.S. production potential worth considering. Other countries like Canada, Mexico, Norway, Brazil and even Ghana are moving ahead with the exploration and development of new offshore areas, while the U.S. is falling behind. -
ConocoPhillips Receives Federal Approval For Oil Production From NPR-Alaska Site
Feb 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
A plan to start the first production of oil from the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska has received its final federal stamp of approval, but a ConocoPhillips Co. spokeswoman said Feb. 17 the timing of a final decision by the company to start drilling is uncertain.
The Bureau of Land Management issued a Record of Decision Feb. 13 as the last regulatory step for the Greater Mooses Tooth 1 (GMT1) project. It contained some changes from the preferred alternative plan that the BLM proposed Oct. 29.
ConocoPhillips still must decide whether it can afford the project and, if so, how to proceed.
“The project is challenged by permitting delays and requirements, as well as the current oil price environment. In 2015, we will continue to shoot seismic over the GMT1 area,” the ConocoPhillips spokeswoman said. Seismic surveys provide maps of the subsurface.
“The original project schedule is no longer feasible due to the extended permitting timeline. We do not have a specific time frame for a project sanction decision,” she said.
BLM Requirements Changed
The BLM said the Record of Decision settled on an alternative that would cause the least environmental harm.
“This plan will provide for up to 33 development and injection wells on a single well pad,” the agency said. “The BLM's decision incorporates a robust package of mitigation requirements, including an $8 million contribution from ConocoPhillips, Alaska, Inc., into a compensatory mitigation fund. The ROD also requires implementation of a suite of best management practices to avoid or minimize project impacts.”
The compensatory mitigation fund is one of the changes from the Oct. 29 final supplemental environmental impact statement. The final SEIS only said the BLM might require such a fund, which would finance offsite mitigation in cases where environmental impacts can't be offset by avoidance and minimization strategies.
The Record of Decision required the fund and established the $8 million price tag.
The provisions in the Record of Decision that differ from the final SEIS were summarized by the BLM as “minor modifications.” They included such provisions as the possibility of altering technical standards for a section of pipe crossing a river on a bridge.
-
Funding Dries up for New U.S. Gas Export Terminals
Feb 17, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Tim Puko
Look for financing to slow down for U.S. natural gas exports this year.
This burgeoning industry is running out of customers and investors to fund new multibillion-dollar projects, according to panelists who spoke Tuesday at a New York University symposium on U.S. gas exports. Oil and gas producers are flooding the market, sinking prices and giving pause for what had been one of the most active sectors in finance.
The U.S. shale-gas boom has pushed producers to look abroad to boost their returns. Prices in overseas markets, especially Asia, have been four times as high as the U.S. benchmark. That convinced producers to seek federal permission to export as much as 35 billion cubic feet a day, half of all U.S. production, according to the Department of Energy.
It has fully approved five projects. Three are under construction with Cheniere Energy Partners LP’s Sabine Pass terminal on pace to send out the first shipments later this year. But 28 others still wait in line, said Robert Fee, a senior advisor and fossil-fuel expert at the department. Their path to construction depends as much on international competition as it does on domestic policy.
“It’s almost for sure that not all of these projects are going to be built,” Mr. Fee said.
These terminals work by chilling gas into a liquid, to minus-256-degrees Fahrenheit, so it fits in ships that deliver all over the world. It is called liquefied natural gas, or LNG, and the global market is currently at about 33 bcf a day, said Anthony Yuen, analyst at Citigroup Inc. It might grow by more than a third in the next five years, he added.
Projects in Australia, Africa and the Middle East have grown up to supply growing demand in Europe and Asia. And when a mild summer cut the global demand for gas, followed by the collapse in oil prices, liquefied natural gas plummeted, too, falling about 50% to lower than $10/mmBtu.
It costs several billion dollars to build every terminal, requiring more fundraising than anything that came before it in the world of financing, said Jean-Pierre Boudrais, a vice president and head of project finance at Goldman Sachs Group. New projects require a lot of belief that prices will rise, short to come by right now.
Big international buyers don’t feel pressure to sign more long-term contracts. The national utility companies that wanted them have already signed, Mr. Boudrais said. Without more committed buyers, financiers won’t step in. They don’t want to take the risk that prices can rise enough to support a profitable spot market.
“There’s going to be a lot of LNG floating out there,” Mr. Boudrais said at a panel moderated by WSJ.
Global majors, with integrated production and sales businesses, may be bullish enough to keep funding their own projects that have about a 10-year development cycle, the panelists said. But U.S. projects currently on the drawing board are likely to slow until the commodity market shows more promise, they added.
Of course, energy markets can swing quickly, and buyers may return soon.
“Their [contracts] might come in 2016,” said Eric Silverman, who co-chairs the project finance group at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP.
-
EPA Open to Interim Goal Changes In Final Power Plant Rules, McCarthy Says
Feb 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The Environmental Protection Agency remains open to modifying interim targets for reducing carbon emissions under final rules for existing power plants but believes interim goals are necessary to ensure states get on a path to meeting their long-term goals, Administrator Gina McCarthy said Feb. 17.
McCarthy, speaking at the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners winter meeting, said the EPA is looking “very closely” at comments from a number of states expressing concerns the interim goals are too aggressive and could compromise the flexibility sought for states in the Clean Air Act regulation (RIN 2060-AR33).
“While states can craft their own glide path, we want to make sure they hit the targets that we need and they're going to be effective strategies,” McCathy said. “We clearly need to make sure there is trajectory towards a goal that is as far away as 2030 and that there is an ability to ensure that states are actively working and on a trajectory to achieve that final goal.”
McCarthy said the agency intends to finalize its new source performance standards for existing power plants under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act by mid-summer, but she cautioned, “I will not squander the opportunity to get it done right because I've talked about a specific date.”
The EPA's proposal, released in June 2014 (79 Fed. Reg. 34,830), would set state-specific goals for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. The proposal includes interim emissions rate targets to be met between 2020 and 2029 and a final goal for each state that applies beginning in 2030.
According to the EPA, the proposed standards could reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030.
On Jan. 7, the EPA announced it would delay its time frame for finalizing carbon pollution regulations for new, existing and modified/reconstructed power plants to mid-summer. The agency now plans to finalize those rules at the same time due to “cross-cutting topics” raised in public comments (5 DEN A-1, 1/8/15).
Affordability, Reliability Remain Key Pillars
McCarthy said the two main pillars driving the regulation are maintaining affordable and reliable electricity while preserving flexibility for states to craft their own approaches to meet goals.
The EPA continues to solicit comments and engage in dialogue with a variety of groups on the rule for existing power plants, which she describes as in the “awkward,” “teenage” stage that occurs “in between our baby proposal and adult final.”
Asked specifically about how nuclear energy would be treated under the rules, McCarthy said the agency sought to ensure the greatest possible carbon reductions without excluding any energy sources.
“What we tried to do in my world was to look at where the opportunities were for carbon pollution and lay open a number of strategies that would allow all types of power to compete,” McCarthy said. “There was no intent to exclude any, including nuclear. EPA is not going to tip our hand on the scale. That's not my job.”
Close Attention to Notice
McCarthy said the agency is paying attention to comments submitted on an October 2014 notice of data availability on issues raised by state and industry groups on the proposed rule.
Among the issues included in that notice were how to allow states to take credit for early actions to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, the possibility of setting a multiyear baseline for state emissions rates and how to expand use of natural gas-fired power plants (209 DEN A-1, 10/29/14).
A number of states have expressed concern with the EPA's approach in the proposed rule because it would require states to reduce the bulk of their emissions early, leaving limited flexibility for how to achieve later reductions.
“We'll try to be a lot more specific in the final rule, so states can develop their final plans with the certainty they're looking for,” McCarthy said.
-
Cost, Legality, Feasibility of Clean Power Plan Are Key Concerns for State Utility Regulators
Feb 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan exceeds the agency's statutory authority, fails to account for existing state efforts to reduce carbon emissions, includes goals that are not achievable and will result in unaffordable electricity prices, several state utility commissioners said Feb. 17.
Commissioners from Wyoming, Texas, Arkansas and Wisconsin, in particular, said interim carbon dioxide emissions targets are far too aggressive and said the proposed regulations would not give many states enough time to implement reduction strategies.
“The times are too compressed for planning,” Ted Thomas, chairman of the Arkansas Public Service Commission, said at the winter meeting of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. “They're too compressed for interim goals. They're too compressed for everything in my view.”
Janet McCabe, the EPA's acting assistant administrator for air and radiation, acknowledged that concerns about the time frames for meeting emissions reduction targets was the most common concern the agency was hearing on the rule and said adjusting the deadlines is “very, very much on the table.”
EPA's proposed rules for existing power plants (RIN 2060-AR33), expected to be finalized in mid-summer, would set state-specific goals for reducing dioxide emissions from existing power plants. Once fully implemented, the EPA expects the standards will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030.
Earlier Feb. 17, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told the conference she remains open to adjusting the interim state-specific goals in the final proposal and planned to “very closely” consider public comments on its June 2014 proposed rule (see related story).
‘Already in Full Litigation Mode.'
In its proposed rule, the EPA identified four “building blocks” states could use to comply with the standards: improvements to the heat rates to individual power plants, transitioning from coal plants to more efficient gas-fired units, investments in renewable energy and investments in programs to reduce electricity demand.
All of those building blocks come from questionable legal authority and will not be acceptable to many of those states, according to several of the commissioners.
“We're already in full litigation mode with EPA,” Alan Minier, commissioner of the Wyoming Public Service Commission, said. “I think it's pretty clear this is not workable for us.”
Minier said the consequences of the program could be “disastrous,” could wreck “the economy for the next two generations” and said the Clean Power Plan showed signs of not properly being thought out.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and other senior agency officials have said all states are engaged in the Clean Power Plan and have expressed confidence almost all states would ultimately submit their own implementation plans.
Kenneth Anderson, commissioner on the Public Utility Commission of Texas, said the threat of lawsuits associated with a state implementation plans and “unobtainable” interim reduction targets might leave his state “with no other option than to just say no.”
More Time Needed
Ellen Nowak, a member of the Wisconsin Public Service Commission, said the timelines for states to submit their implementation plans were too short and should be relaxed to allow states adequate time to develop carbon reduction strategies.
“If this is the goal we have to get, let's be methodical and get it right rather than get it done quickly,” Nowak said. “There needs to be respect for state laws and state processes if you want us to be thoughtful.”
Nowak repeatedly said discussion of compliance is premature because the overall plan exceeds the EPA's legal authority and would be vulnerable to legal challenge.
Multiple regulators said the agency's proposed rule failed to consider actions already taken to reduce emissions and urged the EPA to change the baseline year to incorporate those earlier actions.
Several Plan Supporters
At least two state commissioners—Carla Peterman of the California Public Utilities Commission and Kelly Speakes-Backman of the Maryland Public Service Commission—voiced strong support for the proposal and said the EPA is leaving potential emissions reductions on the table.
Both Peterman and Speakes-Backman said regional cooperation on carbon reduction strategies has been effective and said doing so would allow for cost-effective approaches to be deployed.
Peterman said some adjustments to the timing of certain goals could be necessary but added that the EPA “should not weaken the targets” and called the proposed rule the “right approach” for addressing carbon emissions.
-
State Regulators Sharply Criticize Clean Power Plan
Feb 17, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jean Chemnick
When it comes to U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, Texas' best bet might be to "just say no," its regulatory utility commissioner said today.
EPA would have to provide substantial new "relief" in its final version of the rule for existing power plants in order to give Texas confidence that complying would be a good idea, Commissioner Kenneth Anderson told the winter meeting of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners.
That's true, he said, even despite EPA's announcement last month that it would craft a federal implementation plan for the rule.
"You may be leaving us no option down the road other than simply saying 'no' and letting the feds implement their own plan, because initial analysis is that it can't be any worse," Anderson told a panel that included EPA acting air chief Janet McCabe.
E&E's Power Plan Hub keeps you up to date on the latest national and state-level developments on EPA's greenhouse gas regulations for the power sector. Go to E&E's Power Plan Hub.
The Lone Star State's booming gas and wind industries have led EPA to assign it a hefty requirement under the rule to slash its utility-sector emissions by 40 percent by 2030. That compares with a national average of 30 percent by the same year.
"Not only have we not gotten any credit for all we have accomplished in the last decade, but we're actually being penalized," Anderson said.
Much of Texas' requirement would phase in starting in 2020, because EPA's draft assumes that states can cut emissions by moving from coal to gas quickly. But Anderson said the switch would require the permitting, siting and construction of new infrastructure, which he said could not be brought online in the time frame EPA envisions.
EPA has hinted that it is eyeing changes to the interim compliance period. But Anderson said the agency must scrap it altogether and allow states to focus solely on the final 2030 requirement.
"Basically, if it is not eliminated, then Texas is left with no other option than 'just say no,'" he said.
Texas is also concerned, he said, about the prospect of submitting a state implementation plan to EPA based on state policies that would then make those policies federally enforceable. That's particularly troubling, he said, because environmental groups would be likely to sue the agency to enforce plans.
"We won't turn our energy efficiency plan over to the Sierra Club," he said.
The final rule must have some mechanism to allow states to modify their plans or states might choose the federal implementation plan route, he said.
Texas has some experience with FIPs. It was the only state that ultimately refused to implement EPA's permitting requirement for very large stationary sources of carbon dioxide after 2010, leading the federal agency to take responsibility for those permits. That caused a paperwork backlog that finally spurred state lawmakers to reverse course last year and allow the state agency to begin issuing those permits.
But some Texas policymakers and former policymakers have said the Clean Power Plan might be different. This time, the courts might intervene. And even if they preserve EPA's authority to regulate power-sector greenhouse gas emissions, federal plans may be limited to what plants can do onsite -- a much narrower mandate than the current draft rule envisions.
Anderson spoke on a panel with six other state commissioners from regions with widely different views about the draft rule, which is due to be finalized by midsummer.
Ellen Nowak of Wisconsin took aim at all four of the "building blocks" that EPA used in assessing state responsibility under the rule.
"We don't think the EPA has constructed a [best system of emissions reduction]," she said.
Nowak and others argued that each of the building blocks is unachievable on its own and competes with the others. For example, Building Block 1 envisions that coal-fired power plants will improve their heat rates, deriving more emissions savings than commissioners said were actually available at plants. But Building Block 2 assumes utilities can then use their coal plants less by running their gas plants at 70 percent capacity.
Alan Minier of Wyoming said his energy-producing state was doing everything it could to block the rule.
Wyoming exports most of its wind power and relies on its robust in-state coal development industry, he said.
"So it should be no surprise to anyone that we are already in full litigation mode with EPA," he said, referring to a suit filed last August with 11 other coal-heavy states.
But Minier also cited some inconsistencies he saw in the way the draft was constructed. For example, the draft assigns credit for renewable energy to the states that use them -- generally as a result of a state renewable power mandate -- rather than the state that produces the power.
The proposal might pit states against each other, with producers and clients each arguing that they should get credit at the other state's expense, he said. "You're driving people apart," he said.
He suggested that both states should get some credit for renewable assets in the short term.
Several of the commissioners also made a pitch for more time, not only to comply with the rule but to construct state strategies and enact the policies that would support them.
The commissioners from California and Maryland, meanwhile, told McCabe that the draft rule was generally well-constructed and may even leave room for tougher targets. But they asked that EPA provide credit to states that moved early to control emissions.
Kelly Speakes-Backman, the Maryland commissioner who also leads the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), said EPA should provide better information about how a mass-based reduction would be assigned.
She also suggested that EPA borrow RGGI's approach to the near-term targets, requiring "check-ins" in the early years to ensure that states are staying the course on reductions.
Speaking on a panel immediately following the state commissioners, McCabe and Federal Energy Regulatory Commissioner Philip Moeller acknowledged that the rule would be challenging.
"Some steps will be taken, and those will be hard and challenging," McCabe said. "There will be disagreements and discussions along the way."
McCabe, who once served as a regulator in Indiana, said EPA was aware that "things change over time." The rule would allow states to tweak plans in the face of unforeseen circumstances, she said.
Moeller said the rule must build in some form of safety valve to preserve reliability if a particular unit is needed. This is especially the case, he said, as state plans will be subject to litigation and may take years to come online.
"It's EPA's rule, so it would have to be their idea as to how it would be constructed," Moeller said following the panel. But he said that any safety provision would need to be "transparent and open," allowing opportunity for public debate.
EPA has said that states can craft plans that will safeguard reliability. Increased use of lower-carbon energy and energy efficiency will offset fossil fuel power plant retirements, it says. But Moeller said there could be temporary emergencies in a variety of states where plants may need to remain in use to provide other aspects of grid reliability, and the rule must provide for that.
-
McCarthy Offers 'Big Hint' On Weakening Interim GHG Targets In ESPS
Feb 17, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Lee Logan
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy is strongly suggesting that the agency will weaken the controversial interim greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets in its pending rule for existing power plants, noting there is “a lot of concern” that overly strict early goals would undermine EPA’s oft-heralded pledge of compliance flexibility.
McCarthy told a Feb. 17 meeting of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) that the interim goals were of “particular” concern to a range of stakeholders worried about grid reliability and affordability.
Several states, she said, were concerned that the interim goals that begin in 2020 and require significant early reductions in many states “could frustrate EPA’s intention [to give] states and utilities the flexibility that they need to make this work for them.”
“Flexibility is the key to this proposal,” she added. “Flexibility means affordability and it means reliability. . . . I think I gave you a pretty big hint that the dialogue and comments we’ve received have been enormously useful.”
McCarthy’s remarks are the most explicit -- and highest level -- recognition to date from EPA that it is likely to weaken the interim targets. Most recently, acting EPA air chief Janet McCabe told a Senate environment committee hearing that EPA is “looking very, very hard” at the interim goals in response to “anxiety” from stakeholders.
State utility regulators who have pushed for softer interim goals welcomed McCarthy’s remarks. “What I took away from what she said is that she’s heard our concerns, they recognize that it’s a substantial concern, but that the ultimate goal is 2030,” said Missouri Public Service Commission Chairman Robert Kenney. “It seems to me that if states can demonstrate that they’re getting there, then the interim goal becomes a little less important.”
Kenney added that, “it sounded to me like EPA is persuaded by . . . and recognizes the reasonableness of some of our comments, and is going to make efforts to incorporate them into the final rule.”
Under the proposed existing source performance standards (ESPS), states must not only meet a final 2030 GHG target, but also an interim limit on an average basis between 2020 and 2029. Critics have charged that the interim goals create a compliance “cliff” in many states by requiring substantial cuts early in the compliance period, and have urged EPA to drop the interim targets and allow states to simply meet final targets in 2030.
But environmentalists have pushed back on the notion that the interim limits should be weakened to create a smoother “glide path” toward the 2030 limits, warning that doing so could reduce the cumulative GHG cuts that are required under the rule.
Speaking at a Jan. 29 event in response to a utility industry proposal to eliminate the interim limits and replace them with “milestones” to ensure states have a direct line of emission reductions to their 2030 targets, Natural Resources Defense Council’s (NRDC) Derek Murrow said the idea would “significantly weaken the rule.” Instead, Murrow urged EPA to strengthen states’ targets in the later years of the program, while also addressing what many “early action” states have decried as unequal state goals.
NRDC's David Doniger in a Feb. 14 blog post also downplayed McCabe's recent comments, saying she and McCarthy have been “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.”
Asked about McCarthy's NARUC remarks, Doniger says NRDC in its comments recommended “changes to address many of the issues states and others are raising, including the concerns (sometimes founded, sometimes not) that states are expressing about their targets. These concerns can be addressed in a way that achieves greater emission reductions overall” between 2020 and 2030.
McCarthy signaled to the NARUC meeting that the agency is likely to retain some form of the interim limits, arguing that, “We clearly need to make sure that there is trajectory towards a goal that’s as far away as 2030, and there is an ability to ensure that states are actively working and going to be on a trajectory to achieve that final goal.”
'Opening' Negotiation
Raymond Gifford, a former Colorado utility regulator who is now an attorney with Wilkinson Barker Knauer, says McCarthy's comments, as well as a recent white paper from the Missouri-based coal utility Ameren Corp. that suggests dropping the interim targets and easing the final targets, are an “opening bid in a negotiation” between EPA and the power sector.
Gifford says the Ameren proposal shows that utilities beyond those like Exelon Corp. -- with cleaner generating portfolios -- are now willing to engage in a discussion of how to make the proposed rule more palatable to the industry. “What I've taken away from these past few days is that more utilities than just Exelon are willing to talk deal,” he says.
But Gifford adds that states still face institutional hurdles to comply with EPA's rule, including that air regulators often lack authority to implement many of the beyond-the-fence reduction strategies that are largely the purview of state utility commissions. As such, most states will need to pass legislation in order to comply, he says.
The administrator also said that “one of the good things” from the nearly 4 million comments on the ESPS is that there were “very few real comments about the final goal. It really is a question of how quickly to get there, and whether or not the flexibility is available to every state equally to get there.” McCarthy twice mentioned EPA’s October notice of data ability that offered two methods to ease compliance with the interim targets: phasing in the portion of state goals tied to increased use of existing gas plants instead of assuming it can happen quickly, and also allowing states to use pre-2020 actions for compliance.
-
EPA Finalizes Implementation Requirements for 2008 Ozone Standards
Feb 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency finalized requirements for implementing the 2008 national ambient air quality standards for ozone, just under seven years after the current standards of 75 parts per billion were set in March 2008.
The final rule (RIN 2060-AR34), signed Feb. 13 by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, includes various requirements for nonattainment area state implementation plans, including new attainment deadlines and requirements for how states must demonstrate attainment with the standards.
The agency also provided states with guidance on new source review permitting, revoked the 1997 ozone standards for all purposes and set anti-backsliding measures for areas that still don't meet the 1997 ozone standards.
The agency has been criticized over the past year by members of Congress, state regulators and industry groups for how long it has taken the agency to develop an implementation rule for the ozone standards.
The National Association of Clean Air Agencies and the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management in January both requested that if the agency revises the ozone standards later this year, the agency should propose an implementation rule at the same time. The implementation rule for the 2008 ozone standards wasn't proposed until June 2013.
The EPA said that if the current 2008 ozone standards are revised in the future, the implementation rule will “help facilitate implementation” of the new standards. The agency, which is under a court-ordered deadline of Oct. 1 to revise or retain the ozone standards, has proposed to revise the standards to somewhere in the range of 65 ppb to 70 ppb.
Representatives from the National Association of Clean Air Agencies and the Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies were unavailable to comment on the implementation rule on Feb. 17.
Attainment Deadlines Set
The EPA used the ozone implementation rule to “provide clarity to states” in light of a December decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on attainment deadlines (NRDC v. EPA, 2014 BL 361062, D.C. Cir., No. 12-1321, 12/23/14; 247 DEN A-1, 12/26/14).
The court found that the EPA didn't have the statutory authority to extend the compliance period for the 2008 ozone standards and vacated the agency's decision to start the compliance period on Dec. 31, 2012.
In the implementation rule, the EPA established attainment dates based on the effective date of nonattainment designations, which is July 20, 2012. The agency said that the D.C. Circuit's decision “strongly indicates” that basing the attainment dates on the effective date of nonattainment designations is “the only approach that is consistent with Congressional intent.”
Marginal Areas Face July Deadline
Under the new deadlines included in the implementation rule, marginal nonattainment areas will have to demonstrate compliance by July 20, 2015, while moderate areas will have until July 20, 2018.
State air officials told Bloomberg BNA in January that this shift in compliance deadlines will effectively give nonattainment areas one year less than originally expected because states won't be able to use data from the summer of 2015 to demonstrate compliance (06 DEN A-4, 1/9/15).
The agency did establish a process by which a nonattainment area could receive an extension of its attainment date.
Nonattainment areas that fail to meet the standard by its attainment date will be eligible for a one-year extension if the area's fourth-highest daily maximum eight-hour average concentration of ozone for the attainment year is at or below the 75 ppb standard.
Areas also can qualify for a second one-year extension if the area's fourth-highest daily maximum eight-hour concentration, averaged over the original attainment year and the year of the first extension, is at or below the 75 ppb standard.
Attainment with the 2008 ozone standards is based on a three-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum eight-hour ozone level in each year.
1997 Standards Revoked
The EPA decided to revoke the 1997 ozone standards, which were less stringent than the 2008 standards, for all purposes. That will ensure that only one national standard, the more protective 2008 standards, will apply, rather than having two concurrent standards.
Areas that were designated as not being in attainment of the revoked 1997 standards, as well as the current 2008 standards, will be subject to anti-backsliding requirements that the EPA said will “ensure continued momentum” in state clean air programs.
Those anti-backsliding measures include more-stringent new source review permitting requirements for new and modified industrial facilities in nonattainment areas, enhanced monitoring requirements and fee collection requirements under Section 185 of the Clean Air Act.
-
U.S. EPA Chief Hints at Softening Carbon Rule Interim Timeline
Feb 17, 2015 | Reuters
By Valerie Volcovici
The Environmental Protection Agency said on Tuesday that it may ease an interim deadline for states to meet tougher carbon emission standards after regulators and electric utilities complained a lack of time may destabilize electricity supplies.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told an audience of state utility regulators meeting in Washington that she was giving them a "big hint" the agency may loosen the interim targets set in its proposed rule for existing power plants, under which each state would need to show an assigned average emission reduction between 2020 and 2029.
The proposal, due to be finalized by mid-summer, is the centerpiece of the Obama administration's climate change strategy. Its Clean Power Plan envisions a 30 percent carbon emissions cut from the power sector by 2030, with each state meeting an EPA-assigned carbon reduction goal.
McCarthy said the agency did not hear much concern in public comments about the final 2030 goal, but was flooded with fears about the pace at which states and utilities would need to get there.
Janet McCabe, assistant administrator for air and radiation at the EPA, confirmed later in the day that the EPA may revisit the timeline, noting a change in the interim target "was very much on the table."
Members of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners pressed their concerns with McCarthy and McCabe in Washington on Tuesday.
Last week, St. Louis-based utility Ameren flagged concerns about the interim target and proposed ways for the EPA to achieve the same goals of its proposed rule without burdening coal-dependent states like Missouri.
The utility suggested the EPA scrap the interim targets and let states develop "individually tailored glide paths" that they can detail in reports to the EPA before 2030.
"The interim targets impede the flexibility of states to carry out EPA's objectives in a cost-effective manner while jeopardizing the reliability of the electricity supply," Ameren said.
-
EPA Considers Delaying Carbon Deadline After Utilities Object
Feb 17, 2015 | Bloomberg
By Mark Drajem
The Obama administration may ease off on a deadline for power companies to start meeting new rules to cut carbon emissions, the top environmental regulator said, a win for utilities that complained too much was required too soon.
Gina McCarthy, the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, offered Tuesday what she said was a “big hint,” saying she heard complaints that the 2020 deadline for states to make steep cuts is too strict. The final climate standards take effect in 2030, and many state regulators said the pace could endanger the reliability of the electric grid.
“I have heard very few real comments about the final goal; it’s really a question about how quickly you get there,” McCarthy said at a conference of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners in Washington. “We want the states to have flexibility to explore options.”
The EPA’s first standards for fossil-fuel power plants, the top source of the emissions blamed for global warming, drew fire from utilities. The plan, which seeks a 30 percent cut in emissions during a quarter century ending in 2030, is the centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s effort to combat global warming. State Cuts
The proposal, issued last year, sets specific cuts each state must achieve, based on a formula that takes into account the amount of available coal power that can be switched to natural gas, and estimates of growth in renewable energy and energy efficiency.
The EPA estimated the switch to natural gas could kick in by 2020, meaning a cut of emissions by 26 percent from 2005 could be reached by then. The final goal of 30 percent would come a decade later.
McCarthy said the EPA is unwilling to eliminate interim benchmarks altogether because the agency wants to ensure states are on a “glide path” to hit the 2030 target. The final rule will be released after the middle of this year, she said.
Separately, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said Tuesday his department determined that natural-gas pipeline bottlenecks are not as severe as coal industry lobbyists have warned, and that a ramp-up in electricity generation from natural gas is possible with just a few new local or regional pipelines.
“There will need to be increased investments, but mostly at the regional level,” he told reporters at the same conference.
-
Climate Change May Be ‘Polarizing’; Energy Efficiency Shouldn’t Be
Feb 17, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By J.D. Gordon
With so many mixed messages and competing narratives on climate change, no wonder why so many Americans are confused. Is it real? If so, is it really our greatest threat?
Forgive the pun, but it’s one of the most ‘polarizing’ issues in our country today. For instance, the two leading national figures on climate change, President Barack Obama, and Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), who chairs the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, might as well be talking about two different planets.
Obama boldly claimed during this year's State of the Union that “no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change." Meanwhile, Inhofe and his family famously mocked former Vice President Al Gore by building an igloo during Washington's Snowmageddon of 2010.
The Senate even took up a vote this month if climate change was real, a natural lead up to votes on approving the Keystone XL Pipeline. To the surprise of some, Inhofe voted “yes,” cleverly noting the climate is always changing.
Apart from our U.S. elected leaders, let's not forget the special interests which muddy the waters. Like Vladimir Putin, one of America’s staunchest adversaries. Last year, then NATO Secretary General and former Danish premier Anders Fogh Rasmussen bluntly stated that Putin is funding anti-fracking groups.
And recent U.S. media reports have linked Russia to Washington lobbying efforts designed to stop fracking and block Keystone XL for good measure.
And Putin’s goals? Hurt American and European industry, keep energy prices high, and drive the market to "buy Russian."
Yet apart from oil-powered dictators in Russia, the Middle East, Venezuela and Ecuador, nearly everyone on the planet benefits from promoting energy efficiency. It's a win/win -- something that die-hard progressives and staunch conservatives ought to agree on.
Whether one wants to combat climate change, wants to save money, or wants to reduce worldwide influence of oil-rich, and often aggressive autocrats, better energy efficiency is a no brainer.
Even diametrically opposed voting blocs like the Tea Party and true environmentalists can find common ground here. Saving government dollars and adopting green-friendly policies at the same time.
Enter the American Embassy in Helsinki and Finnish Embassy in Washington.
With the Embassy of Finland’s LEED Platinum Certification last month, it joins its Helsinki counterpart as one of only two embassies globally to be certified by the U.S. Green Building Council at the highest rating on its scale of green-friendly buildings.
Developed in 2000, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) is a worldwide certification program that fosters eco-friendly construction and efficient energy policies.
They say necessity is the mother of all invention. In Finland's case, like most Russian neighbors, it relies on Moscow for energy -- plus it’s famously cold. Thus Finns have wisely adapted to be a world leader in energy efficiency. While working to reduce Moscow's influence in their daily lives, they save money too.
Built in 1994, the embassy which sits across from the U.S. Naval Observatory and Vice President’s Residence, was designed as environmentally-friendly, mostly encased in glass to maximize the amount of sunlight. Yet the Finns didn’t stop there, and since the mid-2000s, they've reduced electricity consumption by half and gas by 65 percent. On-site composting, high efficiency water faucets, max recycling, no plastic cups, and green-friendly purchases have recouped initial investment after just one year. They’ve even bought bikes for staff, and encourage walking to work. Thus they literally talk the talk, and walk the walk.
Though it’s not just the Finns and American diplomats in Helsinki who are leading the way in energy efficiency.
After a massive tsunami wiped out the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant in 2011, Japan found itself struggling to satisfy energy demands. One solution? Lessen the demand through more efficient, smarter energy policies. Japan’s Parliament renewed the push for a relaxed summer dress code first introduced by the Energy Ministry in 2005, setting the air conditioning in public spaces to 28C, or 82F.
I’ve been advocating similar energy efficient policies in Washington ever since retiring from the Pentagon. As a former career Navy officer who spent summers dressed in Summer Whites and winters in Winter Blue and didn’t even wear suits during 8 collective years in Hawaii, Puerto Rico and Okinawa, I still have a hard time adjusting to suits and ties during 90F and high humidity of Washington summers. Does anyone really ever adjust?
On ABC Washington’s “Capital Insider” each summer since 2011, anchor Morris Jones and I discuss the “Summer Cool Biz" concept, how more sensible dress codes for the season can save billions in cooling costs, while protecting the environment.
Promoting energy efficiency is a win/win, no matter how we slice it. It’s something everybody ought to agree on. Well, o.k., maybe not Vladimir Putin.
-
How Did the Port Shutdown Affect L.A. Air Quality?
Feb 17, 2015 | LA Times
By Tony Barboza
Dozens of ships backed up off the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports in recent days, unable to unload cargo because of a protracted labor dispute. Work resumed at the ports Tuesday, but the slowdown in shipping traffic raised concerns that emissions from waiting vessels would degrade Southern California air quality.
Here's what you need to know about how congestion at the nation's busiest port complex affects air quality.
How has the port slowdown affected air emissions?
The backup, largely a result of stalled negotiations between the dockworkers union and employers, boosted emissions from cargo ships. Normally, the vessels would be docked and plugged into shore power. Instead, more than 30 ships at a time were anchored off the ports, burning diesel fuel and releasing exhaust.
But because the cargo wasn't getting off the ships, the onshore activity of cargo handling equipment, trucks and trains also slowed down and may have reduced pollution from land-based sources, Port of Los Angeles officials said. That could cancel out the increased emissions from ships offshore, said Sam Atwood, a spokesman for the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
Have the waiting ships worsened pollution in harbor communities?
No, port officials said. Air quality monitoring stations in the Port of Los Angeles and neighboring Wilmington and San Pedro have measured pollution levels similar to or lower than they were at the same time last year.
"We can't hide the fact that having those emissions out there is more than we had anticipated," said Chris Cannon, environment director for the Port of Los Angeles. "It just hasn't come ashore, and we're very relieved about that."
What about the rest of the region?
Emissions from theships are still contributing to smog across the region, air quality experts said. The impact could become more evident this week as a sea breeze that blows pollution inland replaces last week's Santa Ana winds, which had swept pollution toward to the ocean.
"We're starting to see some of that haze redevelop," said Ed Avol, a professor of preventive medicine at USC's Keck School of Medicine, an expert on health effects from air pollution. "That's not wholly because of the ships that are there, but they certainly aren't helping."
How big a pollution source are the ports?
The San Pedro Bay ports are the largest single source of air pollution in Southern California, generating about 10% of the region's smog-forming emissions, according to the South Coast air district.
The seaports are major hubs of freight activity, attracting thousands of ships, trucks and locomotives that transport goods but also pollute the air. Container ships, with their enormous diesel engines, are the largest air pollution source at the complex, port officials say.
What areas are most affected by pollution from the ports?
Diesel emissions from the ports have the greatest health consequences for harbor-area neighborhoods like San Pedro, Wilmington and West Long Beach, where studies have shown that residents have higher rates of asthma and face the region's highest cancer risk from air pollution.
The ports also contribute to dirty air across Southern California. Ships, trucks and trains that carry goods through the port, across the country and overseas spew pollutants that blow inland and drive up basin-wide levels of smog and soot.
Are the ports getting cleaner?
Yes. The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have slashed emissions since adopting their 2006 Clean Air Action Plan. The rules include a ban on old, dirty diesel trucks and requirements that docked vessels to turn off their engines and plug into the electrical grid. Near the shore, ocean vessels are also required to burn low-sulfur fuel that reduces the amount of pollution they release.
-
Rep. Gibbs Says Congress Needs to Write Rule Clarifying Clean Water Act Jurisdiction
Feb 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio) acknowledged, in an on-camera interview with Bloomberg BNA, the need for a rule to clarify the Clean Water Act's jurisdiction over certain types of waters and wetlands to remove confusion and uncertainty.
“The thinking is that we do need to have a rule, but it has to be set by Congress, and really bring clarity and certainty to that process,” said Gibbs, who chairs the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment. The subcommittee has oversight over the EPA Office of Water and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' civil works program.
Gibbs and Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, are working together on a bill they say would address the shortcomings in the waters of the U.S. rule, which the EPA and the corps jointly proposed April 2014 to clarify the reach of the Clean Water Act (79 Fed. Reg. 22,188; 77 DEN A-4, 4/22/14).
Gibbs said they would not craft a bill that would stop the rulemaking in its tracks though.
The two lawmakers successfully marshalled the Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act (H.R. 5078) through the House in the 113th Congress, which would have stopped the rulemaking altogether. The Senate, at the time controlled by the Democrats, never it took up.
The Republican leadership, however, has made it a priority to roll back the waters of the U.S. rule.
This time around, Gibbs said he and Shuster are in flux and working through the various concerns that the farmers, miners, road builders, and developers raised about the proposed rulemaking.
As an example of the concerns, Gibbs pointed to the case-by-case determination that the EPA and the corps are proposing to use to establish whether a significant nexus exists between headwaters and navigable waters. Establishing a significant nexus on the basis of biological, chemical and physical impacts to downstream navigable waters is “too subjective and opens the doors and causes too much uncertainty,” he said.
As a farmer, Gibbs also said he was concerned with the jurisdictional status of ditches with ephemeral flows, since the EPA and the corps are proposing to bring all ephemeral, perennial and intermittent streams under federal protection. He raised this issue with EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy at the joint hearing convened Feb. 4 by the House Transportation and Infrastructure and Senate Environment and Public Works committees. McCarthy said the agencies would clarify the jurisdictional status of ditches, ephemeral and otherwise in the final rule (24 DEN A-16, 2/5/15).
Gibbs said he knows ephemeral ditches already are regulated, but “I don't want the federal government coming in and telling me I need a Section 402 permit for this and a Section 404 permit for that.”
The EPA regulates polluted discharges to waters of the U.S. under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. Dredging and filling of wetlands, streams and other waters is regulated under Section 404 permits that are issued by the corps, and overseen by the EPA. The EPA's oversight of Section 404 permits has been a source of concern for Gibbs who said he has introduced a legislation that would give the EPA 30 days to veto a permit only after the corps has finished processing the permit application, but not yet issued it (31 DEN A-2, 2/17/15).
At the Feb. 4 hearing, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), the ranking member on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, urged the Republicans to allow the agencies to address the more than 1 million comments, and complete the rulemaking process. DeFazio said Congress has the authority to object to and halt the rulemaking once it becomes final.
Agencies or Congress?
William Sapp, senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, said Congress ought to let the agencies move forward with the rulemaking.
“That's the administrative process we have been adhering to up till now that allows for a lot of participation and involvement by the American public,” Sapp said. “The EPA and the corps have received nearly one million comments and they are going through the process of addressing those concerns.”
In response to Gibbs' assertion that Congress needs to write the waters of the U.S. rule for the agencies because the existing proposed rule, if and when made final, would increase bureaucracy, red tape, costs, and uncertainty among the regulated community, Sapp said “Congress set the stage for the rulemaking when it passed the Clean Water Act in 1972. The rulemaking addressing what waters are protected by the Clean Water Act was back in 1986. The solution for that is to let the rulemaking proceed.”
On the issue of the case-by-case significant nexus determinations, Sapp said the agencies took their direction from Justice Anthony Kennedy in the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715, 62 ERC 1481 (2006). Kennedy's concurring opinion called upon the agencies to establish jurisdiction over waters by applying the significant nexus test on a case-by-case basis.
Sapp said he agreed with Gibbs that ephemerals already are regulated, but he added that “there is so much confusion over their status that the rule is needed to clarify that they are protected by the Clean Water Act.”
“Ephemerals are like capillaries in our body. Just because they are small doesn't mean they aren't important,” Sapp said.
The Southern Environmental Law Center has been urging the agencies to bring depressional wetlands, such as crater-like Carolina bays found on the Southeastern coastal plain, under federal protection as a separate category of waters of the United States (221 DEN A-8, 11/17/14)
-
Report Sent to UN Calculates Carbon Dioxide Cuts From Eliminating Fossil Fuel Subsidies
Feb 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Marcus Hoy
A report recently presented to the United Nations showed how merely cutting fossil fuel subsidies could significantly help the world reduce carbon dioxide emissions, one of the authors told Bloomberg BNA.
The report said it calculated that governments worldwide subsidize fossil fuels by around $543 billion annually. Eliminating these subsidies alone could lead to global emissions reductions of between 6 percent and 13 percent by 2050, in part by making renewable energy more cost-effective, the report said.
Laura Merrill, senior researcher at the Canada-based International Institute for Sustainable Development, said in a statement that the report's findings could encourage some nations to consider subsidy reform as part of their national emissions-reduction commitments—called Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs)—being sent to the UN in the coming months ahead of end-of-year talks in Paris, which are meant to forge a global agreement to fight climate change.
Published under the International Institute for Sustainable Development Global Subsidies Initiative, with support from the Nordic Council of Ministers, the report was presented Feb. 10 to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change conference in Geneva.
Falling Oil Prices Could Spur Change
“Countries can now use this information in preparation for” the Paris climate talks, Merrill told Bloomberg BNA. “They can measure emissions reductions from planned subsidy reforms and include this in their INDCs of mitigation options. These national INDCs will contribute toward any agreement.”
Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus climate think tank, told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 17 that the economic policies that encouraged subsidized fossil fuel costs were most pronounced in developing countries, and the practice was often linked to political considerations. Where affordable energy is a political issue, he said, national leaders could experience a drop in support and political unrest if fuel prices increase.
But Lomborg noted that cheaper oil prices could encourage nations to reduce subsidy levels without necessarily being forced to implement sharp price hikes.
“Recent falls in the price of oil mean that subsidies can potentially be reduced without having such a marked effect on prices,” he said. “This means that such measures could potentially become more politically acceptable. Already we have seen nations reducing subsidy levels due to the cheaper cost of fuel. Malaysia, India and Indonesia have all recently announced plans to reduce or phase out energy subsidies. In Egypt, oil subsidies were reduced by 30 percent in 2014.”
-
Oil Train Derailment, Fire in West Virginia Prompt Investigation by Safety Regulators
Feb 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nancy Moran and Edward Dufner
U.S. regulators joined the investigation into a fiery CSX Corp. oil-train derailment in West Virginia that forced residents to flee their homes in frigid weather and threatened drinking water.
The crash, the second in 10 months involving a CSX train laden with Bakken crude oil, promises to add to the public-safety debate over North American crude-by-rail shipments. The Obama administration is revising standards after a series of oil-train derailments led by a 2013 Quebec accident that killed 47 people and nonfatal explosions in the U.S.
Sarah Feinberg, acting administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration, and Chief Safety Officer Robert Lauby were traveling to the crash site, and investigators from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration were already on the scene, according to the FRA.
As firefighters worked Feb. 17 to douse the remaining flames following the Feb. 16 derailment, authorities' focus turned to learning why the train came off the tracks and whether the cargo of North Dakota Bakken crude had reached a municipal water intake on the Kanawha River.
Ice Dams Could Contain Oil
Ice dams may have kept the crude from reaching the local water system, and authorities are testing samples to make sure the spill was contained, said Terrance Lively, a spokesman for the West Virginia Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety in Charleston.
“We do know there is some crude oil in the stream,” Lively said Feb. 17 by telephone.
Gary Sease, a CSX spokesman, didn't immediately respond to a request for comment Feb. 17 about track conditions and the train's speed at the time of the accident, which occurred after 1 p.m. on Feb. 16.
The 27-car derailment occurred in a rural area, limiting the hazards of the spill and fires involving as many as 15 of the cars. Even with power lines damaged, possible jeopardy to the water system and Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin's declaration of a state of emergency covering Kanawha and Fayette counties, only about 85 people had to use local shelters, Lively said.
CSX is cooperating with federal authorities, Sease said by e-mail. The train—with 107 oil cars, two cars of sand and a pair of locomotives—was headed for Yorktown, Va., according to Sease.
The destination was a rail-to-marine terminal operated by Plains All American Pipeline LP, according to New York-based ClipperData, which tracks waterborne crude movements. A Plains All American spokesman, Brad Leone, didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
Lynchburg Incident
An April 2014 oil-train derailment in Lynchburg, Va., also involved a CSX train headed to the Plains All American facility. About 15 cars came off the tracks, and the resulting fire led to dramatic video of flames and billowing smoke against the backdrop of a small city's downtown.
The tank units on the West Virginia train were CPC-1232 rail cars made with either 7/16-inch (1.1-centimeter) carbon steel shells and 1/8-inch carbon steel jackets, or cars with 1/2-inch carbon steel shells, according to an e-mail from Sease.
The new U.S. standards for trains carrying crude would first require companies to upgrade tank cars known as DOT-111s, which safety investigators have said are prone to puncture in rail accidents.
The draft rule also would require that new cars be built with 9/16th inch steel shells. The walls of the current cars, both DOT-111s and the newer CPC-1232 models, are 7/16th inch thick.
With assistance from Theo Mullen in Atlanta, Rebecca Penty in Calgary, Aaron Clark in Tokyo, Jim Polson in New York and Dan Murtaugh in Houston.
-
Lawmakers Visit Oil Train Explosion Site
Feb 17, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Federal lawmakers representing West Virginia traveled to the site of Monday’s massive oil train derailment and explosion to help residents and officials recover from the incident.
Sen. Joe Manchin (D) and Rep. Evan Jenkins (R) said on Twitter that they went to Mount Carbon, where a train carrying more than 100 tank cars full of crude oil derailed and exploded Monday.
The incident caused no deaths and only one person was injured. But hundreds of residents of two towns were evacuated, and municipal water supplies were temporarily cut off as officials determined whether oil got into the Kanawha River, which serves as a water supply.
“First and foremost, after touring the derailment site, I am thankful that all West Virginians are safe,” Manchin said in a statement Tuesday afternoon.
He also said he’d be interested to hear how government and industry could work to prevent future crude-by-rail disasters.
“We must work together to find ways to ensure this type of accident does not happen again and transport this material as safe as humanly possible,” Manchin said. “I will be working with federal, state and industry officials in the coming weeks to make the necessary improvements to secure our safety.”
Manchin said he met with federal, state and local officials on the scene.
Jenkins said he met with Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin (D), Manchin and environmental and safety officials from West Virginia and the federal government.
Rep. Alex Mooney’s (R) district is outside of the explosion area, but the Kanawha flows into his district and some of his constituents were affected by the water shutoff.
Mooney said his first concern was with safety, but he also said he was open to hearing what could be done to prevent future incidents.
“I am prepared to review findings from CSX and federal regulators on the scene in West Virginia to determine whether action can be taken to improve rail transport safety,” he said.
“It is unfortunate the president continues to use executive action to obstruct projects like the Keystone XL pipeline, which would lighten the burden on our railway and highway systems,” Mooney said, adding that he wants to fight to improve permitting for pipelines.
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito’s (R) office helped get the word out about resources for residents and offered its help to constituents. Capito’s staff visited the disaster site, and Capito spoke with Tomblin about the incident, said Amy Graham, the senator’s spokeswoman.
Meanwhile, the federal Transportation Department sent rail and hazardous material safety investigators to the site to launch a probe into the incident. The National Transportation Safety Board has not said whether it would have its own investigation.
-
Oil Train Accident Brings Calls For Tougher U.S. Safety Rules
Feb 17, 2015 | Reuters
By Patrick Rucker
A fiery oil train derailment in West Virginia this week exposes lax safety standards and strengthens the case for tougher U.S. rules governing such shipments, safety advocates said on Tuesday.
A 109-car delivery of crude oil from North Dakota's Bakken energy patch derailed in West Virginia on Monday, setting at least nine cars ablaze. It was the latest accident to draw attention to risks of moving high volumes of fuel by rail.
"These incidents are making the case for us," said Karen Darch, mayor of Barrington, Illinois. Several oil and ethanol trains pass through her town weekly, and she has been a vocal advocate for stricter regulations.
This month, the U.S. Department of Transportation sent a safety plan to the White House for final review.
That proposal would have oil trains fitted with advanced braking systems to prevent pileups and tougher shells akin to those carrying volatile propane gas on the tracks. Oil and rail leaders have backed some safety upgrades but have said regulations should not unduly hinder commerce.
The American Petroleum Institute and Association of American Railroads have worked together on oil train safety and are eager to see the final safety plan, a spokesperson for each trade group said.
The West Virginia derailment came on the same CSX Corp line that crosses through Lynchburg, Virginia, where another oil train derailed in April.
It also came a day after a delivery of crude oil jumped the tracks in a rural area of Ontario, setting several tankers ablaze.
Canadian and U.S. officials have grappled with how to respond to oil train dangers since a runaway delivery of Bakken fuel killed 47 people in the Quebec town of Lac-Mégantic.
“Incidents such as these are what kept us focused,” said Cynthia Quarterman, former administrator of the U.S. Transportation Department's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
Railside mayors and first responders say officials are hearing their pleas.
API and the Association of American Railroads (AAR) have said the oil and rail sectors have been ready for new safety standards for years.
"Our industry awaits the final rule,” said Ed Greenberg of AAR.
Several tank car companies including Greenbrier Company Inc, American Railcar Industries Inc, Trinity Industries Inc and GATX Corp are expected to be affected by new oil tanker safety rules.
-
W.Va. Oil Train Derailment Was 1 of 3 With Safer Tank Cars
Feb 18, 2015 | AP (in the Washington Post)
The fiery derailment of a train carrying crude oil in West Virginia is one of three in the past year involving tank cars that already meet a higher safety standard than what federal law requires — leading some to suggest even tougher requirements that industry representatives say would be prohibitively costly.
Hundreds of families were evacuated and nearby water treatment plants were temporarily shut down after cars derailed from a train carrying 3 million gallons of North Dakota crude Monday, shooting fireballs into the sky, leaking oil into a Kanawha River tributary and burning down a house nearby. It was snowing at the time, but it is not yet clear if weather was a factor.
The train’s tanks were a newer model — the 1232 — designed during safety upgrades voluntarily adopted by the industry four years ago. The same model spilled oil and caught fire in Timmins, Ontario on Saturday, and last year in Lynchburg, Virginia.
A series of ruptures and fires have prompted the administration of President Barack Obama to consider requiring upgrades such as thicker tanks, shields to prevent tankers from crumpling, rollover protections and electronic brakes that could make cars stop simultaneously, rather than slam into each other.
If approved, increased safety requirements now under White House review would phase out tens of thousands of older tank cars being used to carry highly flammable liquids.
“This accident is another reminder of the need to improve the safety of transporting hazardous materials by rail,” said Christopher Hart, acting chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board.
But industry officials say upgrading further from the 1232 cars would be too costly. The Railway Supply Institute says an estimated $7 billion has already been spent to put 57,000 of these cars into service.
“We have billions invested in tank cars,” Bob Greco, a senior official with the American Petroleum Institute, told The Associated Press in July. “Every day new, modern 1232 tank cars are coming into service.”
Oil shipments by rail jumped from 9,500 carloads in 2008 to more than 435,000 in 2013, driven by a boom in the Bakken oil patch of North Dakota and Montana, where pipeline limitations force 70 percent of the crude to move by rail, according to American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers.
The downside: Trains hauling Bakken-region oil have been involved in major accidents in Virginia, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Alabama and Canada, where 47 people were killed by an explosive derailment in 2013 in Lac-Megantic, Quebec.
Reports of leaks and other oil releases from tank cars are up as well, from 12 in 2008 to 186 last year, according to Department of Transportation records reviewed by The Associated Press.
Just Saturday — two days before the West Virginia wreck — 29 cars of a 100-car Canadian National Railway train carrying diluted bitumen crude derailed in a remote area 50 miles south of Timmins, Ontario, spilling oil and catching fire. That train was headed from Alberta to Eastern Canada.
The train Monday was bound for an oil shipping depot in Yorktown, Virginia, along the same route where three tanker cars plunged into the James River in Lynchburg, Virginia, prompting an evacuation last year.
The train derailed near unincorporated Mount Carbon just after passing through Montgomery, a town of 1,946, on a stretch where the rails wind past businesses and homes crowded between the water and the steep, tree-covered hills. All but two of the train’s 109 cars were tank cars, and 26 of them left the tracks.
Fire crews had little choice but to let the tanks burn themselves out. Each carried up to 30,000 gallons of crude. Oil cars were still burning Tuesday evening.
One person — the owner of the destroyed home — was treated for smoke inhalation, but no other injuries were reported, according to the train company, CSX. The two-person crew, an engineer and conductor, managed to decouple the train’s engines from the wreck behind it and walk away unharmed.
The NTSB said its investigators will compare this wreck to others including Lynchburg and one near Casselton, N.D., when a Bakken crude train created a huge fireball that forced the evacuation of the farming town.
No cause has been determined, said CSX regional vice president Randy Cheetham. He said the tracks had been inspected just three days before the wreck.
“They’ll look at train handling, look at the track, look at the cars. But until they get in there and do their investigation, it’s unwise to do any type of speculation,” he said.
By Tuesday evening, power crews were restoring electricity, water treatment plants were going back online, and most of the local residents were back home. Initial tests showed no crude near water plant intake points, state Environmental Protection spokeswoman Kelley Gillenwater said.
State officials do have say some say over rail safety.
Railroads are required by federal order to tell state emergency officials where trains carrying Bakken crude are traveling. CSX and other railroads called this information proprietary, but more than 20 states rejected the industry’s argument, informing the public as well as first-responders about the crude moving through their communities.
West Virginia is among those keeping it secret. State officials responded to an AP Freedom of Information request by releasing documents redacted to remove nearly every detail.
There are no plans to reconsider after this latest derailment, said Melissa Cross, a program manager for the West Virginia Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested