Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Slams Federal Agency Over Proposed Phthalate Ban
Feb 23, 2015 | Chem.Info
By Andy Szal
The American Chemistry Council has asked federal regulators to extend the comment period for proposed restrictions on phthalates in children’s toys, arguing they would set an "irresponsible and scientifically unsound precedent" for future chemical regulations. -
California Panel to Consider Prop 65 Listing of BPA
Feb 23, 2015 | Chemical Watch
An advisory panel of the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) will consider at its 7 May meeting the possible listing of bisphenol A under Proposition 65. -
(ACC Mentioned) Boosting Safety At Chemical Facilities
Feb 23, 2015 | Chemical and Engineering News
By Glenn Hess
...But the chemical industry has long opposed any attempt by the government to require the assessment or use of inherently safer technologies. -
Storage-Tank Safety Revisited
Feb 23, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Kris Maher
After a chemical spill contaminated drinking water for 300,000 people in West Virginia’s capital last year, state lawmakers promptly passed legislation aimed at preventing a similar disaster. -
Manufacturers Decry Clean Power Plan, Threaten to Take Flight
Feb 23, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
Manufacturers of chemicals, plastics, steel and other energy-intensive commodities wouldn't be regulated directly by U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan for power plants, but they're openly fretting that the rules are going to take a bite out of their bottom lines. -
EPA Denies Enviro Objections to Texas Power Plant Permits
Feb 23, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Peterka
U.S. EPA has denied several challenges by environmentalists to the operating permits for three 1970s-era Texas coal-fired power plants. -
The Brattle Group Challenges NERC's Clean Power Plan Reliability Analysis
Feb 23, 2015 | E&E - TV
Last week, the Brattle Group released a report challenging the assertions made by the North American Electric Reliability Corp. last fall on the impacts of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan on reliability. -
Environmentalists Plan Air Permit Lawsuits Absent EPA 'Aggregation' Rule
Feb 23, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo and Lea Radick
Environmentalists are planning potential lawsuits to force EPA to make final decisions on how to "aggregate," or combine, emissions for oil and gas operations in Clean Air Act permits on case-by-case basis, saying the suits are vital until EPA issues its pending aggregation rule and that the legal threats might accelerate the rulemaking. -
Obama Flexes Muscles on Resources With Eye on Legacy
Feb 23, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Phil Taylor
President Obama has quickly built a hefty portfolio on natural resource issues. -
Green Group Challenges U.S. Approval of Fracking Off Calif. Coast
Feb 23, 2015 | Reuters
By Ayesha Rascoe
An environmental group has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Interior Department accusing it of allowing hydraulic fracturing in oil and gas drilling off the California coast without proper review of safety hazards and impacts on marine life. -
White House: Don't Expect 'Drama or Fanfare' on Keystone Veto
Feb 23, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Laura Barron-Lopez
The White House said Monday that President Obama doesn't plan on drumming up "a lot of drama or fanfare" when he vetoes legislation that would approve the Keystone XL pipeline. -
Earnest: Don't Expect a Public 'Drama' Over Keystone Veto
Feb 23, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
President Barack Obama is unlikely to stage a public spectacle when he vetoes Congress’ Keystone XL pipeline bill, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said today. -
Keystone Bill to Arrive at White House Tuesday
Feb 23, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Laura Barron-Lopez
Republican leaders plan on Tuesday to send President Obama legislation that would authorize construction of the Keystone XL oil sands pipeline. -
Hoeven: President Will Get Keystone Bill Tomorrow
Feb 23, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
Republicans plan to officially send the White House their Keystone XL legislation tomorrow, setting up an expected presidential veto soon afterward, Sen. John Hoeven said today. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Shippers Seek Rail Reforms
Feb 23, 2015 | Chemical and Engineering News
By Glenn Hess
...John Thune (R-S.D.), chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee, the coalition says legislation is needed to improve competition among railroads, such as by allowing shippers “to challenge unreasonable rates or practices.” -
W.Va. Oil Train Derailment Reverberates in the Bakken
Feb 23, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
With the fires gone and the wreckage mostly cleared from the site of last Monday's oil train derailment in West Virginia, state leaders are puzzling over how to prevent another disaster. -
State Seeks More Info on Risky Rail Cargo
Feb 23, 2015 | OC Register
By David Danelski
The fiery derailment this month of a train pulling more than a hundred tank cars of crude oil in West Virginia underscored ongoing demands by California officials for more information about hazardous materials moving through the state by rail.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Slams Federal Agency Over Proposed Phthalate Ban
Feb 23, 2015 | Chem.Info
By Andy Szal
The American Chemistry Council has asked federal regulators to extend the comment period for proposed restrictions on phthalates in children’s toys, arguing they would set an "irresponsible and scientifically unsound precedent" for future chemical regulations.
In a letter to U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Chairman Elliot Kaye, ACC President, Cal Dooley, wrote that the agency has not addressed previous concerns about the process of developing standards for phthalates, which are used primarily to increase flexibility in plastic products and have been linked to a variety of health concerns."Absent an appropriate process that ensures objective and transparent science-based regulatory decisions, neither our member companies nor consumers, public health advocates and the scientific community, can have confidence in the CPSC's rulemaking process," Dooley wrote.
The CPSC — which oversees the safety risks of thousands of consumer products —published the proposed rule late last year. It would, in part, prohibit the use of select phthalates in children's toys and child care products based on a “concern for adverse effects from the cumulative effects of phthalates.”
The comment period for the rule is set to close in mid-March, at which time the agency would consider promulgating a final rule.
The ACC, however, alleged the report used to develop the rule did not meet federal review guidelines, was based on a “novel and unproven” cumulative risk assessment and used "questionable and outdated data."
A report prepared for the group last fall, meanwhile, questioned how banning the widely used chemicals in children's toys would resolve studies showing effects on pregnant women and fetuses.
Christopher Borgert, head of Florida research firm Applied Pharmacology & Toxicology, added on an ACC conference call that "I find a weak scientific basis for doing anything from this report." -
California Panel to Consider Prop 65 Listing of BPA
Feb 23, 2015 | Chemical Watch
An advisory panel of the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) will consider at its 7 May meeting the possible listing of bisphenol A under Proposition 65. The move comes following concerns that the substance may cause female reproductive toxicity.
The state's Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee (DART IC) will consider whether BPA has been scientifically shown to cause female reproductive toxicity. The OEHHA says substantial new epidemiological and toxicological data on the substance has become available since 2009, and the agency has assembled materials for the committee’s consideration.
If the panel does not complete its deliberations, the meeting will be continued on 21 May. If a chemical is listed on Proposition 65, businesses are required to provide a "clear and reasonable" warning before knowingly and intentionally exposing anyone to the listed chemical. This warning can take a variety of forms, such as by labelling a consumer product, posting signs at the workplace, distributing notices at a rental housing complex, or publishing notices in a newspaper. Once a chemical is listed, businesses have 12 months to comply with warning requirements.
In Europe, Echa’s Risk Assessment Committee (Rac) has adopted an opinion that harmonised classification and labelling (CLH) for BPA should be “strengthened” from a category 2 to a 1B reproductive toxicant (CW 19 March 2014). The opinion covers adverse effects on sexual function and fertility, as outlined in France's proposal for reclassification. The Rac made its decision primarily based on “rock-solid” multi-generational rodent studies, says its chairman, Tim Bowmer. It also took into account a number of non-guideline studies suggesting impaired female reproductive capacity, following BPA exposure.
Meanwhile, a US review of BPA research from 2007-13 said evidence from a range of animal studies strongly suggests the substance may be “an ovarian and uterine toxicant”. The researchers conclude that BPA “impacts female reproduction, and has the potential to affect male reproductive systems, in humans and animals”. The reviewed studies routinely showed that the effects were evident at doses below the lowest adverse effect level, used by the US EPA (CW 5 June 2014).
-
(ACC Mentioned) Boosting Safety At Chemical Facilities
Feb 23, 2015 | Chemical and Engineering News
By Glenn Hess
...But the chemical industry has long opposed any attempt by the government to require the assessment or use of inherently safer technologies. “Inherently safer approaches have been and will continue to be considered by facilities as a matter of course,” says the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
Access to full text unavailable -- subscription required.
Story can be found at: http://cen.acs.org/articles/93/i8/Boosting-Safety-Chemical-Facilities.html
-
Feb 23, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Kris Maher
After a chemical spill contaminated drinking water for 300,000 people in West Virginia’s capital last year, state lawmakers promptly passed legislation aimed at preventing a similar disaster. Now, business groups and environmentalists are fighting over a measure that would scale back those changes.
At issue is a new bill that would exempt many of the state’s 50,000 aboveground storage tanks from tougher rules approved after the spill. The Legislature passed that law unanimously, with no industry opposition, at a time when Charleston was still in the grips of a water crisis.
The legislation made West Virginia one of the strictest states in the nation for regulating aboveground storage tanks, which are generally left out of federal environmental rules. It required companies to register all such tanks with the state, and regulators found 5,300 of them to be high risk, based on their size and location.
West Virginia’s new measure would largely undo the previous bill, lowering the number covered by the stricter standards to an estimated 700 by allowing some companies to voluntarily follow industry standards and exempting other firms that already have state or federally mandated plans in place to protect groundwater or prevent spills.
“Last year’s bill failed to recognize regulations that were already in place,” said Rebecca Randolph, president of the West Virginia Manufacturers Association, based in Charleston.
Environmental groups oppose altering the law, which received broad support from legislators and residents after the Jan. 9, 2014, spill. The accident contaminated the water for as many as nine days, one of the worst disruptions of a water supply in U.S. history. “Proposing changes that gut the bill really outrages people,” said Evan Hansen, president of Downstream Strategies, an environmental consulting company based in Morgantown, W.Va.
The 2014 spill was traced to a leak of a little-known coal-processing chemical called Crude MCHM from a one-inch hole in a storage tank near the Elk River outside Charleston. The tank had been installed in 1938, records showed.
Afterward, the state also began requiring water companies statewide to maintain a backup water source and greater storage capacity to keep taps flowing in the event of another spill.
Now, some in the state Legislature, which is Republican-controlled for the first time in 83 years, and Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin, a Democrat who signed the original legislation, say the provisions requiring new permitting, leak-detection systems and inspections for tanks may have gone too far. Chris Stadelman, a spokesman for the governor, said Mr. Tomblin believes there is room to compromise on scaling back parts of the regulations. The proposed measure, introduced in the House and Senate in the form of companion bills, hasn’t been voted on.
The measures being considered to amend the law would raise the minimum size of tanks covered by the stricter rules to more than 10,000 gallons from more than 1,320 gallons. It would exempt other tanks that sit outside a “zone of critical concern”—defined currently as within 1,000 feet of a river at a point where water takes less than five hours to flow to a drinking-water intake.
The tank that leaked last year has been torn down but under the new measure it would have been exempt from strict oversight because the company—which has since sought bankruptcy protection—was already required to have a plan in place to protect groundwater, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection said.
As of early January, companies had reported to the department on the fitness of more than half of the state’s storage tanks and said that of those, roughly 1,100 tanks didn’t meet the new regulations. It isn’t clear how many of those would be exempted from stricter oversight by the amendment.
Separately, business groups and environmentalists are tangling over another bill that would lower water-quality standards for rivers—except for sections near drinking-water systems. The standard has been in place statewide since the 1960s and requires rivers and streams, with rare exceptions, to be clean enough to feed drinking-water facilities.
Randy Huffman, head of the state Department of Environmental Protection, said the second bill would leave 60 miles of rivers covered by the strictest standard, down from nearly all of the state’s 31,000 miles of rivers covered now. He opposes the measure and is against easing the regulations on storage tanks. Instead, he is advocating that a 70-mile stretch of the Kanawha River that passes through the industrial heart of Charleston meet the high standard so it can serve as a backup water source for the region.
Ms. Randolph of the manufacturers association said doing so before there are plans for a water intake would be like “making an entire segment of the interstate 15 miles an hour because you might build a school on it.”
Corrections & Amplifications:
Downstream Strategies is an environmental consulting company based in Morgantown, W.Va. An earlier version of this article incorrectly described it as a nonprofit. (Feb. 23, 2015) -
Manufacturers Decry Clean Power Plan, Threaten to Take Flight
Feb 23, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
Manufacturers of chemicals, plastics, steel and other energy-intensive commodities wouldn't be regulated directly by U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan for power plants, but they're openly fretting that the rules are going to take a bite out of their bottom lines.
Some are warning they'll pack up and move abroad if the regulations hit them too hard.
"If [states] do not get enough emission reductions by the utilities reducing, and they still have not met their reduction quota by the EPA, then they're going to start looking around for other ways to get those reductions," Paul Cicio, president of the Industrial Energy Consumers of America (IECA), told a gathering of state utility commissioners in Washington last week.
"We're concerned they will look to us and say, 'We'll mandate you to reduce your greenhouse gas emissions by X' or mandate us to improve our efficiency by X, reducing greenhouse gas emissions that they'll apply against their target with the Clean Power Plan."
Manufacturers that need large amounts of electricity want to keep power costs low. IECA comprises almost 3,000 facilities that account for more than $1 trillion in annual sales. That sector consumes almost a quarter of the country's electricity and almost a third of its natural gas.
The Clean Power Plan would use Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act to cut carbon emissions from the power sector by 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. The plan gives states the flexibility to use various elements to comply, including efficiency.
While acknowledging that the rule directly affects power plants, manufacturers are concerned they're next and that EPA is setting a precedent for how it will regulate energy-intensive companies. Manufacturers are also worried they'll be indirectly regulated as EPA's rule reaches "beyond the fence line" of power plants to force reductions in demand for coal-fired power by laying out how states could use more natural gas, build up renewable power and cut back on electricity.
"When states are faced with the inability to meet generator quota, they have the full flexibility to fulfill that rule any way they want," Cicio said. "They could mandate us to improve energy efficiency, and we'd become indirectly regulated."
The manufacturing group is slated to lay out its case for changes to the Clean Power Plan at a meeting with EPA officials in about a month, he said. IECA will likely refer tocomments it submitted to EPA last year, arguing that the agency doesn't have the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions "outside the fence" and calling for a new proposal following a judicial review.
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 Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Petroleum Institute are among a dozen or so trade groups arguing that the framework of the draft rule is outside EPA's authority. They say that if the courts uphold the rule, it will set a precedent for how the agency might limit carbon emissions from other sources, including petroleum refiners and iron, steel and cement manufacturers (ClimateWire, Dec. 23, 2014).
"If the rule goes into effect the way it's proposed, some of the compliance obligations will have to be imposed on nontraditional actors, including manufacturers," said William Scherman, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's former general counsel and a partner with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. "There's no other way to meet the targets."
But EPA insists it's not telling states how to pursue emission cuts; it's just offering a menu of options.
The agency also maintains that the proposal wouldn't broaden EPA authority but rather would extend Clean Air Act regulations that have been in place for decades.
"I'd like to be very clear that the CPP is only focused on the power sector, not manufacturers," EPA spokeswoman Liz Purchia said in an email. "Businesses are investing billions in clean energy. And utilities like Exelon and Entergy are weaving climate considerations into business plans. This means more jobs, not less."
Purchia said the country will need "thousands of American workers, in construction, transmission, and more, to make cleaner power a reality."
Some green groups say the industry is taking the wrong approach.
David Doniger, who directs climate policy for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said he favors a market-oriented approach that turns the sector's fear into opportunity. Companies could push state utility commissions to set up a system through which manufacturers can generate valuable credits -- and sell them to power plants -- for reducing power demand, he said.
"This should be a plus and not a minus for companies that use electricity from the grid," he said.
But Cicio said such an approach could force manufacturers to make steeper emissions reductions overall.
"We're in the business of making widgets, not in the business of making [renewable energy credits] and offsets," he said. "We can't be constrained by carbon limits."
IECA members -- steel producer Gerdau Ameristeel, industrial gas supplier the Linde Group and metals manufacturer Alcoa -- warned at the utility commissioners' gathering last week that higher costs and stringent state regulations could force manufacturing jobs offshore to countries with laws and air regulations that are not as strict.
"We'll move offshore," Cicio told the utility commissioners. "That's the bottom line."
Doniger shrugged off that threat.
"I think the threat is an empty one," he said. "If they look at this, turn the dark cloud over and look at the sunny side, they'll see this is an opportunity to get a revenue flow for energy efficiency measures."
-
EPA Denies Enviro Objections to Texas Power Plant Permits
Feb 23, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Peterka
U.S. EPA has denied several challenges by environmentalists to the operating permits for three 1970s-era Texas coal-fired power plants.
Led by the Environmental Integrity Project, the environmentalists had objected to the monitoring requirements and the emission limits during equipment malfunctions spelled out in the permits. EPA published its denial today in a Federal Register notice.
According to EPA, the environmental groups have agreed to withdraw remaining issues in the petitions under a Jan. 22 settlement agreement.
The coal plants in question are the 2,340-megawatt Martin Lake Steam Electric Station in Rusk County, the 1,880 MW Monticello Steam Electric Station in Titus County and the 1,200 MW Big Brown Steam Electric Station in Freestone County.
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality in 2011 proposed issuing general operating permit renewals to Luminant, a subsidiary of Energy Future Holdings Corp., for the three plants.
The Environmental Integrity Project, in conjunction with the Sierra Club, filed three separate petitions challenging the permits (Greenwire, Nov. 13, 2014).
-
The Brattle Group Challenges NERC's Clean Power Plan Reliability Analysis
Feb 23, 2015 | E&E - TV
Last week, the Brattle Group released a report challenging the assertions made by the North American Electric Reliability Corp. last fall on the impacts of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan on reliability. During today's OnPoint, from the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners winter meeting, Jurgen Weiss, senior researcher at the Brattle Group, discusses the report, which was presented to regulators at the conference. He explains how states can use available tools to help ensure reliability as they structure their power plan compliance mechanisms.Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello, and welcome to OnPoint from the NARUC winter meetings. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Jurgen Weiss, senior researcher at the Brattle Group. Jurgen, thank you for joining me.
Jurgen Weiss: Sure. Thanks for having me.
Monica Trauzzi: Jurgen, you are here at NARUC presenting a new report on the impacts of the Clean Power Plan, in particular on reliability, and you're contending that the plan will not have significant impacts on grid reliability. How did you come to this conclusion? Talk about the report.
Jurgen Weiss: Sure. So to be very precise, NERC issues an initial reliability review in November, and we were asked to look at that review and carefully examine the assumption it makes and come to our own conclusions of to what extent we believe the Clean Power Plan may or may not relate to significant reliability concerns going forward. And so we looked at the assumptions that the EPA made and at NERC's criticism of those assumptions, and we looked at the conclusions that NERC drew, which were relatively modest conclusions, really. They conclude that they need to study a lot of this a lot more, and we agree with that, but we also found that there are a number of things that NERC did not consider, a number of options that exist to deal with emerging reliability issues, and because of these options, we ultimately come to the conclusion that you can plan for complying with the Clean Power Plan without there being a high likelihood of causing reliability concerns.
Monica Trauzzi: The NERC report was widely circulated. What makes the Brattle Group uniquely qualified to provide an assessment like this to utility regulators?
Jurgen Weiss: So I'm not sure we're uniquely qualified, but I think we are qualified to some extent based on the work we do and have been doing for many years in analyzing power markets, not just in the United States, but internationally, in helping design some elements of those power markets, and understanding how those power markets interact with things like resource adequacy and reliability issues that exist or don't exist as a consequence of those markets.
Monica Trauzzi: So let's get into some of the details. What was incorrect about NERC's analysis?
Jurgen Weiss: So I think I would be careful to say incorrect. I do think that NERC legitimately raises questions about assumptions that are made. NERC is responsible for reliability in the system, so they, by definition, I think, have to be conservative. So it's less that they were necessarily incorrect about concerns that they raised, but I would rather say incomplete in the sense that they have raised questions about the emissions reductions that, for example, are feasible within each of the building blocks that EPA identified, and we agree that for each of these building blocks, the concerns are legitimate concerns, but we also think that for each of these concerns, there are a number of options that would produce more emissions reductions, for example, than the EPA may have assumed in its BSER definition.
Monica Trauzzi: So each state has a different story, it has a different target to meet, a different portfolio of resources. Are there certain states that you've determined could potentially face more of a reliability challenge as a result of the rule?
Jurgen Weiss: So I think that is a very good question and, in some sense, illustrates the complexity of making affirmative statements about the impact of the Clean Power Plan on reliability. It is true that as the Clean Power Plan currently stands, the EPA has determined state-level targets. I think it has to do that. And those state-level targets are different, and they represent different amounts of emissions reductions relative to today, right. So in that sense, different states viewed by themselves will have to react differently. But, of course, the Clean Power Plan contains many flexibility options that create options for states to work together, for example, in ways that, you know, lower the differences, make smaller the differences in emissions reductions that have to take place inside a given state. And so because we don't know how states ultimately choose to propose to comply, it's very difficult to know now to what extent one state having a very stringent target will create reliability issues in that state.
Monica Trauzzi: So a regional plan is really the way to go for many states.
Jurgen Weiss: So this is -- how states ultimately choose to comply was not part of this project, but we do point out repeatedly in the report that the flexibility that includes cooperation across state lines, and in some cases, not even cooperating across states that are adjacent to each other, clearly creates mechanisms that would help mitigate any reliability concerns that exist. And I -- so the Brattle Group, me included, worked earlier in 2014 on a proposal for regional compliance that clearly comes to that same conclusion.
Monica Trauzzi: How is this report being received at this week's winter meetings? What conversations have you been having with PUC commissioners, many of whom do believe that this plan could pose reliability challenges?
Jurgen Weiss: Yeah. So I think that, by and large, the reception has been positive in the sense that people recognize that NERC put out some concerns. Those concerns were not really based on a very in-depth and final, if you want, quantitative analysis of how this will play out, because you can't. And I think our report is in the same vein. We also have not based it on some kind of exhaustive quantitative modeling of the future since we don't know it, but we propose alternatives, and so people are appreciative of having alternatives out there that NERC can and perhaps should consider as it moves forward in its own analysis. The surprising thing that has come up in some ways is that there are concerns by some of the commissioners that have less to do with the theoretical ability to meet the Clean Power Plan goals without impacting reliability in the sense that people acknowledge, yeah, we may have the tools at our hands. What they seem to be a little more worried about is what states will ultimately do in their state implementation plans and whether they will make full use of those tools, whether they're, you know, operational tools or technology tools or the flexibility tools we talked about, like regional cooperation, or whether we'll pick a solution or strategy to comply that actually narrows their choices in ways that, then, could impact reliability.
Monica Trauzzi: All right, Jurgen, this is an interesting report to add to the discussions, the already-heated discussions on the Clean Power Plan. Thank you for joining me.
Jurgen Weiss: Sure. You're welcome. Thank you.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
[End of Audio]
-
Environmentalists Plan Air Permit Lawsuits Absent EPA 'Aggregation' Rule
Feb 23, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo and Lea Radick
Environmentalists are planning potential lawsuits to force EPA to make final decisions on how to "aggregate," or combine, emissions for oil and gas operations in Clean Air Act permits on case-by-case basis, saying the suits are vital until EPA issues its pending aggregation rule and that the legal threats might accelerate the rulemaking.
EPA's current policy on aggregation, which has faced various legal challenges from industry, is "not at all clear," an environmentalist says. The agency has announced plans to propose in May a rule to define oil and gas emissions sources that could resolve the aggregation issue, but the source is "dismayed we haven't seen more progress" toward broader aggregation decisions in individual permits in lieu of a comprehensive new federal policy.
As a result, environmental groups are aiming to use the threat of litigation to force the agency into making decisions on air permits that they believe would require aggregation of pollution sources. Potentially, advocates could also sue over whatever aggregation decision EPA makes in such permits as a final agency action. Aggregating sources could push their combined emissions over the "major" source threshold for stricter Clean Air Act permits.
The source says a U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit 2-1 ruling from August 2012 in Summit Petroleum Corp. v. EPA that scrapped the agency's "functional interrelatedness" test used in aggregation decision has "really clouded the air" on EPA's policy for making case-by-case permit decision on aggregation. They are seeking clarity on the agency's approach to aggregation, and hoping the suits will spur faster EPA action on the rule.
The environmental group WildEarth Guardians is now eying a possible lawsuit against EPA Region 8 to force the agency to make an aggregation permit decision on several pending permits in that region, which includes Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming. The group recently filed a notice of intent to sue (NOI) EPA over its alleged failure to act on permit applications for oil and gas operations in Utah.
Under the Clean Air Act, EPA or state permitting authorities must issue or deny Title V permits for major air pollution sources within 18 months of receiving an application. "The EPA's delay in issuing or denying Title V Permits within 18 months after receiving complete applications means that the agency has failed and is continuing to fail to ensure that the these facilities are meeting all applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act," according to the NOI.
"Further, the public is being denied information necessary to understand which Clean Air Act requirement apply to the aforementioned facilities and what monitoring is being undertaken to ensure compliance," the NOI says.
The NOI says EPA proposed draft Title V permits in early 2011 for the Chipeta Processing Natural Buttes Compressor Station and the Anadarko Ouray Compressor Station, but never finalized them.
Both the compressor stations are located in the Uinta Basin of northeastern Utah, an area with heavy volumes of oil and gas development that has struggled with attaining EPA's national ambient air quality standards for ozone, partially seen as a result of rapidly expanding oil and gas drilling activities that emit ozone-forming pollutants.
Aggregation Test
WildEarth Guardians is seeking for EPA to apply its three-prong aggregation test, outlined in a Bush-era memo signed by then-air chief William Wehrum and subsequently expanded in a controversial 2009 Gina McCarthy memo, to the two compressor stations. That would require EPA to consider whether they should be aggregated, or combined, with surrounding oil and gas wells and other sources, which could trigger stricter emissions controls.
In the 2011 comments on the Natural Buttes and Ouray facilities, WildEarth Guardians urged EPA to consider the "interrelatedness" of ancillary sources such as wells in making aggregation decisions, saying they "appear to be components of an interdependent natural gas production, gathering, and processing system."
The comments cited the 2009 McCarthy memo and other applicable requirements, "EPA is therefore obligated to assess to what extent all or portions of these oil and gas wells and related facilities belong to the same industrial grouping, are contiguous or adjacent, and under common control or ownership."
"In particular, we are concerned that EPA has not assessed to what extent the oil and gas wells and other facilities (including upstream compressor stations, gathering lines and/or other ancillary facilities) that may be connected to or adjacent to the compressor stations should be aggregated together with the Natural Buttes and Ouray compressor stations," the comments said. They also faulted EPA for not making "an accurate source determination" for the facilities under aggregation and the air law's Title V and prevention of significant deterioration programs.
Due to the lack of analysis that WildEarth Guardians said EPA must conduct, the agency "has not demonstrated that both Title V Permits will assure compliance with all applicable requirements," the comments said.
The three aggregation criteria outlined in the Wehrum memo for deciding when to combine sources in permits are whether units are adjacent, whether they are under common control, and whether they are part of the same industrial grouping, but McCarthy later revised the adjacency definition to include "functional interrelatedness" as a significant factor, along with physical proximity, potentially leading to more decisions to aggregate.
An energy company, Summit Petroleum, subsequently sued over the McCarthy memo in the 6th Circuit, saying EPA should revert to the Bush administration's focus on physical proximity as the main adjacency factor, as specified in the Wehrum memo.
The court in its split ruling agreed with industry, vacating the agency's 2008 decision that the energy company's gas sweetening plant and wells located in Michigan constituted a single source requiring a major source permit. The court ordered EPA to revisit its decision using physical proximity as the basis for whether the plant and wells were adjacent.
EPA Memo
Following the ruling, EPA issued a December 2012 memo that sought to limit the ruling to those states covered by the 6th Circuit: Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee and Kentucky, which cover parts of EPA Regions 4 and 5. The memo said that in all other EPA regions and states the stricter adjacency test would remain in place.
But industry challenged the 2012 memo in the D.C. Circuit, saying it unlawfully created competing permitting regimes and gave the 6th Circuit states a competitive advantage by allowing use of the weaker aggregation definitions.
The D.C. Circuit in National Environmental Development Association's Clean Air Project (NEDA/CAP) v. EPA, sided with industry, finding in its May 30 ruling that the memo violated EPA's regional consistency regulations, but suggested steps for how EPA might otherwise address its concerns with the 6th Circuit ruling -- including rewriting its "regulatory consistency" policy to include an exemption for court rulings, which the agency is doing.
In response to the NEDA/CAP ruling, EPA launched its rulemaking to better define source definitions, and separately also plans to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking this year to "revise the Regional Consistency regulations to allow an exception for judicial decisions."
But despite the planned rulemakings, the environmentalist says that uncertainty remains over EPA's policy, prompting the threat of permit-specific suits.
-
Obama Flexes Muscles on Resources With Eye on Legacy
Feb 23, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Phil Taylor
President Obama has quickly built a hefty portfolio on natural resource issues.
In the last two years, Obama has designated or expanded a dozen national monuments, preserved more than 1.1 million acres in the West and moved to permanently ban drilling in the oil-rich Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
And in the last month he's proposed the biggest expansion of offshore oil and gas exploration in a generation, paving the way for drilling rigs to plumb mostly virgin waters from Virginia to Georgia, while permitting the first oil production in the nation's largest petroleum reserve. Last Friday, his administration unveiled major rules governing Arctic oil exploration.
While Obama still has nearly two years left in the White House, his allies and critics are already sizing up his record on resources -- and thinking about what's to come.
If history is any indication, Obama's pace of executive actions on lands and waters could accelerate.
Consider that President Clinton in his last year in office designated or expanded 18 of his 19 national monuments, permanently setting aside more than 3.3 million acres, according to National Park Service data.
Obama last week designated three new monuments covering 22,000 acres in Illinois, Colorado and Hawaii, calling parks, monuments and waters the "birthright of all Americans."
Other major land and energy decisions are fast approaching:The administration will decide in coming months whether to permit Royal Dutch Shell PLC to drill in the relatively pristine Chukchi Sea off Alaska's North Slope, where there are an estimated 15 billion barrels of oil.The Bureau of Land Management will write or finalize major rules governing hydraulic fracturing, methane venting and flaring, and royalties.And BLM will finalize unprecedented new protections for sage grouse across tens of millions of acres of Western rangelands, an effort some conservationists are comparing to Clinton's sweeping 2001 roadless rule.
"What Obama is doing is setting a platform for action over the next two years," said Bill Meadows, former president of the Wilderness Society. "There's so much more that can be done, and I think he's enjoying it."
Not enjoying Obama's action: Republican lawmakers.
"This White House has shown once again its utter and complete disdain for the public process, Congress and the communities most impacted by these unilateral, unchecked land designations," House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) said after Obama's monuments announcement last week. "Obama has sidelined the American public and bulldozed transparency."
While Republicans accuse Obama of flouting Congress and putting a regulatory muzzle on the nation's energy renaissance, they appear powerless to stop him.
The 1906 Antiquities Act gives presidents almost unchecked powers to ban oil drilling, mining and logging across enormous swaths of the American West. Clinton famously used the law in 1996 to designate the 1.7-million-acre Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in southern Utah, blocking development of a massive coal deposit and enraging lawmakers in the Beehive State.
Obama has so far used the law more diplomatically, designating monuments only where there is broad political support and, incidentally, only in states that voted for him in 2012.
He's used the act 16 times, setting aside land at a faster clip than Clinton, but with fewer acres. But it's tough to draw comparisons, since every acre conserved is not equal.
A big test will be whether Obama will protect landscapes in hostile territory -- such as the half-million-acre Boulder-White Clouds in central Idaho and nearly 2 million acres surrounding Canyonlands National Park in Utah. Republican lawmakers in those states are urging Obama to stand down as they seek legislative protections.
But top Obama aides say the president has plenty of ink in his pen for creating monuments if Congress fails to act.
Green groups are also seeking protections of 1.7 million acres surrounding the Grand Canyon, more than 1 million acres in the Southern California desert and 350,000 acres of Nevada's Gold Butte, a vast desert of multihued rocks, petroglyphs and slot canyons.Obama getting 'the hang of it'
Conservationists say Obama has gone from timid to bold on resource issues.
They point to Obama's proposal last month to designate some 12 million acres of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness -- barring access to an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil that Alaskan officials badly want to supply the depleted Trans-Alaskan Pipeline System.
The move was symbolic, since only Congress can decide whether the refuge is opened to drilling. But it reversed a Reagan administration plan seeking full oil and gas development in the 1.5-million-acre coastal plain -- a major policy stamp for the next 15 years.
And in contrast with the Fish and Wildlife Service's draft ANWR wilderness proposal -- which was quietly unveiled in August 2011, barely getting noticed in the media -- Obama and his advisers touted the final wilderness plan with gusto. Interior Secretary Sally Jewell and Chief of Staff Tommy Beaudreau stopped by the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the Alaska Wilderness League to celebrate the proposal.
It was a poke in the eye to the Alaska congressional delegation, including Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).
"He's growing more comfortable using the administrative powers at his disposal," said Mike Matz, director of U.S. public lands for the Pew Charitable Trusts. "His administration has gotten ... the hang of it."
Matz credited John Podesta, the president's senior counselor on global warming, who founded the liberal Center for American Progress, for prodding Obama to act. Podesta in summer 2012, while at CAP, called monument designations "good politics," arguing they could burnish Obama's re-election bid in key Western battleground states. The ANWR announcement came at a politically advantageous time, given that gasoline prices were plunging as domestic oil production in the Lower 48 soared.
Former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt played a similar role with Clinton by challenging the 42nd president to match the conservation achievements of past commanders in chief, Matz said.
"In Obama, you had another instigator in John Podesta," Matz said. "You need someone who can make the administration comfortable up and down the ranks."
Greens question whether Obama will keep up the momentum as key staffers depart and the administration heads for the home stretch.
Podesta left the White House this month to join Hillary Clinton's political team as she considers jumping into the 2016 presidential race. And Mike Boots, the acting chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, who is viewed as another champion for land protections, plans to leave the administration in March.
In addition, Obama is already laying claim to protecting more land and waters than any other president. The claim is true if you count the president's decision last September to expand the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument to more than 490,000 square miles.
Some conservationists fear he'll rest on his laurels. But others see new allies arriving at the White House.
A fresh arrival hailed by green groups is Christy Goldfuss, a former National Park Service political appointee who worked under Podesta at CAP, who is being groomed to take the helm at CEQ, sources said.
Environmentalists are also enthusiastic about Michael Degnan, a former Sierra Club representative, and Angela Barranco, who are both at CEQ, as well as Jewell's Deputy Chief of Staff Nikki Buffa, BLM Director Neil Kornze, and Agriculture Department Undersecretary for Natural Resources and Environment Robert Bonnie.
Last Wednesday, Interior Deputy Secretary Michael Connor attended a public meeting in Las Vegas with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Rep. Dina Titus (D-Nev.) to discuss their proposals to protect more than 1 million acres at Gold Butte and at Garden and Coal valleys, which include remote archaeological sites and a massive public art project.
Connor's attendance suggests the administration could be considering the area for a future monument. Jewell and Bonnie in December also visited Northern California's Berryessa Snow Mountain region, where conservationists are clamoring for a 350,000-acre monument designation.'Not a love fest'
Douglas Brinkley, a history professor at Rice University who has written extensively on land conservation, said Obama must act with more pluck to rival Clinton's conservation legacy.
Neither president will rival the achievements of Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson or Jimmy Carter, who make up the "Mount Rushmore" of land conservation, according to Brinkley.
But Obama, who has already earned the title of "the climate change president," faces few political risks in pushing the conservation envelope, Brinkley said.
"The political atmosphere couldn't be better for the president to be brave in using the Antiquities Act."
The administration has put its stamp on public lands in more subtle ways, too, by implementing controversial oil and gas leasing reforms in 2010 that were followed by a steep drop in BLM lands leased for drilling, and by yanking 77 George W. Bush-era oil and gas leases that former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar argued were too close to national parks in Utah.
BLM issued 1,157 oil and gas leases in fiscal 2014, a 20 percent drop from the previous year and the lowest amount in at least a quarter-century, according to agency statistics released last month. Over the past five years, the agency has leased an average of 1.5 million acres annually, down significantly from the 4 million acres the George W. Bush administration leased annually during its final five years in office.
Oil production has grown steadily on Western federal lands, but nowhere near as fast as on private tracts overlying shale plays in states like North Dakota and Texas. The administration's critics blame BLM red tape, while others attribute the discrepancy to geology.
Natural gas production has dropped steadily on federal lands -- even as it has soared elsewhere -- and oil production has fallen under Obama's watch in the Gulf of Mexico, though some of the drop can be attributed to the halt in drilling following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill.
"[For] people pushing for more government control and less extraction on federal lands, Obama is their savior," said Dan Kish, senior vice president for the Institute for Energy Research, a free-market advocacy group. "He's basically given them all they want and more."
Oil backers offered tempered praise for Obama's decision last month to open the Atlantic Ocean to future leasing, though they blasted his decision to ban development within 50 miles of shore, a restriction some fear will preclude exploration altogether.
The leasing proposal "slams the door on industry and on new jobs, increased economic activity, added revenue and strengthened energy security," said Randall Luthi, president of the National Ocean Industries Association.
But Meadows, the Wilderness Society former president, said Obama is far from a conservationist lap dog.
Obama's "all of the above" energy platform has included a heavy emphasis on natural gas drilling, coal leasing in Wyoming and drilling in the Arctic Ocean, Meadows said.
"This is not a love fest by any means," he said.'Very pragmatic'
According to Paul Bledsoe, a former Clinton Interior official, Obama has been "bullish" on the future of oil and gas development.
The administration has implemented unprecedented safety reforms in the Gulf of Mexico and is preparing two major rules governing hydraulic fracturing and the venting and flaring of methane -- moves that should facilitate continued development of federal minerals, he said.
"The Obama administration has reformed and improved the safety and environmental sustainability of oil and gas development on public lands and waters more profoundly than any other recent president," Bledsoe said. "This administration, in my view, has been very pro-oil and gas development, even while protecting pristine landscapes from development and creating a record area of new national monuments."
Bledsoe said it is politically remarkable that less than five years after the BP PLC oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the administration is poised to open the Atlantic.
Moreover, the administration has taken a flexible approach to conserving the greater sage grouse, Bledsoe said, by taking lessons from the northern spotted owl, whose protection under the Endangered Species Act in the early 1990s led to dramatic reductions in logging.
"They're very pragmatic," Bledsoe said. "It's a window into the adaptability of the Obama administration's view of conservation broadly."
-
Green Group Challenges U.S. Approval of Fracking Off Calif. Coast
Feb 23, 2015 | Reuters
By Ayesha Rascoe
An environmental group has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Interior Department accusing it of allowing hydraulic fracturing in oil and gas drilling off the California coast without proper review of safety hazards and impacts on marine life.
The Center for Biological Diversity filed a complaint on Thursday with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The group asked the court to bar the department from issuing permits for hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, until it complies with various federal laws.
-
White House: Don't Expect 'Drama or Fanfare' on Keystone Veto
Feb 23, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Laura Barron-Lopez
The White House said Monday that President Obama doesn't plan on drumming up "a lot of drama or fanfare" when he vetoes legislation that would approve the Keystone XL pipeline.
Congress will send a bill approving the $8 billion project to the White House Tuesday morning, and the president is expected to swiftly veto it.
Republican leaders held off on sending the bill to Obama until after the President's Day recess despite signing it over a week ago.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest chided Republicans for holding off on sending the bill, but reiterated that Obama will veto it.
"I have been perplexed by this process and the way it's unfolded. Congress passed this bill like 10 days ago but its just coming to white house apparently as early as tomorrow," Earnest said.
"I would anticipate, as we've been saying for years, that the president will veto that legislation, and he will, so I would not anticipate a lot of drama or fanfare around it."
Republicans made Keystone XL their first order of business in the 114th Congress after gaining control of both chambers.
The Senate spent its entire first month in session on the bill, which includes an amendment declaring "climate change is real and not a hoax."
-
Earnest: Don't Expect a Public 'Drama' Over Keystone Veto
Feb 23, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
President Barack Obama is unlikely to stage a public spectacle when he vetoes Congress’ Keystone XL pipeline bill, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said today.
The legislation that Congress is expected to send Obama tomorrow is on track to draw only his third veto in six years, but Earnest told reporters that “I would not anticipate any drama or fanfare” surrounding the rejection.
The private nature of the veto itself, however, is sure to stoke drama among Republicans who view Keystone as a prime example of the White House’s unwillingness to compromise on issues — like the pipeline — that command support from both parties. GOP leaders have yet to decide on whether to attempt to override Obama’s Keystone veto, a vote they are on track to lose.
Presidents have at times made a point of putting on a public display when vetoing bills. For example, former President Bill Clinton held an appearance with a group of women whenvetoing a 1996 bill aimed at banning “partial birth” abortion. President George W. Bush held a similar ceremony with children a decade later when he vetoed a bill to ease restrictions on stem-cell research. -
Keystone Bill to Arrive at White House Tuesday
Feb 23, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Laura Barron-Lopez
Republican leaders plan on Tuesday to send President Obama legislation that would authorize construction of the Keystone XL oil sands pipeline.
While the bill passed Congress more than a week ago, Republican leaders did not send it to the White House to prevent Obama from vetoing it while lawmakers were out of town for the Presidents Day recess.
"The Keystone XL pipeline approval bill has now passed both chambers of Congress and will go to the president’s desk tomorrow," Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), one of the authors of the Keystone bill, said in a statement on Monday.
"The administration has delayed this important infrastructure project for over six years, despite a series of environmental reviews, all of which conclude that the project will have no significant environmental impact. It has been more than enough time to make a fair decision on the merits of the project."Republicans have been eager to send the Keystone bill to Obama since taking control of both chambers of Congress, having made legislation on the project their first order of business for 2015.
GOP leaders have pushed Obama to reconsider his veto threat, arguing Keystone will create thousands of jobs and help the nation move toward energy independence.
The White House has repeatedly said the president will veto the bill, arguing it circumvents the ongoing review process of Keystone playing out at the State Department.
The president himself has become increasingly more critical of the project, saying in December that the pipeline is "not even going to be a nominal benefit to U.S. consumers."
It remains to be see how and when Obama will veto the Keystone bill, though few expect it will be rejected in a public ceremony.
-
Hoeven: President Will Get Keystone Bill Tomorrow
Feb 23, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
Republicans plan to officially send the White House their Keystone XL legislation tomorrow, setting up an expected presidential veto soon afterward, Sen. John Hoeven said today.
The GOP had put off the formal transmission of its Keystone bill until after last week’s congressional recess, so that Republicans could be in Washington to respond to the all-but-certain veto. But the Keystone measure’s official journey across the capital will not come until tomorrow, Hoeven said in a statement that held out hope for President Barack Obama to change his mind.
“I encourage the president to sign this legislation and work with us not only to build this vital infrastructure project, but also to help us develop a true comprehensive, all-of-the-above energy plan for our nation,” Hoeven said.
Obama’s veto of the Keystone bill does not kill the pipeline outright and leaves the door open for a presidential decision on the project’s fate — though the timeline for that decision remains unclear. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Shippers Seek Rail Reforms
Feb 23, 2015 | Chemical and Engineering News
By Glenn Hess
...John Thune (R-S.D.), chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee, the coalition says legislation is needed to improve competition among railroads, such as by allowing shippers “to challenge unreasonable rates or practices.” Rates have increased 76% since 2001, according to the American Chemistry Council, a chemical industry trade group.
Access to full text unavailable -- subscription required.
Story can be found at: http://cen.acs.org/articles/93/i8/Chemical-Shippers-Seek-Rail-Reforms.html
-
W.Va. Oil Train Derailment Reverberates in the Bakken
Feb 23, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
With the fires gone and the wreckage mostly cleared from the site of last Monday's oil train derailment in West Virginia, state leaders are puzzling over how to prevent another disaster.
But the derailment triggered another response halfway across the country in North Dakota's Bakken Shale play, where the oil on the ill-fated CSX Corp. train originated.
Though the cause of the derailment is still unclear, investigators with the Department of Transportation said they would test the crude to see if its chemical properties played a role in the initial tank car failure.
"We continue to look into the composition of Bakken crude oil, which is why we took samples of the product to verify appropriate classification and whether emergency responders received the accurate information to respond to this derailment," said Tim Butters, acting administrator of the DOT's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
Nearly two dozen derailed tank cars ultimately caught fire in the accident, engulfing a nearby house in flames. The elderly man inside at the time narrowly managed to escape without serious injury (EnergyWire, Feb. 20).
The West Virginia derailment wasn't the first time Bakken crude has been involved in a major crash: Oil trains have also exploded in Casselton, N.D.; Lynchburg, Va.; and Aliceville, Ala., among other places. In July 2013, a 72-car train carrying crude from North Dakota derailed and burst into flames in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, killing 47 people.
But the most recent explosive crash has raised questions about whether pending rules in North Dakota go far enough to "stabilize" light crude oil produced in the state and shipped out by rail.
To what extent the volatility of Bakken crude oil should factor into any safety rules is still a matter of debate. The oil industry has called for closer scrutiny of tank car integrity and track maintenance, while others have suggested curbing oil train speeds or installing better brakes.
For the Dakota Resource Council, responsibility for the damaging West Virginia derailment "is squarely at the feet of North Dakota officials from Gov. [Jack] Dalrymple on down for their inept handling of regulating oil extraction in North Dakota," the group of landowners and environmentalists said in a statement.
The DRC added that state regulators "could make sure oil is safe before it's put on trains," referring to stabilization. "But they've refused to do that."
Dalrymple spokesman Jeff Zent pointed to the Republican's "very active" role in passing the crude conditioning requirement in December (EnergyWire, Dec. 10).
An editorial in the Fargo Forum likened the DRC's accusations to "blaming a logger in Oregon for a house fire because wood burns," also citing the new volatility standards as an example of progress.
That North Dakota Industrial Commission order stopped short of calling for costly stabilization facilities and instead required simple heater treaters to lower crude's vapor pressure, a measure of dissolved gases that are more prone to ignite.
Calls for tighter stabilization rules may fall flat until the order comes into effect this April, according to Kevin Book, managing director at ClearView Energy Partners.
"We don't know if this has changed anything or not," Book said of the order. "What we do know is that, had it been in place when this [derailment] happened, it would have created a much stronger impetus for federal intervention."
The Department of Transportation likely won't step in until North Dakota's approach gets a chance to play out, Book explained, although he said the agency would continue to collect data on vapor pressure and other chemical properties.
The 3.1 million gallons of oil in the train that derailed near Boomer, W.Va., may have already been conditioned to comply with North Dakota's new standards. When he announced the order in December, Dalrymple said most producers in the state were already using heater treaters and wouldn't need to change their practices.
Since then, even more drillers have fallen in line with the conditioning standards, according to Tessa Sandstrom, spokeswoman for the North Dakota Petroleum Council.
She called the West Virginia derailment an "unfortunate incident" and said the industry has pushed for a "comprehensive approach" to rail safety.
But when it comes to Bakken crude's chemical properties, Sandstrom pointed out that "no amount of conditioning or stabilization can change crude oil from being classified as a flammable liquid."
"That is what makes it desirable in the market," she said. "It is a precursor for fuels: gasoline, diesel and jet fuel -- all of which are flammable liquids."
-
State Seeks More Info on Risky Rail Cargo
Feb 23, 2015 | OC Register
By David Danelski
The fiery derailment this month of a train pulling more than a hundred tank cars of crude oil in West Virginia underscored ongoing demands by California officials for more information about hazardous materials moving through the state by rail.
The accident “is another sobering wake-up call for us,” said Kelly Huston, a spokesman for the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services.
After last year’s directive by President Barack Obama, railroad companies now give California and other states limited information about large rail shipments of crude oil from the Northern Plains. This was the kind of oil that spilled and caught fire in West Virginia.
But the railroad companies, which fall under federal regulations, do not provide that kind of information to state and local officials about shipments of other toxic, volatile and explosive materials, Huston said by telephone.
“We want to know what all trains are carrying before they get here so our first responders can better prepare for such accidents,” Huston said Tuesday.
Currently, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway mainline between Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties carries an estimated 75 daily freight trains through parts of northern Orange County, in the cities of Yorba Linda, Anaheim, Buena Park, Fullerton and Placentia.
By 2025, this line will carry an estimated 125 daily freight trains, said Eric Carpenter, a spokesman for the Orange County Transportation Authority.
Along the Los Angeles/San Diego Rail Corridor, which runs north and south through the county, daily freight train traffic is expected to increase to 12 trains by 2025 from six now, Carpenter added.
A spokeswoman for BNSF Railway, one of two major railroad companies in California, said the company is working on getting more information about hazardous cargo shipments to California officials.
The railway is developing a software application for smartphones and computer tablets that will give state officials real-time information about what kind of hazardous shipments each train is carrying, said Lena Kent, the BNSF spokeswoman.
“It should be out in about a month,” Kent said.
Knowing the kinds of hazardous materials being shipped and their routes would enable local fire departments and other agencies to better train for accidents and more strategically deploy equipment and manpower, Huston said.
Still, California and other states are getting more information than they did a year ago.
Because of an increase in rail shipments of volatile crude from the boom oil fields in the Bakken region of North Dakota and Montana, U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx last year ordered the nation’s railroads to provide states with information about crude shipments from those Plains areas.
Bakken crude contains higher levels of combustible gases, making it potentially more flammable than other kinds of crude, federal officials have said in media reports.
Foxx’s order followed a string of fiery accidents. Those include derailments in North Dakota, Alabama, New Brunswick and Quebec, where a runaway oil train crashed in July 2013 in Lac-Megantic and killed 47 people.
But this information provided to California so far is limited, Huston said. The companies have provided only estimates about the number of trains carrying 1 million or more gallons of Bakken crude oil and the counties they travel through, he said.
Kent said BNSF shipments of Bakken oil in California are “very limited” – no more than two trains a month that go to refineries in Northern California. A notice BNSF submitted to the state last fall said the trains followed a route from Oregon though nine counties to the Bay Area.
A spokesman for Union Pacific, the other major railroad company in California, could not be reached for comment last week.
In 2014, California received 1.2 million barrels of crude from North Dakota by rail, according to the California Energy Commission.
Huston pointed out that most crude oil rail shipments to California – about 79 percent – come from other parts of the United States and Canada. Much of it goes to refineries in Southern California, he said.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Add recipients
Suggested