Preview Newsletter
ACC AM Mar 9
-
Examining State Perspectives of the EPA’s Proposed Carbon Dioxide Emissions Rule For Existing Power Plants
Mar 11, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
Location: EPW Hearing Room - 406 Dirksen/ 10:00 AM -
Three Years Later: Are We Any Closer To A Nationwide Public Safety Wireless Broadband Network?
Mar 11, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation
Location: Senate Russell Office Building, Room 253/ 10:00 AM -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Industry Spending Surges to Support Sham Reform
Mar 6, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Libby Foley
Updated data from the Center for Responsive Politics and lobbying disclosure forms filed with Congress show that the American Chemistry Council, along with chemical giants Dow, Dupont, BASF, 3M, Honeywell and Koch Industries, spent $69 million in 2014 to lobby legislators – up from $62.9 million in 2013 and $58.5 million in 2012. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Equities Outpace S&P 500 Since Start of the Year, ACC Says
Mar 6, 2015 | Chemical Engineering
By Scott Jenkins
The S&P index for chemical companies is up 5.6% from the beginning of 2015, while the wider S&P 500 Index is up only 2.2%, according to the latest Weekly Chemistry and Economic Report from the American Chemistry Council (ACC; Washington, D.C.; www.americanchemistry.com). The S&P chemicals index rose 6.8% in February... -
(ACC Mentioned) As Plastics Recycling Industry Grows, Association Follows Suit
Mar 6, 2015 | Associations Now
By Ernie Smith
We’re recycling more plastic than ever—and that has meant good things for the associations that represent the recycling industry. A report from the American Chemistry Council [PDF] released last month highlighted a dramatic 74 percent increase in collection of post-consumer plastic film (which includes plastic bags and packaging)... -
(ACC Mentioned) Data Disclosure, Public Pressure Said to Play Key Roles in Chemical Makers' Pollution Cuts
Mar 9, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Information disclosure, public pressure and regulation play key roles in spurring chemical manufacturers to reduce their releases of hazardous waste, air pollutants and other contaminants, a professor of sustainable science, technology and commerce said at a chemical regulatory conference. -
(ACC Mentioned) Study Says Endocrine Disruptors, Illnesses Cost Billions; Basis of Claims Questioned
Mar 9, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Endocrine disrupting chemicals and the illnesses they may contribute to in the European Union are costing €157 billion annually in lost earnings, foregone economic contributions and direct medical costs, U.S. and European endocrinologists wrote in a new analysis. -
(ACC Mentioned) New York Times: Chemical Industry Courts Tom Udall
Mar 6, 2015 | Santa Fe Reporter
By Justin Horwath
The New York Times has published a story about an "unlikely alliance" between the chemical industry and New Mexico's Democratic US Senator Tom Udall, regarded as an environmental champion. From reporter Eric Lipton's report: ... -
(ACC Mentioned) Udall’s Ties to Chemical Industry Profiled by NYT
Mar 6, 2015 | New Mexico Political Report
By Matthew Reichbach
The New York Times looked at the newly-close ties between U.S. Senator Tom Udall and the chemical industry. Udall is the Democratic point man in discussions over an overhaul of safety regulations in relation to chemicals, the New York Times reports, taking over for the late U.S.... -
Senators Eye Preemption In TSCA Reform Bill Over California's Objections
Mar 6, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
New draft Senate legislation to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) would broadly preempt existing and future state chemicals programs and withdraw states' ability to co-enforce federal toxics rules, over the objections of California's attorney general (AG) who has led the push for limiting preemption in any TSCA reform bill. -
California Alleges Company Illegally Used Hazardous Sludge to Make Wine Bottles
Mar 9, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California's Department of Toxic Substances Control has filed a lawsuit seeking civil penalties from a Modesto glass company for using sludge from the facility's air pollution control equipment to make wine bottles (California v. Gallo Glass Co., Cal. Sup. Ct., No. RG15760440, 2/27/15). -
A “Wealth Primary” for Legislation?
Mar 8, 2015 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Andy Igrejas
The chemical industry should not get to dictate the terms by which it is regulated. The jockeying among presidential hopefuls in recent weeks has generated a new round of criticism of what’s called the “Wealth Primary” – the informal, but often decisive vetting of candidates by mega-donors. -
DHS Chemical Security Program Dropped Hundreds of Sites in Past Year, Data Show
Mar 9, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The Department of Homeland Security's chemical security program has shrunk by nearly a fifth during the past year without explanation, as more than 720 industrial facilities are no longer regulated under the program, newly released data show. As of March 2014, 4,199 facilities were regulated under the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards... -
(ACC Blog) EPA’s Ozone Standard: A Defining Moment for U.S. Manufacturing
Mar 9, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
As we approach EPA’s March 17 deadline for comments on its proposal lowering the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone, Americans should be fully informed of the impacts. In many communities, the answer is simple: Fewer jobs, slower growth. http://blog.americanchemistry.com/ -
(ACC Mentioned) HECA: Taking School-Bus-Interior Air-Cleaning to Whole New Level
Mar 7, 2015 | Air Quality Matters
By Alan Kandel
When it comes to mobile air-filtration technology in the school-bus operating environment, HECA could be the next big breakthrough. HECA is up to 88 percent effective when it comes to reducing exposure to pollutants in the air inside school buses, so says Kim Irwin in “On-board school bus filtration system reduces pollutants ... -
How the Oil Export Ban Chokes the Fracking Boom
Mar 6, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.
President Obama may love America, but it would be nice if he also loved a few energy executives who could warn him that a serious public-policy glitch is about to blow up on his watch. Oil is overflowing U.S. storage facilities partly because of the 40-year-old export ban. The wave of bankruptcies and layoffs that many have predicted... -
Lone Pine Order Rejected as Unfair To Plaintiffs in Fracking Litigation
Mar 9, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
Entering a Lone Pine case management order in a suit over damage allegedly caused by fracking operations would unfairly prejudice plaintiffs who haven't had a chance to engage in the discovery that may support their claims, a federal court in Pennsylvania has ruled (Russell v. Chesapeake Appalachia LLC, 2015 BL 54808... -
Oil-State Senators Blast Obama Bid to Siphon Revenues
Mar 6, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Phil Taylor
Seven oil-state Republican senators this week blasted President Obama's proposal to divert more than $3 billion in future offshore oil and gas revenues destined to Gulf Coast states to fund national environmental and public land priorities. The senators aired their concerns in a Wednesday letter to the president... -
Seven Senators Write Obama to Oppose Plan to Redirect Offshore Energy Revenues
Mar 9, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
Seven senators have sent a letter to President Barack Obama telling him they oppose his fiscal year 2016 budget proposal to redirect money from Gulf of Mexico offshore oil leases to various programs around the nation rather than to four Gulf Coast states, as they say a 2006 law requires. -
D.C. Circuit Denies Advocacy Group's Bid To Halt Interior's Offshore Drilling Program
Mar 9, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
A federal appeals court panel ruled against the Center for Sustainable Economy's challenge to the Interior Department's five-year offshore oil and gas leasing program (Center for Sustainable Econ. v. Salazar, D.C. Cir., No. 12-1431, petition for review denied 3/6/15). -
Jeb Bush, Anti-Drilling Crusader
Mar 8, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia
For years before “drill, baby, drill” became a Republican rallying cry, Jeb Bush was one of Florida’s staunchest opponents of offshore drilling. As the governor of the tourist mecca, Bush fought to maintain Florida’s status as the only Gulf Coast state with no offshore oil and gas production — opposing even his brother’s administration in ... -
‘Extraordinarily Dirty' Oil From Keystone XL Could Present Climate Risks, Obama Says
Mar 9, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Canadian tar sands oil that would be transported through the Keystone XL pipeline is extracted through “extraordinarily dirty” means, President Barack Obama said March 6, in some of his most negative remarks on the proposed project yet. Obama, speaking at a town hall in Columbia, S.C., again reiterated a promise not to approve TransCanada... -
Regulatory Snafu in Oil Fields May Be Tainting Water Supplies
Mar 6, 2015 | San Francisco Chronicle
Along with a deepening drought, heavy cuts in irrigation allotments and unchecked groundwater pumping, California has another problem with its fragile water supplies. Oil drilling fluids made up of salty water and chemicals for years have been injected back underground with no oversight. -
Agency Pushed to Improve Management Of Oil, Gas Activities in Wildlife Refugees
Mar 9, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has accepted the need to improve its management of oil and natural gas activities in national wildlife refuges but hasn't yet implemented the agreed-upon changes, the Interior Department inspector general said in a report. The March 4 report report, “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Management ... -
LNG Supply Could Outstrip Demand By 2035, Canadian Regulator Says
Mar 9, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jeremy Hainsworth
Utilization of global natural gas liquefaction capacity is between 80 percent and 90 percent, suggesting capacity will probably be higher than demand going forward, with proposed North American liquefied natural gas plants becoming redundant in the face of demand projected to 2035, a market snapshot showed. -
A Little-Known Federal Rule Brings Invisible Pollution Into Focus
Mar 6, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Peter Zalzal
Unlike an oil spill, most greenhouse gas emissions are invisible to the naked eye. Though we can’t see them, this pollution represents a daily threat to our environment and communities, and it is important to understand the extent of this pollution and where it comes from. -
State Officials to Lock Horns on the Clean Power Plan
Mar 9, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Jean Chemnick
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will hear this week from states weighing how -- and whether -- to implement U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. The five officials who will address the panel Wednesday are from state agencies and public utility commissions tasked with writing and advising on state implementation plans for ... -
EPA Looking to Ease Reporting Burdens On Businesses as Part of Periodic Review
Mar 9, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency is identifying ways to ease reporting burdens on regulated businesses as part of a periodic review mandated by the White House. The EPA is seeking input on expanding electronic reporting, eliminating duplicative reporting and deploying advanced monitoring techniques, according to a notice... -
EPA's Utility MACT Cost Review May Protect Rule Under Potential Remand
Mar 6, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA's existing cost-benefit analysis for its utility air toxics rule is robust and legally sound, says a legal advocacy group, which could help the agency use the analysis as the basis for responding to a potential Supreme Court remand of the rule to EPA if the court agrees with industry that the agency erred by not considering costs... -
FERC to Hear Eastern Perspective on Power Plan
Mar 9, 2015 | E&E Daily News
This week, Washington gears up for another Federal Energy Regulatory Commission technical conference on the Clean Power Plan, a visit from the nation's municipal electric utility leaders, a conference of the National League of Cities and a Senate panel discussion featuring state perspectives on the draft rule. -
Some States Fight EPA to Keep Wood Fires Burning
Mar 8, 2015 | AP (in SF Gate)
Smoke wafting from wood fires has long provided a familiar winter smell in many parts of the country — and, in some cases, a foggy haze that has filled people’s lungs with fine particles that can cause coughing and wheezing. Citing health concerns, the Environmental Protection Agency now is pressing ahead with regulations to significantly... -
Week Ahead: Senate to Put Climate Rule Under Microscope
Mar 9, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Laura Barron-Lopez
A Senate committee is planning its third hearing in as many months on the administration’s signature climate change regulation. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will hold a hearing next week on an Environmental Protection Agency climate regulation that requires states to cut carbon dioxide emissions from existing power ... -
What If States Just Say ‘No’ to Climate Rule?
Mar 8, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is counseling states to defy a key pillar of President Obama’s climate change initiative. But while it may be politically attractive for some states to heed the call to just say “no,” to the Environmental Protection Agency’s landmark limits on power plant emissions, experts say doing so could... -
Climate-Friendly Refrigerants
Mar 9, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Steven K. Gibb
Five refrigerants that won’t harm stratospheric ozone and have lower global warming potentials than many similar products got a green light from the Environmental Protection Agency last week. The five products—one hydrofluorocarbon (HFC), three short alkanes, and a blend of hydrocarbons—are already used in Asia and Europe... -
DOE Study on Crude Oil Properties Begins As Government Probes Oil Train Derailment
Mar 9, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven and Ari Natter
The Energy Department is conducting a review of the chemical properties of crude oil, an analysis that may be used to help with a Transportation Department rulemaking setting new safety standards for crude-by-rail shipments, a department spokeswoman told Bloomberg BNA. -
Wrecks Hit Tougher Oil Railcars
| The Wall Street Journal
By Russell Gold and Paul Vieira
In a string of recent oil train derailments in the U.S. and Canada, new and sturdier railroad tanker cars being built to carry a rising tide of crude oil across the continent have failed to prevent ruptures. These tank cars, called CPC-1232s, are the new workhorses of the soaring crude-by-rail industry, carrying hundreds of thousands of barrels... -
A Third Blast on Oil Trains Stirs Scrutiny
Mar 6, 2015 | The New York Times
By Jad Mouawad
For the third time in less than a month, a train carrying flammable crude oil has derailed and burst into flames, prompting questions over whether stricter measures being considered to ensure their safety will be enough. All three accidents involved a newer generation of tank cars that are supposed to be sturdier and safer than older...
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
Mar 11, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
Location: EPW Hearing Room - 406 Dirksen / 10:00 AM
-
Three Years Later: Are We Any Closer To A Nationwide Public Safety Wireless Broadband Network?
Mar 11, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation
Location: Senate Russell Office Building, Room 253/ 10:00 AM
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Industry Spending Surges to Support Sham Reform
Mar 6, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Libby Foley
Updated data from the Center for Responsive Politics and lobbying disclosure forms filed with Congress show that the American Chemistry Council, along with chemical giants Dow, Dupont, BASF, 3M, Honeywell and Koch Industries, spent $69 million in 2014 to lobby legislators – up from $62.9 million in 2013 and $58.5 million in 2012.
The disclosure forms do not link lobbying spending to specific bills, but EWG found that most referred to TSCA or chemical safety legislation as one focus. Over the past three years the industry spent $190 million on lobbying as efforts intensified in Congress to update the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, which all sides acknowledge has been ineffective.
In addition to the surge in lobbying expenditures, ACC “spent more than $4 million during the 2014 election cycle on television and radio spots to help their allies in Congress,” according to The New York Times.
Industry lobbyists are supporting legislation drafted by Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) that would preempt state efforts to regulate chemicals while providing EPA with no new resources to evaluate chemicals’ safety among other problems. In particular, the industry-supported bill adopted by Vitter and Udall would allow EPA to take seven years or more to review a single chemical.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Equities Outpace S&P 500 Since Start of the Year, ACC Says
Mar 6, 2015 | Chemical Engineering
By Scott Jenkins
The S&P index for chemical companies is up 5.6% from the beginning of 2015, while the wider S&P 500 Index is up only 2.2%, according to the latest Weekly Chemistry and Economic Report from the American Chemistry Council (ACC; Washington, D.C.; www.americanchemistry.com). The S&P chemicals index rose 6.8% in February, compared to 5.5% for the S&P 500, the ACC report added.
The report’s assessment of the week’s economic reports was “mixed,” with winter weather dampening economic activity in the Northeast and Midwest U.S., but a larger-than-expected gain in payroll employment.
In other measures, construction spending on chemical products continued to advance and was up sharply from a year ago, the report said. ACC’s running list of chemical industry projects totals 225 project, representing cumulative capital investment of $137.6 billion in the U.S., the report adds.
Looking to global measures, the ACC report said the JPMorgan Global Manufacturing Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) “signaled steady progress by the global manufacturing sector during February,” rising by 0.3 points in Feb. to 52.0 (readings above 50 indicate expansion). -
(ACC Mentioned) As Plastics Recycling Industry Grows, Association Follows Suit
Mar 6, 2015 | Associations Now
By Ernie Smith
We’re recycling more plastic than ever—and that has meant good things for the associations that represent the recycling industry.
A report from the American Chemistry Council [PDF] released last month highlighted a dramatic 74 percent increase in collection of post-consumer plastic film (which includes plastic bags and packaging) between 2005 and 2013. In 2013 alone, the industry saw an 11 percent year-over-year increase.
“We are pleased to see such strong growth in the recycling of polyethylene wraps,” ACC Vice President of Plastics Steve Russell said in a news release. “These increases highlight the critical role that grocers, retailers, and other businesses play in collecting this valuable material.”
One association representing those directly involved in the recycling space is seeing growth as a result of the industry’s expansion. The Association of Postconsumer Plastic Recyclers (APR) told Plastics News that its membership has nearly tripled to 140 members over the past eight years—and the group has more than $1 million in annual revenue.
“We’ve been on a growth trend of about 10 to 15 percent a year for the last five or six years,” APR Executive Director Steve Alexander told the publication. “About eight years ago we had about 53 members, so we’re growing. And that’s a good thing.”
Among the things that have helped boost the industry in recent years has been APR’s role in the Wrap Recycling Action Program (WRAP), an awareness campaign aimed at increasing plastics recycling.
APR Chairman Scott Saunders says that his association’s goal is to continue growing—and to leverage that growth to build up its offerings.
“This is our first year above a million dollars. Now our challenge to the board is how are we going to get to $2 million,” Saunders told Plastics News. “We feel like that’s the revenue level that we need to be to finance the programs that are important to our association.”
-
Mar 9, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Information disclosure, public pressure and regulation play key roles in spurring chemical manufacturers to reduce their releases of hazardous waste, air pollutants and other contaminants, a professor of sustainable science, technology and commerce said at a chemical regulatory conference.
Voluntary government programs and industry self-regulation initiatives have helped but don't appear to have played the central role in the chemical industry's ability to almost de-couple economic growth from harmful environmental consequences, Thomas Lyon, a professor at the University of Michigan's Ross School of Business and its School of Natural Resources and Environment, said March 4.
“You've made really great progress. You should feel very proud of that,” Lyon told chemical manufacturing officials attending GlobalChem, an annual conference organized by the American Chemistry Council and the Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates (SOCMA).
Lyon showed a chart that compared earnings with environmental costs. Between 2002 and 2010, the chemical industry's earnings (before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization) increased 102 percent, while its environmental costs as a percentage of growth increased only 2.5 percent.
Of 11 industrial sectors, including telecommunications, food production, beverages, electric utilities and mining, only the automotive sector had a smaller environmental impact compared with its earnings growth, according to Lyon's presentation.
“Relative to other industries, chemical manufacturers are making very good progress,” he said.
Disclosure Cost Millions in Reduced Stock Value
Lyon analyzed factors—information disclosure and the threat of regulations—that researchers have found pushed chemical manufacturers to reduce their environmental footprint while increasing production.
Lyon also examined voluntary government and industry efforts, which researchers have found to be less effective than hoped.
The disclosure efforts, regulatory threats and voluntary initiatives followed incidents such as the 1980 evacuation of some 1,000 New York residents living near the Love Canal abandoned hazardous waste site and the 1984 leak of poisonous gas in Bhopal, India, where thousands of people died or suffered permanent injuries, Lyon said.
Few of the regulations anticipated to result from the Toxic Substances Control Act have been implemented, but the threat of the regulations was a powerful driver to improve performance as were regulations under other statutes, he said.
“Regulatory threats seem to matter,” Lyon said.
Toxics Release Inventory Examined
He pointed to the Toxics Release Inventory, a chemical pollutant disclosure program long studied by academic researchers.
Publicly owned companies reporting toxic releases lost an average $4.1 million in stock value the first day the Environmental Protection Agency released TRI data in 1989, Lyon said. He referred to a 1995 study by James Hamilton that appeared in the Journal of Environmental Economics and Management.
If the company received media attention for its TRI releases, the average loss was $6 million, Lyon said.
A subsequent study found that companies with the largest stock price decline on the day TRI information became public subsequently reduced emissions more than their industry peers, Lyon said. He cited a 1997 study by two Vanderbilt University researchers that appeared in the same journal.
Voluntary Programs Not Primary Driver
Research indicates that voluntary government pollution reduction efforts and the chemical industry's efforts to cut emissions through its voluntary Responsible Care program have helped, but do not seem to have been the primary motivator for action, Lyon said.
The Responsible Care program has, however, sought to improve its performance by tightening third-party auditing requirements since the release of such findings, he said.
The Responsible Care program also has reduced accidents, he said. Lyon cited a 2012 Journal of Regulatory Economics study by Shanti Gamper-Rabindran and Stephen Finger that found participation in Responsible Care reduced the accident rate per 100 plants by between 69.3 percent and 85.9 percent, depending on the type of accident analyzed.
‘Unrelenting Demands for Transparency.’
The historical research is relevant because chemical manufacturers will remain in the spotlight as governments and the public seek sustainable economic growth and as companies face “unrelenting demands for transparency from stakeholders,” Lyon said.
“Regulation remains central,” he said.
The European Union's registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals (REACH) regulation is spurring proposed changes in the Toxic Substances Control Act, Lyon said.
On March 3, leading industry officials urged passage of an updated TSCA (43 DEN A-6, 3/5/15)
Laws, Regulations Spurring Increased Transparency
REACH is just one of many global regulations demanding increased transparency by chemical manufacturers, speakers said throughout the three-day GlobalChem conference.
The Environmental Protection Agency also is using chemical disclosure through efforts such as its Design for the Environment program, Lyon said.
The EPA announced a new phrase and logo on March 4 that corporate participants in its Design for the Environment program can use to label consumer and institutional products (43 DEN A-15, 3/5/15)
Qualifying products must contain chemicals the EPA has found meet specified environmental or human health criteria that make the ingredients less harmful to people or the environment than other chemicals that provide the same solvent, surfactant or other function.
EPA Working to Expand ChemView Database
Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, director of the EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), described another information disclosure effort when she spoke at GlobalChem March 3.
The agency is working to increase the chemical information available to the public through its ChemView database, she said.
OPPT will soon meet with invited chemical industry officials and staff from environmental health organizations to discuss how the agency can add some additional health and safety information to ChemView without violating any companies' confidential business information, Cleland-Hamnett said.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Study Says Endocrine Disruptors, Illnesses Cost Billions; Basis of Claims Questioned
Mar 9, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Endocrine disrupting chemicals and the illnesses they may contribute to in the European Union are costing €157 billion annually in lost earnings, foregone economic contributions and direct medical costs, U.S. and European endocrinologists wrote in a new analysis.
An attorney and pesticide regulatory manager speaking recently at a chemicals conference, however, questioned the basis of the manifold claims being made about endocrine disruptors.
In an analysis published March 5, the endocrinologists estimated endocrine disruptors in the EU cause a median annual cost of €157 billion ($170 billion).
Their analysis, “Estimating Burden and Disease Costs of Exposure to Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals in the European Union,” was posted online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. The journal is published by the Endocrine Society, which in a 2009 statement concluded that the evidence for adverse reproductive and other health problems from exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals was strong.
The endocrinologists reached their conclusions using methods including expert panel consensus on the probability that illnesses such as childhood obesity, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and male infertility are associated with exposure to chemicals that mimic, block or otherwise interfere with hormones.
No Definition
Prior to the publication of the analysis, Ruxandra Cana, an attorney with Steptoe & Johnson LLP, and Pat Kwiatkowski, regulatory policy and issue manager for Bayer CropScience LP, described at a recent chemicals conference concerns they have about allegations of harm resulting from exposure to endocrine disruptors. They spoke at GlobalChem, a global chemical regulatory conference organized by the American Chemistry Council and the Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates.
There is no consensus on important basics in the debate, Kwiatkowski said. These include:
• the definition of endocrine disrupting chemicals;
• the criteria that define endocrine disruption; and
• the data and procedures to be used for regulatory decision making.
The concept that endocrine disruption must result in an adverse effect to be a concern also has increasingly faded from public policy discussions, Kwiatkowski said.
Yet there is a continuing push for lists of suspected endocrine disruptors by non-governmental organizations and some countries and many reasons given why endocrine disruptors must be banned, she said.
Four EU Regulations Refer to Endocrine Disruptors
Cana described government and NGO efforts in the EU to increase the regulation of what she agreed were as-yet-undefined endocrine disruptors.
Endocrine disruptors, Cana said, are referred to in four legal acts under EU law:
• REACH, the registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals regulation, (EC) No 1097/2006);
• the Plant Protection Products Regulation (PPPR; (EU) No 1107/2009);
• the Biocidal Products Regulation (BPR; EU) No 528/2012); and
• the Cosmetics Regulation ((EU) No 1223/2009).
These regulations urge the European Commission to take actions by various deadlines that it deems necessary to address endocrine disruptors, she said.
If the commission proceeds to regulate chemicals as endocrine disruptors—in the absence of a legally certain and legally binding definition of that term—the regulation would be discretionary and out of line with the European Union's principle of legal certainty, Cana said.
Such regulations should be challenged before EU courts or the European Chemical Agency's Board of Appeals, Cana said.
EPA: Get Involved
David Dix, director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Science Coordination and Policy, which manages the agency's endocrine disruptor screening program, did not take a position on political debates of the endocrine issue.
He encouraged interested parties, however, to become more involved in the UN Environment Program's Advisory Group on Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals and work by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) on developing toxicity tests to detect endocrine disruption.
-
(ACC Mentioned) New York Times: Chemical Industry Courts Tom Udall
Mar 6, 2015 | Santa Fe Reporter
By Justin Horwath
The New York Times has published a story about an "unlikely alliance" between the chemical industry and New Mexico's Democratic US Senator Tom Udall, regarded as an environmental champion.
From reporter Eric Lipton's report:"So environmental activists were stunned to learn that Mr. Udall’s political supporters now include the chemical industry, which has donated tens of thousands of dollars to his campaigns and sponsored a television ad that praised his leadership.
This unlikely alliance has been forged as Mr. Udall emerged as the chief Senate negotiator for Democrats on legislation that would fundamentally change the way the federal government evaluates the safety of more than 80,000 chemicals."
Udall "emphatically rejects the notion that he is industry’s emissary," reports the Times.
“I am fighting for our children and trying to make sure they are not being pumped full of chemicals in the next generation,” Udall said.
Fellow Democrats, including Barbara Boxer, D-California, are reportedly upset over Udall's negotiations with US Sen. David Vitter, R-Louisiana. Udall and Vitter, according to the report, want to require testing of 10 high-risk chemicals a year, a much slower clip than environmentalists and public health experts are proposing.
One party's not upset: The American Chemistry Council. It paid for an ad supporting Udall that ran in New Mexico markets: - See more at: http://www.sfreporter.com/santafe/article-10043-new-york-times-chemical-industry-courts-tom-udall.html#sthash.m8fpJBcE.dpuf -
(ACC Mentioned) Udall’s Ties to Chemical Industry Profiled by NYT
Mar 6, 2015 | New Mexico Political Report
By Matthew Reichbach
The New York Times looked at the newly-close ties between U.S. Senator Tom Udall and the chemical industry.
Udall is the Democratic point man in discussions over an overhaul of safety regulations in relation to chemicals, the New York Times reports, taking over for the late U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey.
In 2013, Udall’s office promoted his work on the agreement.
“We urgently need to improve the law so that it can effectively do what Congress intended – protect Americans from dangerous chemicals. Enacting major environmental laws is a very tall order,” Udall said at a hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in 2013. “Despite near universal agreement that TSCA is broken we have struggled to find a bipartisan path forward. We now have a rare commodity – a bipartisan agreement on a bill that will make a real difference for American families. Let’s seize this moment and do the right thing.”
The story outlines the opposition of some of Udall’s colleagues and environmental groups that have largely been allies of Udall. One such critic of the deal that Udall is hoping to craft is Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.
“I’ve been around the Senate for a long time, but I have never before seen so much heavyhanded, bigspending lobbying on any issue, and what is so worrisome is that the very health and life of our children are at stake,” Ms. Boxer said. “To me it looks like the chemical industry itself is writing this bill.”Mr. Udall emphatically rejects the notion that he is industry’s emissary. “I am fighting for our children and trying to make sure they are not being pumped full of chemicals in the next generation,” he said. “We can’t do something that is pie in the sky; we have to deal with the reality.”
Udall has largely received support form environmental groups; the Udall name is in many ways synonymous with environmentalism. Udall’s father, Stewart Udall, was the Secretary of the Interior under Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson.
The newfound support from the chemistry industry comes in the form of campaign donations as well as independent expenditures in favor of Udall’s successful reelection in 2014.
-
Senators Eye Preemption In TSCA Reform Bill Over California's Objections
Mar 6, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
New draft Senate legislation to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) would broadly preempt existing and future state chemicals programs and withdraw states' ability to co-enforce federal toxics rules, over the objections of California's attorney general (AG) who has led the push for limiting preemption in any TSCA reform bill.
Officials with the state AG's office have suggested punting the contentious debate over preemption until all other components of a toxics law overhaul bill are resolved, but a bipartisan group of senators working on TSCA reform appear to be planning extensive preemption in their pending draft legislation. The possibility of preemption is prompting significant push-back from the AG's office, warning of “excessive displacement” of states' authority.
In a March 5 letter to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), ranking member on the Environment & Public Works Committee, state AG General Counsel Brian Nelson outlines the concerns over a recently circulated draft of TSCA reform legislation crafted by EPW members Sens. Tom Udall (D-NM) and David Vitter (R-LA).
The draft would create “excessive displacement of states from the promulgation and enforcement of chemicals health and safety regulations,” including “the preemption of state authority to enact new protections with respect to high priority chemicals years before federal regulations take effect,” the letter says, adding that the preemption provision “presents the most significant and -- absent amendment -- insurmountable concern.”
When Boxer was chair of the Senate environment panel in the 113th Congress last year, she used her authority to prevent a previous bipartisan TSCA reform bill from receiving a markup. At the time Boxer said she had major concerns over the bill's preemption provisions that she wanted resolved ahead of a markup.
Now that Republicans control both the House and Senate in the 114th Congress, Boxer as ranking member might have few options to prevent the latest draft of TSCA reform advancing in the committee.
EPW Chairman Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) has said he is interested in moving TSCA reform and planned to use a version of TSCA reform first introduced by Vitter and the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) as a starting point for discussions. That bill has been revised several times, including a version crafted by Vitter and Udall that Boxer released late last year, which included a host of provisions she opposed, such as preemption.
The latest draft of the bill that Udall and Vitter have crafted would again include sweeping state preemption of chemicals management programs, according to Nelson's letter to Boxer. Nelson's letter was included in a March 6 New York Times story detailing Udall's work on the latest TSCA reform draft.
State Preemption
Nelson in his letter describes new preemption language in the TSCA reform bill that would allow existing state chemicals restrictions to continue until an EPA rule for the same substance becomes effective, but would invalidate any rule issued after the bill is enacted “on the date which the [EPA] Administrator commences a safety assessment,” which would be a precursor to a federal rulemaking process.
Under the latest draft bill, Nelson says, EPA would have a three-year deadline to complete a pending chemical safety assessment, and a two-year limit for rulemaking, with the possibility of a single two-year extension. “This asymmetry is conceptually illogical, and is deeply troubling given the enormous time lag certain to occur between the beginning of an EPA assessment and the effective date of any federal safety rule,” Nelson writes.
The letter continues that the draft would exempt from preemption chemicals designed “low priority” by EPA, or that have not been prioritized at all. But it adds that “this apparent regulatory room for states appears largely illusory” because state regulators would be required to notify EPA of any proposed action on low-priority or unprioritized chemicals, at which point EPA could, “under any one of a number of scenarios,” be required to conduct its own priority screening. “It appears highly likely that EPA would, upon state notification, promptly redesignate many such chemicals as high priority,” the letter says.
According to the letter, the March 4 draft includes provisions for states to apply for waivers from preemption that are largely carried over from a bill proposed in the 113th Congress, the Chemical Safety Improvement Act, which based its waiver process on a Clean Air Act standard requiring evidence of a compelling local interest that justifies stricter local regulations of a substance. But states have argued that the Clean Air Act test is inappropriate for chemical regulations because exposure risks are generally similar from region to region, especially when exposures are likely to occur through consumer products rather than industrial emissions.
“It is unclear why the existing TSCA waiver provision, which balances state interests against the potential burdens of nonuniformity on commerce, is insufficient to achieve any legitimate objectives,” the letter says.
Finally, California says the working draft would bar states from implementing “mirror image” laws that directly duplicate federal standards but allow enforcement by state regulators -- a system of “co-enforcement” that TSCA in its current form explicitly allows. “To our knowledge there has never been any problem identified with states' exercise of this form of co-enforcement authority under TSCA,” the letter says.
TSCA Reform
Although California's AG office has previously suggested delaying debate over preemption until all other aspects of TSCA reform are resolved, some stakeholders are weighing potential legislative deals on the issue.
Giving the chemical sector a long-sought “gift” of preemption could secure the sector's backing for a comprehensive industry fee program that would amply fund a robust new EPA chemicals program created by reform, they are suggesting.
“Preemption is a big gift,” Alexandra Dunn, executive director of the Environmental Council of the States -- representing many state environmental agencies -- told a Feb. 5 panel discussion on TSCA reform.
Dunn noted that state agencies, several of which have chemicals management programs stricter than EPA's regime, are currently unwilling to accept preemption of their own toxics regulations because there is not a robust and well-funded federal alternative. “As the conversation matures, that's an important connection to make.”
Fellow panelist Herb Estreicher, of law firm Keller and Heckman, added, “I think industry would be happy to pay user fees if they had a strong preemption provision,” suggesting a potential “trade off.”
Also at issue in negotiations over TSCA reform is the pace at which EPA regulators will move forward with the chemical risk assessments that inform regulation. According to the Times, the March 4 draft calls for 10 assessments in the first year after the bill takes effect, a lower number than Udall initially sought.
That figure could be affected by whether the bill requires such assessments to be conducted by EPA directly, as Democrats and environmentalists favor, or will allow industry to develop risk assessments and submit them to EPA.
John Graham, a former administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, in his remarks at the annual GlobalChem conference on March 3 suggested that lawmakers writing TSCA reform legislation include the industry-led risk assessment approach in the bill.
But Boxer told Inside EPA March 4 that she would oppose any measure allowing industry to conduct its own risk assessments. “I don't believe in the fox guarding the hen house,” she said. Graham acknowledged that his idea may have trouble winning over members of Congress. “My intent is to lower expectations” on TSCA reform action, Graham said. “We are talking about the U.S. Congress. . . . Congress is hard to get focused, especially on technical matters where the devil is in the details.”
-
California Alleges Company Illegally Used Hazardous Sludge to Make Wine Bottles
Mar 9, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California's Department of Toxic Substances Control has filed a lawsuit seeking civil penalties from a Modesto glass company for using sludge from the facility's air pollution control equipment to make wine bottles (California v. Gallo Glass Co., Cal. Sup. Ct., No. RG15760440, 2/27/15).
The allegations against Gallo Glass Co. came in a lawsuit the DTSC announced March 2 alleging multiple violations of hazardous waste laws. The company had claimed it was recycling the material, the department said.
Under state law, the sludge is considered hazardous waste and must be handled accordingly, according to the lawsuit filed in California Superior Court Feb. 27. The sludge exhibits toxicity under the Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedure, a test used to classify waste under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the lawsuit said.
Gallo Glass agreed to stop using the sludge to make the bottles in 2014, the DTSC said in a written statement.
According to the DTSC, the facility generates hundreds of pounds of sludge a day.
State regulators are asking the court for a judgment declaring the company violated hazardous waste laws, unspecified penalties and an injunction to prevent future violations.
“Gallo Glass claims it was recycling the waste by putting it into materials fed into the furnaces and heated to form molten glass used to make bottles,” the DTSC said in a written statement. The company, however, “failed to demonstrate that its practices qualify as recycling.”
The company also failed to comply with recycling requirements, regulators said.
Specific allegations against Gallo Glass include improper storage of hazardous waste, illegal treatment of hazardous waste, failure to minimize releases to the environment and failure to train personnel.
The lawsuit also claims Gallo Glass failed to notify the DTSC of several fires that have occurred at the facility.
-
A “Wealth Primary” for Legislation?
Mar 8, 2015 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Andy Igrejas
The chemical industry should not get to dictate the terms by which it is regulated.The jockeying among presidential hopefuls in recent weeks has generated a new round of criticism of what’s called the “Wealth Primary” – the informal, but often decisive vetting of candidates by mega-donors. (The New York Times’s Frank Bruni wrote about it most recently here.) There is something deeply unsettling to voters- regardless of their political affiliation- that the choices about who governs the country are narrowed by a tiny fraction of Americans, with our actual elections – still a year away – potentially reduced to an exercise in Kabuki Theater for the masses.
Unfortunately, the wealth primary has a legislative analog. Through all the tools of modern political influence, corporations can now so constrain the choices made by Congress upfront that the formal process is reduced to an afterthought. This is happening right now on the issue of chemical safety reform.
Over the last two months, the chemical industry’s leading trade association has conducted what amounts to a massive political “PSYOP” targeting Senate Democrats. The goal is to round up enough Democratic co-sponsors for chemical reform legislation sponsored by Senator Vitter (R-LA) as to virtually guarantee that the bill can pass without making additional changes and make the formal process of committee hearings and amendments politically moot. A deadline has been set for Monday (March 9th). Cal Dooley, the president of the association, openly boasted to the New York Times on Saturday that the bill will have 70 votes even before it is introduced.
What would this mean for the proposed legislation? Admittedly, Senator Vitter and his Democratic colleague Tom Udall (NM) have made changes in the draft bill that address some major points of the critique made by organizations like mine (a coalition of 450 public health, environmental, labor and small business groups.) It is much improved over last year’s bill. But the remaining problems are huge and an important part of the lobbying pitch from the industry is: YOU (Senator) have to sign on NOW, because WE (chemical companies) will not make any more changes! Coming on the heels of unprecedented election spending by the industry, the pitch amounts to a loyalty test and it may be working.
So what would this loyalty test leave on the cutting room floor? The first item is states’ ability to protect their citizens from toxic chemicals. The bill blocks states from taking new action on a toxic chemical simply because EPA has put the chemical on its “to review” list. Actual health protections from the EPA would be up to 7 years away, more if the regulated company sued, which it would now have every incentive to do. States have generally led the way on many chemicals, so this is a big deal. The bill also bans states from enacting and enforcing limits that are identical to federal rules. Most enforcement of federal environmental statutes actually occurs at the state level. The provision is a blatant attempt to reduce enforcement.
The bill also has two paths for chemicals. Under one, a chemical is measured against a safety standard. In the other, it gets a hall pass where EPA blesses it as safe for any an all uses based on a finding that it is “likely to” meet the safety standard. The major decisions in the first path can be reviewed by a court. Conspicuously, the hall pass– something that industry is “likely to” covet – cannot.
Finally, there are some tricky rollbacks in the bill that get at the heart of the question: is there a toxic chemical in couch/baby bottle/kiddie blanket? The bill adds a new provision requiring EPA to jump through a new hoop if they want to restrict an unsafe chemical in a product. Why? It also makes it a little harder for EPA to intercept imported products containing an unsafe chemical. Why? Isn’t making that kind of thing easier for EPA what reform is supposed to be all about?
Health advocates are prepared to make all of these arguments going forward, but because of the chemical industry litmus test, they could be rendered moot. On Friday, California’s Attorney General released a letter on the bill prepared by their career staff- some of the most long-standing experts in the world on environmental enforcement. It contained an authoritative and constructive critique that they prepared within 48 hours of having the draft. Yet I’m struck by the number of Senate offices- including thoughtful, wonderful people- who’ve said that it is already “irrelevant” or “too late.” The chief law enforcement officer for our largest state just doesn’t rate in this critical pre-game because the chemical industry has its loyalty test and they’ve set a deadline.
I urge Senators to reject the loyalty test and artificial deadline set by the chemical industry. TSCA reform could be a significant public health achievement. But that will only happen if the process is allowed to play out the way it is supposed to, not reduced to Kabuki Theater by the very industry reform is supposed to regulate.
-
DHS Chemical Security Program Dropped Hundreds of Sites in Past Year, Data Show
Mar 9, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The Department of Homeland Security's chemical security program has shrunk by nearly a fifth during the past year without explanation, as more than 720 industrial facilities are no longer regulated under the program, newly released data show.
As of March 2014, 4,199 facilities were regulated under the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards program, but by March 2015, that number had declined to 3,471.
Information on the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards program, which aims to protect the nation's industrial facilities against the risk of terrorist attacks, is published monthly. The department provided no explanation for the decline in regulated facilities and didn't respond to a request for comment.
Observers of the CFATS program told Bloomberg BNA many facilities likely have reduced their quantities of chemicals of concern to below threshold levels, modified their processes or placed out of the program after the department updated its model for determining whether facilities were high risk. The decline may not be permanent, however, some cautioned.
Numbers Could Change
“The number [of regulated facilities] will continue to fluctuate and could go back up significantly if DHS decides to alter the chemicals of interest or screening threshold quantities to different levels,” Brian E. Finch, an attorney at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, told Bloomberg BNA March 6.
Rick Hind, legislative director with Greenpeace, said he is seeking additional information about the 3,000 facilities the Department of Homeland Security says have reduced their chemicals of interest quantities below threshold levels since the program's creation under Section 550 of the fiscal year 2007 DHS Appropriations Act (Pub. L. No. 109-295).
The CFATS program requires industrial facilities with certain threshold levels of chemicals to assess their risks and submit site security plans to the secretary for approval. Facilities then must take appropriate action to address their level of risk.
Sites reach the halfway point of the process when their site security plans are authorized and then receive final approval of their plans following an on-site inspection.
Leadership Changes Have Improved Program
Beset by problems such as inappropriate staff hires, wasteful spending and inefficient approval of site security plans in its early years, leadership changes appear to have improved the CFATS program's operations, and Congress recently granted it a four-year reauthorization (Pub. L. No. 109-295) last December (244 DEN A-3, 12/19/14).
As the number of regulated facilities declines, progress continues to be made on approving site security plans. According to the data, more than 80 percent of facilities have received security plan authorization—considered the halfway point in the process—while more than 46 percent have had their plans approved.
One hundred thirty-three site security plans were authorized during the month of February, meaning 2,779 of the 3,471 facilities currently covered under the program have now reached the halfway point.
1.600 Facilities Received Plan Approvals
A further 74 facilities received site security plan approvals during the month, meaning 1,600 of the 3,471 facilities now have completed site security plans in place.
Those numbers of authorizations and approvals are similar to recent months.
The Department of Homeland Security reported conducting 92 authorization inspections over the same time period. Facilities covered under the program are as varied as dry cleaners, chemical manufacturers, universities, hospitals and warehouses.
-
(ACC Blog) EPA’s Ozone Standard: A Defining Moment for U.S. Manufacturing
Mar 9, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
As we approach EPA’s March 17 deadline for comments on its proposal lowering the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone, Americans should be fully informed of the impacts. In many communities, the answer is simple: Fewer jobs, slower growth.
Perhaps the real-world consequences of EPA’s plan are hidden behind confusing terminology. In EPA-speak, regions that can’t meet a new, lower NAAQS are called ‘nonattainment areas.’ In plain English, these are places where it will be harder to attract industry and sustain economic growth.
Here’s why. In nonattainment areas, total emissions are capped. Business growth becomes a zero-sum game: In order to expand, companies must shut down other parts of their production, wait for others to close, or buy emissions ‘offsets’ that are difficult to find and extremely expensive. All these factors create uncertainty in investment projects that can ultimately make new investment not worth the trouble.
Take Louisiana for example. It’s poised to benefit from an influx of new investment projects – the start of a U.S. manufacturing renaissance led by the chemistry industry and made possible by shale gas. So far, 51 projects representing $35 billion in new investment are planned for the state. The projects would generate $21.5 billion in additional chemical industry output and 37,200 permanent new jobs (direct + indirect). Most of Louisiana would be in nonattainment at 65 ppb. By lowering the NAAQS, EPA could limit the vast economic potential of these historic investments.
Lower ozone standard would affect every sector of the economy
Being designated ‘nonattainment’ triggers a cascade of harmful impacts for local economies. As state and local officials seek emissions reductions from cars, fuels, consumers, and commercial activity, nonattainment areas could lose jobs and tax revenue to neighboring locales that are in attainment. Federal highway and transit funding could be at risk, since projects must conform with state implementation plans. Small businesses such as gas stations, bakeries, printing operations, dry cleaners, auto body shops and small manufacturers will be affected.
For factories and power plants, a lower ozone standard means new facilities, expansions, and restarts could be delayed or scrapped. Facilities that do expand will have to pay millions for offsets even though their new production is cleaner and state of the art. And they still don’t know the requirements for their facilities: EPA has admitted that a significant portion of the controls and technologies needed are “unknown controls.”
EPA’s plan is hardly the way to support shale-related manufacturing. In his 2014 State of the Union Address, the President said, “Businesses plan to invest almost $100 billion in new factories that use natural gas. I’ll cut red tape to help states get those factories built.”
Some of the potential consequences defy common sense. There could be increased costs from vehicle fees and expenses. In regions that have already implemented emissions controls, “the only options left are mandates like cutting speed limits to 55 mph and/or preventing cars from idling by closing down drive-thru restaurants,” Congressman Pete Olson wrote.
The effects of EPA’s lower ozone standard could be coming to a community near you. At 65 ppb, which is at the lower end of the range EPA proposed, 2000 counties in 45 states covering a population of 255 million would be in nonattainment, based on EPA’s most recent complete air quality data. At 70 ppb, 1300 counties in 40 states covering a population of 210 million would be in nonattainment.
EPA should finish the job on the current standard
America’s air quality is improving. Between 1980 and 2013, total emissions of the six principal air pollutants dropped by 62 percent, even as U.S. gross domestic product grew 145 percent. Voluntary and regulatory programs will continue to reduce ozone concentrations through 2030.
The current ozone standard of 75 ppb is the most stringent ever and hasn’t been fully implemented across the country, and the full extent of the benefits in terms of emissions reductions aren’t known yet. EPA just completed the rules for states to implement 2008’s standard and pledged to help them comply. They have their work cut out for them: Parts of 26 states covering a population of 120 million still don’t meet the current standard.
Maintaining the current standard will enable further emissions reductions while supporting U.S. manufacturing growth.
-
(ACC Mentioned) HECA: Taking School-Bus-Interior Air-Cleaning to Whole New Level
Mar 7, 2015 | Air Quality Matters
By Alan Kandel
When it comes to mobile air-filtration technology in the school-bus operating environment, HECA could be the next big breakthrough. HECA is up to 88 percent effective when it comes to reducing exposure to pollutants in the air inside school buses, so says Kim Irwin in “On-board school bus filtration system reduces pollutants by 88 percent: UCLA-developed technology would protect children from harmful exposure,” a Mar. 2, 2015 University of California, Los Angeles news release.
The “on-board air filtration system developed specifically for school buses reduces exposure to vehicular pollutants by up to 88 percent, according to a study by researchers at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health,” Irwin stated.
HECA – what is it?
HECA being the acronym for “High Efficiency Cabin Air,” the “system could help protect the 25 million American children who commute on school buses nearly every day. Children are more susceptible to air pollution than adults because they breathe more quickly and their immune and cardiovascular systems are still developing, said Yifang Zhu, the study’s senior author and an associate professor in the department of environmental health sciences.”
As it relates, sitting in congested freeway traffic can result in motor-vehicle occupants being exposed to unusually high concentrations of air-pollutant emissions via vehicle exhaust pipes. It is little if any different regarding children riding school buses. Higher concentrations of said vehicle-exhaust-pollutant-emissions, incidentally, can be present at heavily-trafficked intersections as well.
As for just how well the HECA filtering system performed in terms of helping clean the air in the school bus interiors under test, in certain respects the filtering system performed better than expected, in fact.
Surprising to study researchers was that the greatest pollution reduction was achieved under freeway driving conditions, according to Irwin in the release. And, of particular note, “[t]he study found that the air inside buses with the HECA system was as clean as air near the beach in Santa Monica, California.”
Very relevant, especially taking into consideration the potential for students in urban settings riding school buses to be exposed to unhealthy levels of motor-vehicle-exhaust pollutants when traveling to and from school, and when on field trips and in getting to and from sporting events. Time spent riding school buses, is but another element in the whole pollutant-exposure equation.
“‘Studies have shown that exposure to high levels of vehicle pollution is associated with pulmonary and cardiovascular health risks, including oxidative stress, mitochondrial damage and acute pulmonary inflammation,’ [Zhu] said.” Moreover, there have been other studies that “have also found that children exposed to pollutants from vehicles tend to perform less well in school,” Irwin wrote.
In all, six school buses were tested sans students on board, under idling conditions, and in operating under conditions in which both freeway and major-arterial roadway driving was done – all in Los Angeles. Air was tested for “vehicle-emitted particulate matter, including black carbon and fine and ultrafine particles, down to a few nanometers in size,” inside as well as outside the school buses under test, Irwin reported.
Developed by study researchers was a prototype HECA filtering system specially designed for inside-the-school-bus cabin use and not one but two were placed at the back of each of the half-dozen school buses under evaluation. “Air was drawn in through diffusers on the sides of each unit and fed through the HECA filter,” Irwin wrote. “The filtered air was then delivered at a constant rate through air ducts.”
Brought out in the study also was information that, regarding a filtration system such as HECA, there is great potential to reduce the exposure risk to vehicle-exhaust-pollutant emissions of students riding school buses, according to Irwin.
“A long-term follow-up study will evaluate how much exposure can be reduced by operating the HECA filtration system in a large number of school buses with children aboard, Zhu said,” reported the news release writer.
-
How the Oil Export Ban Chokes the Fracking Boom
Mar 6, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.
President Obama may love America, but it would be nice if he also loved a few energy executives who could warn him that a serious public-policy glitch is about to blow up on his watch.
Oil is overflowing U.S. storage facilities partly because of the 40-year-old export ban. The wave of bankruptcies and layoffs that many have predicted for the U.S. energy sector may finally be coming, but less because of the distressed price of oil than because producers will have to stop producing if they have nowhere to send their output.
Today’s oil export ban was part of a spasm of nonsensical responses to the 1970s, all of them producing disasters on their own different schedules. Price controls on gasoline, the first stooge, quickly failed amid long lines at gas stations. Fuel-economy rules for auto makers, the second stooge, persist to this day, and played an unsung role in driving the auto industry into bankruptcy by forcing it to lose billions trying to compete in the small-car market with the Japanese.
The third stooge of 1970s energy policy, the ban on U.S. oil exports, is now getting ready to produce its own unique pratfall. Thanks to the fracking boom in Texas and North Dakota, America is producing more light sweet crude than domestic refineries can handle. Oil producers were already being denied a premium of $12 a barrel by not being allowed to export this oil. Soon the only option may be to shut down production altogether.
Oil has been one of the few boom industries in Obama’s America, creating a disproportionate share of new jobs. Among many stupidities, very light petroleum known as a condensate can be exported if it happens to come out of a gas well. If the same material comes out of an oil well, it can’t be exported without special permission. Ultra-light crudes account for a high proportion of booming Eagle Ford Shale production in Texas. Such crudes are especially coveted by Asian refiners, which means domestic producers are leaving a large premium on the table. Related Video
Who wins? Domestic refiners get artificially cheap oil to run their plants. An industry mythology claims consumers also benefit thanks to cheaper gasoline. Don’t buy it. Gasoline flows freely in and out of the country, so its price is set by the world market. U.S. refiners simply pocket a higher margin whether they sell their gasoline at home or abroad.
By the estimate last year of the American Petroleum Institute, if the archaic export ban were lifted, the additional export opportunity would allow another 500,000 barrels a day to be produced, worth 300,000 jobs directly and indirectly. Today, with the global oil price 50% lower than it was a year ago, the difference between the depressed world price and the even more depressed domestic price inevitably is the margin of ruin for some producers.
Unfortunately, refiners do have one leg to stand on: They would be horribly disadvantaged by exports due to the operation of another idiotic law, the 1920 Jones Act, which allows oil and other cargoes only to be hauled between U.S. ports aboard U.S.-built, -owned and -operated vessels.
It costs $2 a barrel to ship Texas crude to Europe or Asia and $7 to ship it to Philadelphia. If the Jones Act were left in place but the export ban lifted, a great deal of U.S. oil would go to overseas refineries solely to take advantage of cheaper shipping rates.
You may recall that Congress murmured a year ago about rolling back the export ban after analysts at Citigroup started warning of a looming storage crisis. Members quickly sank back to their knees under bludgeoning from shipping, labor and refinery interests. Sen. John McCain , who has battled the Jones Act for a decade, has been a special hero. In a recent hilarious attack, the shipping lobby even claimed the Jones Act was the cure for income inequality.
So forget the Saudis. The biggest danger to America’s fracking revolution may be one of America’s hoariest protectionist lobbies, the Jones Act gang.
-
Lone Pine Order Rejected as Unfair To Plaintiffs in Fracking Litigation
Mar 9, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
Entering a Lone Pine case management order in a suit over damage allegedly caused by fracking operations would unfairly prejudice plaintiffs who haven't had a chance to engage in the discovery that may support their claims, a federal court in Pennsylvania has ruled (Russell v. Chesapeake Appalachia LLC, 2015 BL 54808, M.D. Pa., No. 14-cv-00148, 3/2/15).
Imposing the order would be akin to a “psuedo-summary judgment order requiring that plaintiffs, without the benefit of discovery, prove facts with specificity beyond that required by the Federal Rules and ordinary federal practice at this juncture in the litigation,” the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania said March 2.
The reasoning of Lone Pine, a New Jersey case, has been used by some federal courts to require an early showing of proof by plaintiffs in mass tort cases with particularly burdensome discovery and when a plaintiff's ability to sustain the burden of proof is in question (Lore v. Lone Pine Corp., 1987 BL 20, N.J. Super. Ct., No. L-33606-85, 11/18/86).
The Lone Pine procedure is reserved for “exceptional cases,” runs the risk of limiting procedural rules and safeguards in the federal rules and is unnecessary here, the court said.
The court also denied without prejudice the defendants' motion to sever the plaintiffs' claims, finding it premature.
Natural Gas Wells Said at Issue
The plaintiffs sued Chesapeake Appalachia LLC and Superior Well Services Inc. in 2013 for negligence and nuisance, alleging in a state court complaint that the companies' gas exploration activities at several natural gas wells released toxic gases, contaminated groundwater and created other nuisances in nearby residential neighborhoods.
The case was removed to federal court, where the defendants moved to sever the claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. They also moved for a Lone Pine order, requiring that the plaintiffs specify the toxins to which they were exposed, the dates of exposure, the injuries they suffered and evidence of causation.
The court denied the motion to sever, holding that material facts were disputed or unknown to the court and the parties, and had a similar view of the defendants' Lone Pine motion.
Lone Pine Prejudice?
This isn't a case requiring use of the procedure under the case management authority granted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, the court said, because such orders typically are entered when a plaintiff has failed to produce substantial evidence after discovery.
“The court is not prepared to impose such a one-sided burden at this early stage in the litigation,” the court said.
Judge Matthew W. Brann wrote the opinion.
The law offices of the Speer Law Firm and Fellrman Law represented the plaintiffs.
Jackson Kelly represented Chesapeake Appalachia LLC and Superior Well Services Inc.
-
Oil-State Senators Blast Obama Bid to Siphon Revenues
Mar 6, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Phil Taylor
Seven oil-state Republican senators this week blasted President Obama's proposal to divert more than $3 billion in future offshore oil and gas revenues destined to Gulf Coast states to fund national environmental and public land priorities.
The senators aired their concerns in a Wednesday letter to the president, arguing the revenues were guaranteed to four Gulf states under a 2006 law to help them provide infrastructure, public safety and social services for workers who drill offshore, and to maintain their coastlines.
"It's extremely important that we have a level of revenue sharing that fairly compensates coastal states that host energy production off their shores," Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said. "I'm confident that with the help of my colleagues we can stop the administration from robbing these states of revenue they deserve."
Others signing the letter: Sens. David Vitter and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana; Ted Cruz and John Cornyn of Texas; Roger Wicker of Mississippi; and Jeff Sessions of Alabama.
The Obama proposal, tucked within the White House's fiscal 2016 budget request, stands little chance of passing, given that it is also opposed by some prominent environmental groups that want offshore revenues to stay with states so they can be used for coastal restoration. The 2006 Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act promises Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas 37.5 percent of royalties from new offshore drilling starting in 2017 -- up to $500 million per year.
Murkowski is pushing hard for revenue sharing to be expanded to other energy states including Alaska, where there is a bounty of offshore oil waiting to be tapped.
"Responsible revenue sharing allows states hosting energy production to mitigate for the historic and prospective infrastructure demands of energy production and allows states to make strategic investments ensuring for future generations the resiliency of this infrastructure and vital natural resources," the senators wrote.
Obama wants to use more than $3 billion in projected state revenues over the next decade for land conservation, rural counties, wildlife grants, coastal restoration and other national priorities.
Interior Secretary Sally Jewell has defended the proposal, saying offshore revenues belong to the entire nation.
"The outer continental shelf is owned by all Americans," Jewell said last month. "We believe that needs to be re-examined to look at what is a fair return to taxpayers across the whole United States."
The proposal, while politically divisive, stems from Congress' challenge in funding the nation's vast system of federal lands and wildlife and the communities that depend on them at a time of fiscal austerity.
-
Seven Senators Write Obama to Oppose Plan to Redirect Offshore Energy Revenues
Mar 9, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
Seven senators have sent a letter to President Barack Obama telling him they oppose his fiscal year 2016 budget proposal to redirect money from Gulf of Mexico offshore oil leases to various programs around the nation rather than to four Gulf Coast states, as they say a 2006 law requires.
“The president's budget plan to redistribute offshore energy revenue is flat-out insulting to Louisianians,” Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) said in a statement released along with the letter. “If anything, President Obama should want Louisiana to keep more of this revenue—it's going to vital coastal restoration.”
His was one of a series of statements as the senators lined up to express their criticism of the proposal to discard a revenue-sharing plan written into the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA) of 2006.
Joining Vitter in signing the letter, dated March 4, were Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).
The proposal would dump a revenue-sharing plan that is set to benefit Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama—states with Republican senators and predominantly Republican trends in their votes for presidents and other elected officials.
Given the fact that Congress, with Republican majorities in both houses, would have to approve the proposed change, the proposal is a curiosity that angers Republicans without having a serious likelihood of passage.
“States that support offshore energy development for the rest of the country supply, provide the support for, and pay for the infrastructure needed to bring this energy to market,” the senators' letter said.
GOMESA Covers States' Royalties
GOMESA specifies that the four Gulf Coast “producing” states will receive 37.5 percent of certain offshore oil and gas revenues starting in fiscal year 2017. For onshore federal lands, 50 percent of oil and gas revenue is turned over to the states within which the revenues are generated—a “disparity” noted in the letter.
“We not only oppose and reject your budget proposal eroding the revenue sharing provisions in GOMESA, but will actively pursue efforts to minimize the disparity by bringing equal treatment in revenue sharing among energy producing states,” it added.
-
D.C. Circuit Denies Advocacy Group's Bid To Halt Interior's Offshore Drilling Program
Mar 9, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
A federal appeals court panel ruled against the Center for Sustainable Economy's challenge to the Interior Department's five-year offshore oil and gas leasing program (Center for Sustainable Econ. v. Salazar, D.C. Cir., No. 12-1431, petition for review denied 3/6/15).
The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied the CSE's petition for review. Judge Nina Pillard wrote in the court's 2-1 opinion March 6 that some of the CSE's objections to the Interior Department's adoption of the 2012-2017 leasing schedule fail on their merits. Other objections—that the department violated the National Environmental Policy Act's procedural requirements—were deemed unripe.
Judge David Sentelle dissented, saying he would have dismissed the petition for lack of standing and thus wouldn't have reached the merits.
The lawsuit, filed Dec. 17, 2012, contended that Interior's economic analysis failed to properly consider environmental and market effects of its plan and failed to quantify many of the program's costs and benefits (242 DEN A-11, 12/18/12).
The lawsuit said that in preparing its final environmental impact statement, the department violated NEPA by using a biased analytic methodology and providing inadequate opportunities for public comment.
Interior and the American Petroleum Institute, an intervenor in the suit, said the program appropriately balances the environmental, social and economic values at stake.
David Shilton of the Justice Department defended Interior. Steven Rosenbaum, a partner at Covington and Burling LLP, represented API.
“While we're very disappointed with the ruling, there is a silver lining,” CSE president John Talberth said in a statement. “The ruling charted a path forward for our economic claims. The court also rightly found that CSE had associational standing to challenge these practices.”
Institute Pleased With Decision
“Our clients are very pleased by the D.C. Circuit decision rejecting the legal challenge to the federal government's five year leasing program,” Rosenbaum said in a statement. “The federal offshore [program] is one of the principal sources of the nation's petroleum resources, and the leasing, exploration and development of these areas will create many jobs and result in significant domestic production, all subject to extensive safety and environmental controls.”
Michael Livermore, senior adviser at the Institute for Policy Integrity, argued the case for the CSE. Attempts to reach the IPI or CSE for comment weren't successful.
The CSE's NEPA claims are unripe because no leases have been issued yet, Pillard said in the opinion. Allowing NEPA challengers to be brought in an early stage would essentially create additional procedural steps for all agencies adopting these types of segmented programs, she said.
Citing a decision in a similar case, Pillard said that the petitioner can wait a little longer until the leasing stage begins to get the information it needs, and in the meantime, no drilling has begun so no harm will have come to animals or other aspects of the environment.
Challenges Fail on Merits
The CSE accused Interior of violating Section 18(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). The group also said Interior failed rationally to strike an appropriate balance between environmental costs and energy needs.
The court said Interior's cost-benefit methodology for evaluating leasing proposals for Outer Continental Shelf regions was reasonable.
The suit also contended that the department failed to track the proportion of OCS energy consumed by Americans, but the court said OCSLA carries no such mandate. OCSLA only requires that the department consider meeting the current demand for domestic consumption of finished energy products, Pillard said.
-
Jeb Bush, Anti-Drilling Crusader
Mar 8, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia
For years before “drill, baby, drill” became a Republican rallying cry, Jeb Bush was one of Florida’s staunchest opponents of offshore drilling.
As the governor of the tourist mecca, Bush fought to maintain Florida’s status as the only Gulf Coast state with no offshore oil and gas production — opposing even his brother’s administration in Washington when it sought to open new waters to drilling. He and his administration boasted of being Florida’s firewall against the rigs, citing it as one of his top environmental accomplishments and taunting both Al Gore and John Kerry for being wobbly on the issue.
Bush didn’t oppose drilling outside of Florida, and nowadays the GOP presidential prospect sounds largely in lockstep with his party’s support for fossil fuels: He favors building the Keystone XL oil pipeline, for example, and has drawn media attention as an advocate of fracking. The son and brother of former Texas oilmen would have little trouble winning the industry’s support if he becomes the Republican nominee.
Still, Bush’s opposition to oil and gas drilling in his backyard was outspoken and adamant — at least until he started making compromises with federal lawmakers late in his term. That makes him something of an outlier in a party that has grown increasingly vocal about drilling on public lands since he left office in 2007, and it offers yet another potential wedge for rivals who want to challenge his conservative credentials, alongside his championing of the Common Core education standards and his description of illegal immigration as an “an act of love.” Even a largely glowing column about Bush on the conservative website Newsmax cited drilling as a reason to question his “ideological bona fides.”
Bush’s camp says his stance on the issue is beyond question.
“Governor Bush supports expanding domestic energy production,” Bush spokeswoman Kristy Campbell said in a statement to POLITICO. “As governor he worked to strike a balance between our nation’s energy needs and the economic and environmental interests of Florida. He believes states should have a role in decisions that impact their coastline. Expanding domestic energy production is key to ensuring America’s energy security.”
People in the oil industry seem willing to give him a pass for his role in barring them from tapping the vast, potentially lucrative resources in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. “Florida politicians are always a little bit squirrely about this,” one oil industry insider said in an interview.
Former Sen. Bennett Johnston (D-La.), a vocal supporter of offshore oil development, said Bush’s anti-drilling past shouldn’t pose a problem if he runs for president.
“Drilling off Florida has always been very unpopular,” said Johnston, now a lobbyist in Washington. “I really don’t think the energy industry is going to worry about him being not supportive of them.”
Former Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), who was himself a vocal critic of efforts to drill in the state’s waters, said it’s possible to be skeptical about Florida drilling while supporting it off the coasts of states like Virginia, where oil exploration has more political support. “I think you can be for offshore drilling, just not off the coast of Florida,” he said.
Indeed, opposing drilling was good politics in a state where tourism is the No. 1 industry, and where many coastal residents are aghast at any prospect of tar balls or oil slicks fouling their sugary, white-sand beaches along the Gulf of Mexico.
For the longest time, that was an almost-mandatory stance for anyone seeking elected office in the state, although the across-the-board opposition began to fray after gasoline prices topped $4 a gallon in the summer of 2008. Today, both Republican Florida Gov. Rick Scott and GOP Sen. Marco Rubio have said they’re open to offshore drilling if adequate safety measures are in place.
“At that time and place, I don’t think there was anybody speaking for oil drilling in Florida except for the people speaking for the oil industry. I mean nobody,” said Allison DeFoor, who served as Bush’s Everglades czar during the governor’s first term. “Florida folks know where their bread is buttered. Everybody makes a living off the coasts.”
But Bush’s anti-drilling stance was also a point of personal pride, something he continually brought up in correspondence with people questioning his environmental record.
In one March 2000 email, he listed “maintaining Florida’s position against offshore drilling” as No. 2 on his roster of environmental accomplishments, ahead of even his multibillion-dollar efforts to restore the Everglades. In September 2001, he wrote: “I have stated my opposition over and over and over again. I will continue to do so.”
Four years later, responding to someone who mentioned that “the Bush family is noted for support of the petroleum industry,” the governor responded: “do you mean the bush that has opposed offshore drilling stronger than my predecessors and has proposed large investments in alternative energy?”
He made it clear at the time that his opposition didn’t extend to areas elsewhere in the country that the oil industry was seeking to open up, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.
“The folks in Alaska want drilling for Anwr,” Bush said in a 2002 email. “The folks in Florida don’t want offshore drilling. that is a big difference.”
That stance had some family history behind it: The governor’s father, former President George H.W. Bush, is an avid outdoorsman who has gone on fishing vacations in Florida, and who ruled much of the state off-limits to drilling in 1990 for at least 10 years. That went against the Reagan administration’s efforts to vastly expand offshore drilling as a matter of national security. (Bush’s Interior Department later proposed allowing oil and gas exploration off the Florida Panhandle, however.)
To hear the governor talk about it, not even Gore and Kerry, two Democrats with seemingly solid green credentials, were reliable allies for Florida on the issue.
In 1999, for example, Vice President Gore — who was mounting his own presidential run — initially declined to speak out against Chevron’s application for approval to drill near Pensacola, with an aide saying it “wouldn’t be appropriate for the White House to be weighing in” on a matter that the Commerce Department was still considering. Although Gore came out against the proposal a month later, Bush environmental secretary David Struhs said his initial silence was “not exactly a profile in leadership.”
Five years later, Bush personally jumped on a campaign-trail remark by Kerry in which the Democratic presidential hopeful, speaking in Tampa, noted that “the largest unexplored oil field in the world is actually the deepwater oil out in the Gulf.” While Kerry’s campaign denied he was advocating drilling off the state, Bush denounced “Kerry’s insistence on offshore drilling in Florida,” adding that “there is probably 10 percent of the people of this state that would support a candidate for higher office that believes what John Kerry believes.”
But Bush’s most high-profile drilling struggle pitted him against the administration of his brother, George W. Bush, which proposed in 2001 to open up a 6-million-acre swath of the Gulf that would come as close as 30 miles to Pensacola. The governor told the St. Petersburg Times —which portrayed the battle as “Bush vs. Bush” — that he had argued to Vice President Dick Cheney that the plan posed a “threat to larger economic interests and our environment.” But he told the newspaper he couldn’t expect special treatment from Washington, even though the president was “my bro.”
Bush persuaded the Interior Department to shrink the area at risk by about 75 percent, which the agency said would keep any drilling at least 100 miles from Florida’s shores. Later, in the midst of the governor’s 2002 reelection campaign, the Bush brothers announced a deal in which the federal government would spend $115 million to buy out three oil companies’ offshore leases near the Panhandle.
“It just did not seem right that 25 miles off the coast there might be drilling. Today, that possibility doesn’t exist,” Jeb Bush told reporters outside the White House at the time.
Colleen Castille, who served as Florida’s environmental secretary during Bush’s second term, called the former governor an independent thinker who will “not necessarily be persuaded by familial relations.” She said he tried to take a balanced approach to oil and gas development but also feels a strong connection to Florida’s environment. For example, she said, “the man has just this absurd love for manatees” — citing an aquatic creature that Bush once called “my favorite mammal.”
But in 2005, he angered environmentalists by backing a bill in Congress to allow drilling in some of the same areas he had fought to keep off limits in 2001, in exchange for creating a 125-mile buffer zone around the state where drilling would be blocked. At the time, Bush argued that the bill offered the most realistic plan to protect Florida’s coast — telling one newspaper that “I’ve opted to be engaged to try to protect Florida’s coastline rather than be politically correct.”
Florida environmentalists still aren’t happy about it. “Our view really is that he can’t be trusted on the issue,” said Erin Handy, a Florida-based staffer for the environmental group Oceana.
His position shifted even further by July 2008, when gasoline prices hit an all-time high. That month, he told a newspaper in the Florida Keys that “had I known that gas was going to be $4.30 per gallon, as I stated, I would have supported a lifting of the [drilling] moratorium with proper safeguards.”
Since then, he has mostly spoken in broad terms about achieving U.S. energy independence.
During a 2013 speech, he called for opening up “federal lands and water for drilling in a thoughtful way.” And in an appearance last month at the Detroit Economic Club, he touted the potential of the U.S. energy boom that has upended markets in the past six years, saying that “in the oil and gas fields once given up for dry, we’re now assuring America’s energy security.”
“We have the chance — if we can create an energy policy based on American innovation and North American resources, Canada, Mexico and the United States — to create the lowest cost energy source in the world over the longest period of time, to help consumers with their disposable income and to help reindustrialize the country,” Bush said during the February address. “We have a chance to lead the world.”
-
‘Extraordinarily Dirty' Oil From Keystone XL Could Present Climate Risks, Obama Says
Mar 9, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Canadian tar sands oil that would be transported through the Keystone XL pipeline is extracted through “extraordinarily dirty” means, President Barack Obama said March 6, in some of his most negative remarks on the proposed project yet.
Obama, speaking at a town hall in Columbia, S.C., again reiterated a promise not to approve TransCanada Corp.'s 1,700-mile pipeline “that benefits largely a foreign company if it can't be shown that overall it would not contribute to climate change.”
“The reason that a lot of environmentalists are concerned about it is the way that you get oil out in Canada is an extraordinarily dirty way of extracting oil and obviously there are always risks in piping a lot of oil through Nebraska farmland and other parts of the country,” the president said, according to a transcript of his remarks.
The $8 billion project would connect oil sands in Alberta to an existing segment of pipeline in Steele City, Neb., and ultimately to refiners in the U.S. Gulf Coast. It's awaiting State Department approval because it crosses an international boundary.
The process of extracting bitumen from oil sands, which is then turned into synthetic crude oil, makes production of the oil more carbon-intensive than oil from conventional sources, according to opponents of the project, who have made the pipeline into a symbol of increased greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.
A final environmental review of the project, released by the State Department in January, found the pipeline would increase emissions by 1.3 million tons to 27.4 million tons of carbon dioxide each year, though environmentalists have called that figure underestimated.
A study published in August, for instance, said the pipeline would increase emissions by up to 110 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year, or about 1.7 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2012(155 DEN A-2, 8/12/14).
Obama Cites Planet's Warming
Obama, in his remarks at Benedict College, said it is “undeniable” the planet is warming, and “it's getting warmer at a faster rate than even the scientists expect.”
“But what you have to appreciate, young people, is this will affect you more than old people like me,” the president said. “I'll be gone when the worst of this hits. And the disruptions, economic, social, security disruptions that it can cause can make your life and the lives of your children much harder and much worse. And if you don't stop it at a certain point, you can't stop it at all. And it could be catastrophic.”
In addition, Obama said the pipeline would transport Canadian oil to the world market and would only result in 300 permanent jobs and “a couple thousand jobs for a year or two”—claims that project proponents, such as the American Petroleum Institute, have denied.
Previous Negative Remarks
The president vetoed legislation (S. 1) in late February that would have deemed the project approved, though congressional backers of the pipeline have vowed to attach the bill to legislation considered must pass, such as a transportation funding or appropriations measure.
Obama's negative comments build on remarks he made about the project in December, when he said the pipeline would have “very little impact” on domestic gasoline prices(245 DEN A-1, 12/22/14)(245 DEN A-1, 12/22/14)
Some lawmakers and other analysts have said Obama is unlikely to approve the project after vetoing S. 1, but in his March 6 speech, Obama added he had yet to make a decision on the project, which was first proposed in 2008.
“I vetoed it because the Congress was trying to short-circuit a tradit
-
Regulatory Snafu in Oil Fields May Be Tainting Water Supplies
Mar 6, 2015 | San Francisco Chronicle
Along with a deepening drought, heavy cuts in irrigation allotments and unchecked groundwater pumping, California has another problem with its fragile water supplies. Oil drilling fluids made up of salty water and chemicals for years have been injected back underground with no oversight.
The practice carries the potential to contaminate aquifers, the vital underground natural storehouses that hold water tapped by household and utility wells. It’s of special concern in Kern County, the center of California’s oil industry, where regulators have allowed the reckless conduct for decades.
So far tests haven’t turned up any major danger to local supplies. But the situation is seriously troubling. That’s because both state and federal agencies responsible for overseeing oil drilling practices and water safety haven’t done their job.
No one can say with any certainty that the drilling practice won’t taint water supplies in the future. Pumping the tainted fluids underground raises the possibility that the wastewater will journey through rocks and dirt, eventually showing up in wells. This possibility grows by the day as the state’s water crisis deepens and the parched oil drilling region in the southern Central Valley leans ever more on groundwater pumping for farms and homes.
An inexcusable mix-up left the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the state Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources with mismatched checklists of aquifers that were judged safe for underground wastewater dumping. As a result, the injection of the leftover liquid, known as produced water, was permitted for over 30 years in spots that should have been off-limits. More than 170 waste disposal wells were drilled into aquifers considered safe for drinking or irrigation.
Both the scale and timing are worth noting. California is the third-largest oil-producing state after Texas and North Dakota, meaning that the scale of drilling here is sizable. Also, the nature of this state’s oil deposits includes heavy amounts of briny water alongside sought-after crude, making the disposal of the surplus fluid an unavoidable issue.
The first steps toward improvement were announced this past week. A total of 12 injection wells were tabbed for closing. The companies that owned 10 voluntarily gave up their permits and two were given cease-and-desist orders.
The sudden attention is welcome, but it’s only a start given the hundreds of injection wells still in operation. In addition, the problem of lax supervision invites doubt about the state’s ability to handle the widening use of hydraulic fracturing, better known as fracking, which uses watery injections of chemicals and fluids to break up buried rock to release oil and gas.
Fracking remains a limited oil drilling technique in California, according to a survey released in January. That could limit the worry about its potential to pollute water supplies in the same way as wastewater injections.
But in either case, vigilant regulatory watchdogs will have to be on the job to keep tabs on water purity. California’s track record must improve.
-
Agency Pushed to Improve Management Of Oil, Gas Activities in Wildlife Refugees
Mar 9, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has accepted the need to improve its management of oil and natural gas activities in national wildlife refuges but hasn't yet implemented the agreed-upon changes, the Interior Department inspector general said in a report.
The March 4 report report, “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Management of Oil and Gas Activities on Refuges,” makes a case for more consistent regulatory procedures, better data and possibly better bonding, especially to address the problem of abandoned wells.
The IG made a set of recommendations, three of which are being addressed through a rulemaking that is under development and targeted for completion in the spring of 2017.
The rule will address the recommendations for more consistent permitting, better data on wells and lease ownership and the possibility of additional bonding obligations to cover the costs of plugging wells and remediating well sites even if the owner goes out of business.
In addition, the IG recommended more consistent application of regulations and guidance and better collection of other relevant data.
‘Split Estate' Allows Drilling
The IG report noted that in many wildlife refuges, the mineral rights for the subsurface weren't surrendered when the land was donated or sold to the federal government. It's referred to as a “split estate.”
In those areas, oil and gas development can continue, but a consequence in some cases has been abandonment of a well by a company going out of business and unable to remediate the site.
“America's refuges have over 5,000 oil and gas wells, of which approximately 1,665 are actively producing,” the report said. “The remaining wells are either inactive or their status is unknown.”
-
LNG Supply Could Outstrip Demand By 2035, Canadian Regulator Says
Mar 9, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jeremy Hainsworth
Utilization of global natural gas liquefaction capacity is between 80 percent and 90 percent, suggesting capacity will probably be higher than demand going forward, with proposed North American liquefied natural gas plants becoming redundant in the face of demand projected to 2035, a market snapshot showed.
“Once these facilities are in operation, the forecasted demand above existing liquefaction capacity would be approximately 22 billion cubic feet per day by 2035, compared to over 80 billion cubic feet per day of proposed but not yet under-construction capacity in North America alone,” the snapshot from Canada's National Energy Board (NEB), released March 5, said.
The British Columbia Ministry of Natural Gas Development told Bloomberg BNA March 6 that the provincial government remains confident LNG development can occur alongside growth elsewhere.
According to the “International Gas Union World LNG Report 2014 Edition” and recent company announcements, 20 billion cubic feet per day of additional liquefaction capacity is already under construction around the world, including projects in the U.S. that have recently broken ground, the NEB said.
By the end of 2014, applications to export LNG totaled about 40 billion cubic feet per day in the U.S., said a U.S. Department of Energy Dec. 13 list of long-term applications received by its Office of Fossil Energy to export domestically produced LNG from the lower 48 states.
By the end of 2014, applications to export LNG in Canada totaled about 48 billion cubic feet per day in Canada, the NEB said.
Eighteen projects have been proposed for Canada, all in western British Columbia province, but no final investment decisions have been made.
Nine have been granted NEB export permit licenses for a total of 20.8 billion cubic feet per day, two of those licenses for facilities in Oregon (87 DEN A-16, 5/6/14).
Provincial Framework for Development
British Columbia has developed a framework for development to provide LNG proponents with certainty as they work toward making financial decisions, according to the ministry statement.
The provincial government introduced legislation in October 2014 detailing emissions and tax frameworks the province's nascent liquefied natural gas industry has been awaiting in order to make investment decisions (205 DEN A-18, 10/23/14).
“We want to ensure we have provided LNG proponents with the certainty required to make final investment decisions as quickly as possible, and we remain optimistic some of those decisions will be made as early as this year,” the statement said.
A BG Group global market outlook for 2014-2015 said an estimated 243 million metric tons of LNG were delivered in 2014, an increase of 3.5 million metric tons or 1.5 percent compared to 2013. Supply remains stalled at 2011 levels, the BG Group outlook said.
Some Capacity Could be Retired
The snapshot said some existing capacity would likely retire by 2035.
“On the other hand, although North American projects represent the majority of recent proposals, they could face additional competition from projects in other regions of the world such as Russia and East Africa,” the NEB said.
-
A Little-Known Federal Rule Brings Invisible Pollution Into Focus
Mar 6, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Peter Zalzal
Unlike an oil spill, most greenhouse gas emissions are invisible to the naked eye. Though we can’t see them, this pollution represents a daily threat to our environment and communities, and it is important to understand the extent of this pollution and where it comes from.
This is why in 2010 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a rule requiring facilities in the oil and gas industry to report yearly emissions from their operations.
The Rule is part of a larger greenhouse gas measurement, reporting, and disclosure program called for by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush. By coincidence, the rule is known as Subpart W.
The emissions data required by the Rule helps communities near oil and natural gas development better understand pollution sources, and gives companies better ways to identify opportunities to reduce emissions.
As these policies have gotten stronger under the Obama administration, industry has continued to fight them in federal court.
Shedding light on methane
One of the greenhouse gases covered by Subpart W is methane, which a substantial body of research shows is leaking at a significant rate from oil and natural gas infrastructure. Methane is a powerful air pollutant, over 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide in the first 20 years after it is emitted. And, as the primary component of natural gas, methane emissions represent a waste of a valuable energy resource.
In January, the Obama administration announced that several federal agencies will take actions aimed at reducing harmful methane emissions. As part of those actions, this summer, EPA will propose standards including direct regulation of methane from the oil and gas sector—an action that is urgently needed to begin reducing this pollution.
Strengthening reporting
The reporting requirements have led to a better understanding of methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, though there are important opportunities to continue to strengthen the program to provide communities and stakeholders with additional transparency, and deepen understanding of emissions from these sources. In fact, the administration has recognized the importance of improving data and transparency as part of Subpart W, both in its 2014 Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions and in its recently announced goal to reduce methane emissions.
That’s why EPA has recently moved forward with two actions to strengthen greenhouse gas emissions reporting:
First, in December 2014, EPA proposed to strengthen requirements for emissions reporting by requiring reporting from sources previously not covered by the rule.
Deepening understanding of emissions from these sources (which include completions at oil wells, emissions from gathering and boosting systems, and transmission pipeline blowdowns between compressor stations) is especially critical given the increasing growth of emissions in so-called “tight-oil” formations like the Bakken and Eagle Ford shale and the already significant (and growing) national network of gathering and boosting infrastructure.
In fact, a recent study led by Colorado State University and funded in part by EDF found that gathering and boosting facilities have significant methane leaks, which were especially high when compared to other sources that, unlike gathering and boosting, were required to undertake comprehensive leak detection and repair.
EDF, along with colleagues in other organizations, submitted comments last week on the proposed rule urging the adoption of these improvements and recommending additional ways to strengthen reporting from these sources.
Last fall, EPA also finalized a rule that will increase the quality and uniformity of the reported oil and natural gas emissions data.
Under additional changes finalized in November 2014, companies (with limited exceptions) can no longer use non-standardized and unreliable measurement methods (known as best available monitoring methods or BAMM) when recording and reporting emissions from their operations. The change is an important step forward, which will allow for more rigorous, comparable emissions data and improve the transparency of the reporting program.
Industry pushes back on the recently-finalized rule
The American Petroleum Institute (API) has filed a legal challenge to EPA’s rule removing BAMM in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. At the same time API is claiming the recently announced clean air measures are not needed to reduce oil and gas sector methane emissions, it is suing in court to prevent transparent understanding of those emissions.
This isn’t the first time API has taken legal action to block public transparency in the oil and natural gas sector—this is the third in a series of such lawsuits API has filed seeking to impede the meaningful assessment and disclosure of emissions data.
Last week EDF, along with our colleagues in other organizations, filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit to defend EPA’s strengthened standards and support the public’s fundamental right-to-know about harmful methane emissions from the oil and natural gas sector.
Fostering the adoption of monitoring technologies
To build on the emissions information and transparency created by Subpart W reporting, EPA should also take additional actions to deploy proven technologies that can directly and transparently measure and quantify leaks, as provided for in the administration’s January announcement. Equipment leaks are the largest source of emissions, as identified by ICF International—both system-wide and also due to super emitters which account for substantial, additional emissions. Directly monitoring these leaks is critical to further improve understanding of emissions from these sources, promote accountability, and enhance transparency.
Rigorous, transparent data is the foundation for protecting public health and the environment from harmful emissions. EPA has taken two critically important steps to strengthen emissions reporting from the oil and gas sector, and we urge the agency to build on these two recent improvements, and continue to ensure the public has full, timely, and reliable information about the scope and sources of oil and gas emissions.
-
State Officials to Lock Horns on the Clean Power Plan
Mar 9, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Jean Chemnick
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will hear this week from states weighing how -- and whether -- to implement U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
The five officials who will address the panel Wednesday are from state agencies and public utility commissions tasked with writing and advising on state implementation plans for the draft existing power plant rule for carbon dioxide.
They come from states across the political spectrum with widely different energy landscapes. And their views of EPA's draft run the gamut from intense opposition to support for even tougher emissions curbs.
Three of the states represented at the hearing are among the proposal's most vocal opponents: Wisconsin, Wyoming and Indiana.
The governors of all three states signed a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy in September calling the draft a federal agency's bid to seize long-established state authority over the power sector.
The attorneys general of Indiana and Wyoming also joined in a pre-emptive lawsuit against EPA last summer aimed at forcing it to withdraw the rule before it becomes final. The suit claims EPA lacks the legal authority to regulate power plants under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act because it is regulating the same source category for a different set of pollutants under another section of the law. The argument stems from a decades-old discrepancy in the language of the statute and is likely to resurface when the rule becomes final.
Ellen Nowak, a commissioner at Wisconsin's Public Service Commission, is likely to tell the Senate panel Wednesday what she told a joint hearing in the state Legislature in January -- that the rule would drive up electricity rates and harm Wisconsin's manufacturing sector.
It is a view shared by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), who wrote in comments to EPA that the proposal does not respect the $4.5 billion in new fossil fuels investments the state has made in the last 15 years. It also gives little thought to effects on reliability, he said.
The likely Republican presidential contender also lamented in his comments that the Clean Power Plan fails to take into account strides Wisconsin has already made in low- and no-carbon energy, instead assigning his state tougher targets because of those past investments.
"States that have already obtained large CO2 emissions reductions, such as Wisconsin, are being required to reduce emissions more than those that have not taken significant steps to decrease emissions," he wrote, counseling EPA to correct this "perplexing approach" in the final version.
Todd Parfitt, director of the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, represents a state that is a major producer and exporter of both fossil fuels and renewable energy. It produces 40 percent of the nation's coal, and its largely rural population relies heavily on coal-fired generation.
Wyoming Gov. Matthew Mead (R) wrote in his comments to EPA that the proposal would leave Wyoming ratepayers on the hook when still-new infrastructure is shuttered and would kill coal mining jobs. It is also on legally shaky ground, he said.
"The EPA does not have the legal authority to propose, finalize or enforce this proposal," he said. Indiana will be represented at the hearing by the state's Department of Environmental Management Commissioner Thomas Easterly.
In his comments to EPA, Easterly said that Indiana is in the process of formulating its own energy policy aimed at making power more affordable and reliable. The Clean Power Plan is not compatible with those objectives, he wrote.
"Indiana is concerned that the proposed rule will lead to Hoosiers, particularly those in low income socioeconomic brackets, losing heat and power because they will not be able to pay rising utility costs," he wrote.
EPA officials, including McCarthy and acting air chief Janet McCabe, who is a former assistant commissioner for the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, argue that the rule will be a boon to low-income families because it will boost demand-side efficiency, thereby lowering electricity bills.
The Senate environment panel will also hear from two prominent state officials who are likely to sing the praises of the Clean Power Plan -- and make a pitch for strengthening it.
California Air Resources Board Chairwoman Mary Nichols and Michael Myers, who heads the affirmative litigation division of New York State's Environmental Protection Bureau, are likely to argue that EPA was well within its legal authority in putting forward a proposal that reaches beyond the fence line of a power plant to achieve systemwide emissions cuts. But the two are likely to add that California's experience and that of the Northeast's Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative show that more reductions can be made in a cost-effective manner than EPA assumes in its rule.
Nichols has offered California's cap-and-trade program as a compliance option other West Coast states should take advantage of in crafting their Clean Power Plan responses.
And Myers has argued before the D.C. Circuit Court in support of EPA's greenhouse gas regulations.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) and California Attorney General Kamala Harris (D), who is running to replace retiring Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), submitted comments to EPA with 10 other attorneys general defending the agency's legal basis for the draft on many of the points raised by its opponents.
The hearing comes as EPA continues to sift through more than 3 million comments on the Clean Power Plan, which is due to be finalized this summer together with curbs for modified and new power plants. Also due this summer is a federal implementation plan proposal that EPA says is intended to both guide states in crafting their own plans and show states that opt not to draft plans what they would face in a federal model.
There is a growing drumbeat from some state and federal lawmakers and industry representatives urging states not to submit their plans. The Clean Air Act might allow EPA to move ahead with a federal plan in those cases, they say, but it is unlikely to be as strict as the plans EPA is encouraging states to adopt, and the whole rule might be defeated in court.
But the agency has said it expects most states to write a compliance plan that takes into account their own policies and power mix.
The proposal sets deadlines for state submissions starting in June 2016.
Schedule: The hearing is Wednesday, March 11, at 10 a.m. in Dirksen 406.
Witnesses: Ellen Nowak, chairwoman, Public Service Commission of Wisconsin; Todd Parfitt, director, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality; Thomas Easterly, commissioner, Indiana Department of Environmental Management; Mary Nichols, chairwoman, California Air Resources Board; and Michael Myers, chief, Affirmative Litigation Section, Environmental Protection Bureau, New York State Attorney General.
-
EPA Looking to Ease Reporting Burdens On Businesses as Part of Periodic Review
Mar 9, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency is identifying ways to ease reporting burdens on regulated businesses as part of a periodic review mandated by the White House.
The EPA is seeking input on expanding electronic reporting, eliminating duplicative reporting and deploying advanced monitoring techniques, according to a notice to be published in the Federal Register March 9.
“The EPA views this review process as an ongoing exercise and is seeking further public input to ensure our regulations continue to maximize net social benefit,” the EPA said. “The focus of this new request for input is on how the agency can promote regulatory modernization through business process streamlining facilitated by improved technology.”
The regulatory review fulfills the requirements of Executive Orders 13,563 and 13,610 that require federal agencies to periodically review their rules to identify opportunities to improve the regulatory process and ease burdens on businesses.
The EPA in 2011 developed a plan for periodically reviewing its regulations. Since then, the agency has completed 21 of the 35 reviews it had originally identified and added five reviews in 2014 (170 DEN A-6, 9/1/11).
The EPA in its latest notice has identified several areas in particular where it is seeking comments on opportunities to improve its rules while easing compliance burdens. The agency is specifically asking for input on opportunities to transition from paper to electronic reporting; reduce duplicative reporting requirements; consolidate reports; report using existing shared services such as the Substance Registry System; create a joint registry of all regulated facilities to be shared with states and tribes; deploy advanced monitoring techniques; or identify which rules could be amended to reduce the frequency of reporting.
The EPA will accept comments on the request until April 8. Comment can be made at http://www.regulations.gov and should reference Docket No. EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156.
-
EPA's Utility MACT Cost Review May Protect Rule Under Potential Remand
Mar 6, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA's existing cost-benefit analysis for its utility air toxics rule is robust and legally sound, says a legal advocacy group, which could help the agency use the analysis as the basis for responding to a potential Supreme Court remand of the rule to EPA if the court agrees with industry that the agency erred by not considering costs in launching the rulemaking.
The utility maximum achievable control technology (MACT) air toxics rule “is massively cost-benefit justified, delivering tens of billions of dollars in net benefits each year, including thousands of lives saved annually plus other significant health and environmental improvements,” says a March 6 amicus brief filed by the New York University School of Law's Institute for Policy Integrity (IPI) in pending high court litigation over the MACT.
Industry groups want the justices to scrap the rule for what they say is EPA's failure to consider the costs to the power sector when it decided a MACT rule for utilities was “appropriate and necessary” under the Clean Air Act, but IPI argues that years-old legal and regulatory precedent do not require such considerations.
IPI says the court should grant EPA deference on whether to assess costs in its process for determining whether to subject an industrial sector to a MACT, saying the air law is silent on such a requirement. The group adds that EPA “for at least two decades” has said costs are not considered a factor in the initial review of whether to list an industry as regulated under a MACT, and that costs were too uncertain at the listing stage of the utility rule.
EPA's adversaries “falsely portray EPA and the Rule as irrationally and recklessly bent on decimating the electricity sector for the sake of miniscule benefits and without any attention to regulatory costs,” IPI says. “That portrayal is false,” the group says, because the rule's net benefits “are real and extremely substantial.”
The MACT and its regulatory impact analysis outlining the potential costs and benefits of the rule -- issued after the listing decision -- “were thoroughly vetted by the executive branch review process,” IPI says. EPA correctly evaluated the rule's costs when setting the MACT, but “assessing costs any earlier in the regulatory process . . . both is not statutorily required and could be grossly misleading,” according to the amicus brief.
IPI says this is because costs “may decrease or increase significantly as EPA chooses the regulation’s scope, stringency, design, flexibility, timeline, and approach toward different industry segments.” Attempting to assess costs and benefits before setting MACT could therefore “be deeply misleading or even impossible.”
The defense of the cost-benefit analysis from IPI -- which describes itself as “a non-partisan advocacy organization and think-tank dedicated to improving the quality of governmental decisionmaking” -- could bolster EPA's position not only in defending the MACT in the high court case, but following any potential adverse court ruling.
Supreme Court justices will review requests from industry and some states to reverse a 2-1 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruling from April that agreed with EPA that it did not need to consider costs in deciding that it was appropriate and necessary to craft a utility MACT. The high court agreed to hear the case on the sole question of whether EPA was wrong to not consider costs when it decided to launch the rulemaking.
Oral argument is set for March 25 in the utility MACT appeals filed as National Mining Association v. EPA, et al., Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA, et al. and State of Michigan, et al. v. EPA, et al.
Cost Considerations
IPI, several states and environmentalists are backing EPA in the case through amicus briefs, but IPI's defense of the cost-benefit review of the rule could nevertheless help the agency following a remand or vacatur.
Should a majority of the high court either remand the rule to EPA for consideration of costs or vacate it for not considering costs, sources have said the agency would likely use its existing cost-benefit review as the basis for any response to such a ruling. IPI's defense outlines the reasons why the agency could argue that it already has a sufficiently robust, legally defensible analysis in place to satisfy the cost requirement and revive the MACT.
Some legal observers have argued that EPA's correct analysis of costs and benefits when setting the MACT itself is key, because it renders the cost consideration argument against the rule essentially moot. If the court finds that EPA should have considered costs in its “appropriate and necessary” finding, which is a legal prerequisite to development of a MACT, the court could vacate the MACT entirely, vacate it and remand it or remand without vacatur.
In any of these scenarios, EPA would have to modify the finding, and would likely rely, to a large degree, on its existing cost-benefit analysis for the MACT, which found that the health and environmental benefits of the rule are between $37 to $90 billion per year, compared to estimated costs of $9.6 billion, sources have said.
Therefore, the question would be largely one of how much disruption would result from an adverse court ruling. For the court to vacate the rule would seem unnecessary if its objection is that EPA failed to consider costs, when in fact EPA did consider costs, albeit later in the regulatory process, some legal observers say.
If the court does reach the merits of the existing cost-benefit analysis, the strength of that analysis will be important. Industry critics say EPA should not have relied on benefits from reducing fine particulate matter (PM2.5) to justify the rule, because PM2.5 is not classed as a “hazardous air pollutant” (HAP) and hence is not the primary target of the rule. Without the “co-benefit” of PM2.5 cuts, the rule's costs would hugely outweigh its quantified benefits.
IPI counters that, “Federal agencies are required to take indirect benefits into account” by applicable executive orders and in EPA's case, the agency's own guidelines. “EPA -- under presidents of both parties and across four decades -- has consistently taken indirect benefits into account when evaluating Clean Air Act regulations.”
The rule's detractors further ignore “the significant, unquantified benefits that agencies must consider,” IPI says in its brief. EPA based its rule in part on health benefits of toxics reductions that it was unable to quantify, and these are excluded from comparisons of costs and benefits made by industry opponents of the rule.
Supporters' Arguments
In a separate March 2 amicus brief supporting EPA, the American Thoracic Society underscores at length the health benefits that flow from reducing the pollutants curbed by the utility MACT, including cuts in PM2.5. “Exposure to PM2.5 is strongly linked to premature death,” the society says.
The Thoracic Society argues that it is within EPA's legal discretion to decide it is “appropriate” to regulate air toxics from power plants without consideration of cost.
The Constitutional Accountability Center, which describes itself as a progressive think tank and law firm, in its March 4 amicus brief says that there is no reason to compel an interpretation of “appropriate” that involves consideration of costs. Both in ordinary usage and in the context of federal regulation, the term is used with broad scope to describe situations where cost is not considered, and those where it is considered.
Also, the structure of the Clean Air Act, and specifically its other air toxics provisions, suggests that Congress intentionally left EPA discretion on the matter, the group argues. “Petitioners’ approach creates an asymmetry, requiring cost considerations when deciding whether to regulate [electrical generating units, or EGUs] -- even as EPA may not take costs into account when determining whether to regulate HAP emissions from other sources or when deciding whether to remove a source of HAP emissions (including EGUs) from the list of regulated sources,” the group says.
-
FERC to Hear Eastern Perspective on Power Plan
Mar 9, 2015 | E&E Daily News
This week, Washington gears up for another Federal Energy Regulatory Commission technical conference on the Clean Power Plan, a visit from the nation's municipal electric utility leaders, a conference of the National League of Cities and a Senate panel discussion featuring state perspectives on the draft rule.
New briefs were filed last week in a challenge to the proposed rule brought by West Virginia and 11 other states. See them at the bottom of our Legal Challenges page.
Go to E&E's Power Plan Hub for the latest news, state summaries and developments.
-
Some States Fight EPA to Keep Wood Fires Burning
Mar 8, 2015 | AP (in SF Gate)
Smoke wafting from wood fires has long provided a familiar winter smell in many parts of the country — and, in some cases, a foggy haze that has filled people’s lungs with fine particles that can cause coughing and wheezing.
Citing health concerns, the Environmental Protection Agency now is pressing ahead with regulations to significantly limit the pollution from newly manufactured residential wood heaters. But some of the states with the most wood smoke are refusing to go along, claiming the EPA’s new rules could leave low-income residents in the cold.
Missouri and Michigan already have barred their environmental agencies from enforcing the EPA standards. Similar measures recently passed Virginia’s legislature and are pending in at least three other states, even though residents in some places say the rules don’t do enough to clear the air.
It’s been a harsh winter for many people, particularly those in regions repeatedly battered by snow. And the EPA’s new rules are stoking fears that some residents won’t be able to afford new stoves when their older models give out.
“People have been burning wood since the beginning of recorded time,” said Phillip Todd, 59, who uses a wood-fired furnace to heat his home in Holts Summit. “They’re trying to regulate it out of existence, I believe, and they really have no concern about the economic consequences or the hardship it’s going to cause.”
Others contend the real hardship has fallen on neighbors forced to breathe the smoke from winter wood fires.
The EPA typically relies on states to carry out its air quality standards. But states may not be able to effectively thwart the wood-burning rules, because federal regulators could step in to do the job if local officials don’t.
“If the EPA wants to come in here and enforce it, come on in. (But) I’m not going to help them,” said Michigan state Sen. Tom Casperson, whose law barring state enforcement of the EPA regulations takes effect March 31.
About 10 percent of U.S. households burn wood, and the number relying on it as their primary heating source rose by nearly a third from 2005 to 2012, the latest year for which federal figures were available.
The EPA’s new rules apply only to new wood heaters and won’t force anyone to get rid of their older models.
-
Week Ahead: Senate to Put Climate Rule Under Microscope
Mar 9, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Laura Barron-Lopez
A Senate committee is planning its third hearing in as many months on the administration’s signature climate change regulation.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will hold a hearing next week on an Environmental Protection Agency climate regulation that requires states to cut carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030.
State officials from Wisconsin, Wyoming, Indiana, California and New York will testify.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who chairs the Environment panel, has vowed to scrutinize the regulation as closely as possible. Inhofe and his fellow Republicans argue the rule will hurt the economy, destroy energy jobs and do little to mitigate the impacts of climate change.
The EPA contends the rule is flexible and will save consumers money on their electric bills once it’s fully implemented.
Tackling climate change is a key pillar of President Obama’s second-term legacy.
Wednesday’s Senate hearing will be far from the last on the subject.
While the House is out next week, there will still be plenty of action on Capitol Hill.
On Monday, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and Environmental Protection Agency chief Gina McCarthy will deliver remarks at the National League of Cities’s Congressional Cities Conference.
Later on Monday, Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) will speak at an event on international environmental crime. Madhuri Kommareddi, director of program development for the Office of Hillary Rodham Clinton with the Clinton Foundation, will also attend.
On Tuesday, the Atlantic Council will talk about the future of the power industry. The CEO of Southern Co., Thomas Fanning, will attend.
On Wednesday, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will kick off its 2015 conference. Commissioner Jeff Baran will deliver remarks.
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Thursday will mark up the Bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act of 2015. The legislation aims to protect and advance opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing, and shooting.
Finally, on Thursday, Secretary of State John Kerry will speak at a talk hosted by the Atlantic Council on the Paris climate talks.
-
What If States Just Say ‘No’ to Climate Rule?
Mar 8, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is counseling states to defy a key pillar of President Obama’s climate change initiative.
But while it may be politically attractive for some states to heed the call to just say “no,” to the Environmental Protection Agency’s landmark limits on power plant emissions, experts say doing so could bring unwanted consequences.
McConnell, a Republican from coal-rich Kentucky, reasoned in a column in the Lexington, Ky., Herald-Leader that states’ refusal to comply with the contentious rule could be a powerful display of protest against an administration he accuses of overreach. At the same time, he argues, states could avoid expensive impacts of a regulation that he thinks is doomed by either Congress or the federal courts.
“Don't be complicit in the administration's attack on the middle class,” he warned states
The advice drew swift rebuke from McConnell’s political rivals, who called it unprecedented and misguided.
“I can’t recall a majority leader calling on states to disobey the law — and I’ve been here almost 24 years,” Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a statement, referring to the Clean Air Act.
Further, experts and supporters of the regulation contend, refusing to write a state plan would invite the EPA to impose its own system for reducing emissions, denying state officials the ability to craft rules in a way that best fits the state’s unique circumstances.
The outcome, the say, could be a more expensive plan than could otherwise be achieved by the states themselves.
“I think it’s a bad idea,” said Jamie Van Nostrand, director of the Center for Energy and Sustainable Development at the West Virginia University College of Law.
“It might feel good to not play with the EPA, but I think it’s bad for the states’ citizens,” he said. “You’re less likely to end up with the least-cost compliance strategy.”
Daniel Selmi, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said the “just say no” approach has the advantage of being “pithy.”
“Before taking that step, however, states should carefully consider the consequences,” Selmi wrote in a paper published by the Columbia University Law School. “If they do so objectively, it becomes apparent that opting out of the process at this point can result in significant disadvantages.”
State implementation plans are central to the EPA’s plan to cut carbon from the power sector 30 percent by 2030. The regulations were proposed last June and scheduled to be made final this summer.
Like many pollution control regulations under the Clean Air Act, EPA plans to rely on what it calls “cooperative federalism,” in which it sets carbon reduction targets for each state’s power sector and asks the states to write plans to comply.
If the EPA deems a plan to fit with the rule, officials would be able to use a wide variety of measures, like increasing energy efficiency or renewable energy, or cutting back the use of coal-fired power plants, to comply.
If a state does not submit a plan that’s up to snuff, the EPA can swoop in and write its own rules for the state.
David Doniger, climate change director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said that’s the way it has worked since the 1970s, and the EPA has successfully defended its right to formulate plans.
“The general rule is that states choose to do it, because they take into account state and local circumstances, and they do things their own way, and they do things under state authority,” he said. “So when a state writes a plan under the Clean Air Act, it has the ability to make a lot of choices.”
Janet McCabe, acting assistant administrator at the EPA for air, announced in January that it was working on a “model” federal plan on which it would base its strategies for states.
While she argued that it would give states guidelines to work from, it also acted as a threat to states considering bucking the rules.
But McConnell pushed back.
“The Obama administration's so-called ‘clean power’ regulation seeks to shut down more of America's power generation under the guise of protecting the climate,” he wrote in his Herald-Leader column.
While McConnell recognized that the Obama administration has threatened federal plans, he said the rules are probably not even legal.
“And even in the unlikely event that the regulation does pass legal muster, it's difficult to conceive how a plan imposed from Washington would be much different from what a state might develop on its own,” he said.
No states have committed to ignoring the carbon rules, but a top Texas official said his state was seriously considering the tactic.
Additionally, under coordination from the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council, multiple states have passed laws that hinder their abilities to write implementation strategies, through provisions like requiring legislative approval of plans and prohibiting any rules that would cut coal-fired generation.
Peter Glaser, an attorney at Troutman Sanders, made a similar case to McConnell’s in a recent paper he published with two colleagues through the Federalist Society.
“We actually don’t think that a federal plan would be worse than a state plan, given what states are being required to do under at least the proposed rules The proposed rules are so stringent for so many states, and the flexibility that states supposedly have just isn’t there,” he said.
As an example, Glaser said many states would need to cut coal-fired generation dramatically under their own plans, so a federal plan isn’t likely to be worse.
But a key to Glaser’s case is that he does not believe the federal government has the power to implement the sweeping, so-called “outside the fence-line” changes that the EPA is allowing, since that would require changes that have nothing to do with actual power plants.
“The notion that EPA has authority to order a state to require more renewable resources, or to use less electricity or even just to run their natural gas more, that’s ridiculous,” he said. “It’s not even within the realm of anything anybody could argue.”
West Virginia University’s Van Nostrand also said it might be difficult for the EPA to go beyond the fence-line.
That’s why it’s so much better for states to use their own power, which is not necessarily limited to power plants.
“As a practical matter, I don’t know how they come up with a federal compliance plan that directs the utility to have more energy efficiency programs, or to ramp up some solar and wind,” he said.
Instead, the EPA would probably have to achieve a state’s entire reduction target by cutting emissions directly from power plants, which would cost much more to electric customers, Van Nostrand said.
The EPA, for its part, believes that its power isn’t limited to generating plants.
“Clearly our hope is that states will provide the necessary plans,” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said at a March 4 Senate hearing. “If not, there will be a federal system in place to allow us to move forward.”
NRDC’s Doniger said the ability to write a federal plan is explicitly outlined in the Clean Air Act.
“It’s EPA’s legal obligation, legal mandate — it’s required — that EPA propose, publish and implement a federal plan for the state that hasn’t got an approvable state plan,” he said. -
Mar 9, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Steven K. Gibb
Five refrigerants that won’t harm stratospheric ozone and have lower global warming potentials than many similar products got a green light from the Environmental Protection Agency last week.
The five products—one hydrofluorocarbon (HFC), three short alkanes, and a blend of hydrocarbons—are already used in Asia and Europe, the agency says.
EPA approved the products via a part of the Clean Air Act designed to ensure that new refrigerants are less environmentally damaging than those they replace. The agency approved ethane for low-temperature refrigeration units; isobutane for retail refrigeration units and vending machines; propane for home refrigerators and freezers and vending machines; difluoromethane, also known as HFC-32, for room air-conditioning units; and the hydrocarbon blend R-441A for retail refrigeration, vending, and room air-conditioning units.
According to EPA, the newly approved refrigerants have global warming potentials that range from 3 to 675. The five refrigerants can replace older products that have much higher global warming potentials ranging from 1,400 to 4,000, the agency says. For reference, CO2 has a GWP of 1.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy called the agency’s action “an example of how we can turn the challenge of climate change into an opportunity to innovate our way to a better future.”
In the new rule, the agency exempts the four hydrocarbon products from the Clean Air Act’s prohibition against discharging refrigerants to the atmosphere. “Current evidence suggests that their venting, release, or disposal does not pose a threat to the environment,” the agency explains. Other refrigerants, including HFC-32, must be captured during maintenance or the disposal of cooling equipment. Stephen Van Maren, a director with the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy, an association of chemical makers and refrigeration and cooling companies that rely on HFCs and ozone-depleting hydrochlorofluorocarbons, says he expects to see a variety of repercussions from the new regulation. “The ability of companies to adapt to the provisions of the rule varies quite a bit by sector and company,” Van Maren tells C&EN.
-
DOE Study on Crude Oil Properties Begins As Government Probes Oil Train Derailment
Mar 9, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven and Ari Natter
The Energy Department is conducting a review of the chemical properties of crude oil, an analysis that may be used to help with a Transportation Department rulemaking setting new safety standards for crude-by-rail shipments, a department spokeswoman told Bloomberg BNA.
The study's relevance is highlighted by a March 5 oil train derailment in Illinois, where five tank cars ignited. Federal officials were scheduled March 6 to begin investigating the cause of the derailment.
“I think it [the derailment] just calls attention to this issue nationwide,” Mark Moran, city administrator for Galena, Ill., told Bloomberg BNA. “It's been a discussion in our community, and I think it will stimulate more in-depth discussion in looking at ways to improve public safety and preparedness.”
Rail transportation of crude has come under public scrutiny after a series of high-profile derailments resulted in a range of environment and property damages and public health risks. Crude-by-rail shipments are increasing as hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling techniques have led daily U.S. oil production to soar.
The Energy Information Administration forecasts that average U.S. crude oil production will hit 9.3 million barrels per day in 2015, rising to 9.5 million barrels per day in 2016. That would nearly tie the highest annual amount of crude production in U.S. history of 9.6 million barrels per day set in 1970, according to the EIA.
Efforts to make crude-by-rail safer and to mitigate the risks of these derailments have been wide-ranging.
Energy Department Study Discussed
The Energy Department's analysis could provide direction for legislators and policy makers considering whether stabilizing crude oil should be a component of the comprehensive approach to make this type of transport safer (44 DEN A-7, 3/6/15).
Specifically, the Energy Department analysis will serve as a “resource for identifying knowledge gaps in the chemical properties of various forms of crude oil,” the department spokeswoman said. The study is still in an early stage, she said.
Meanwhile, government officials are seeking to find why this latest derailment in Galena, Ill., occurred, part of which will include sampling the crude oil from the incident.
No Waterway, Wetlands Contamination Found
Government officials and BNSF Railway Co. haven't found waterway or wetlands oil contamination, impacts to air or injuries to the public resulting from the train carrying crude oil that derailed March 5 near Galena, Moran said.
Twenty-one CPC-1232 tank cars of the 103-car train derailed, and five of those cars were ignited in the incident, BNSF, the owner of the track from which the train derailed, said in a statement.
There was a voluntary evacuation implemented for the six households within a one-mile radius of the derailment, only one of which chose to evacuate, Moran said.
The Federal Railroad Administration was expected to begin its investigation into the cause of the Galena incident March 6, Moran said.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration will work with the railroad agency to examine rail car performance, “product” or crude oil classification and emergency response, PHMSA told Bloomberg BNA.
The National Transportation Safety Board hasn't launched an investigation into the incident. When asked why, a representative for the board told Bloomberg BNA that “the NTSB does not investigate every rail accident.”
The EPA will also go to the derailment site to assess the damage to the environment, Moran said.
-
Wrecks Hit Tougher Oil Railcars
| The Wall Street Journal
By Russell Gold and Paul Vieira
In a string of recent oil train derailments in the U.S. and Canada, new and sturdier railroad tanker cars being built to carry a rising tide of crude oil across the continent have failed to prevent ruptures.
These tank cars, called CPC-1232s, are the new workhorses of the soaring crude-by-rail industry, carrying hundreds of thousands of barrels a day across the two countries.
But the four recent accidents are a sign that the new tanker cars are still prone to rupture in a derailment. The ruptures could increase momentum for rules aimed at further reducing the risk of shipping crude by rail.
In the last month, there have been significant derailments of crude-carrying trains in West Virginia and Illinois, plus two in Ontario, including one Saturday in a remote part of the Canadian province.
Each train was hauling the new tank cars, which weren’t able to prevent the crude from escaping, leaking into one river and exploding into several giant fireballs.
“These new type of cars were supposed to be safer, but it’s obvious these cars are not good enough or safe enough,” said Claude Gravelle, a Canadian lawmaker who represents the northern Ontario area where two recent derailments occurred.
On Sunday, emergency workers were still trying to extinguish fires in multiple tank cars after 30 cars of a 94-car Canadian National Railway Co. train laden with Alberta crude derailed Saturday near Gogoma, Ontario. Five cars landed in a waterway.
The energy industry began using rail to transport oil in 2008 because it was a fast and inexpensive way to move growing volumes largely from the Bakken Shale in North Dakota.
In addition, building new pipelines has been expensive and politically fraught. In February, President Barack Obama vetoed legislation to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, which has been under review by the Obama administration for more than six years.
The robustness of tanker cars has become a major focus of efforts to improve the safety of shipping crude by rail. Such shipments have soared from about 21,200 barrels a day in 2009 to 1.04 million barrels a day by the end of 2014, according to government statistics.
As the U.S. shale boom gathered speed, the safety of growing crude shipments by rail has attracted greater scrutiny in the U.S. and Canada, especially after a 2013 derailment in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, that claimed 47 lives.
Speed limits have been adopted, and a new rule in North Dakota that will take effect next month requires crude from the state to be treated to make the crude less combustible.
The cars involved in the two Ontario derailments and the incidents in West Virginia and Illinois all met the standards introduced by the rail industry in 2011 as a significant upgrade over older models, and were built with thicker shells and pressure-relief devices ENLARGE
There are about 60,000 of the new CPC-1232 tanker cars in use hauling crude oil across North America, as well as about 100,000 of the older models, says the Association of American Railroads.
Last year, the Transportation Department proposed additional new rules for tank cars carrying crude, presenting three main options. One would stick with the CPC-1232, but the other two would make new cars stronger and retrofit existing cars.
The White House is now reviewing these options and is expected to issue recommendations in May.
Ed Greenberg, a spokesman for the Association of American Railroads, said the railroad-industry trade group “wants all tank cars carrying crude oil, including the CPC-1232, to be upgraded by retrofitting or taken out of service. Railroads share the public’s deep concern regarding the safe movement of crude oil by rail.”
The American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry’s trade group, says it also supports upgrades to the tanker fleet to improve safety.
Cynthia Quarterman, a former director of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration who stepped down last October, said the recent incidents “confirm that the CPC-1232 just doesn’t cut it.”
Tanker-car improvements alone won’t be enough to reduce overall risk, she added. “The crashworthiness of the tank cars does need to be raised, but that’s not enough. There needs to be a comprehensive solution, including better brakes to help minimize pileups.”
The four recent crashes also highlight some of the other risks of carrying crude by rail that seem to be persistent.
Two of the derailments involved Bakken crude from North Dakota, which contains a high level of gas, making it more volatile than other kinds of crude. In the Mount Carbon, W.Va., accident in February, nearly two dozen tankers full of crude derailed and were engulfed in flames, some exploding into fireballs that rose more than 100 feet in the air.
Tests on the crude showed that its vapor pressure, a measure of volatility, exceeded a new regulatory standard that will go into effect next month.
The recent derailments involved long trains that are essentially mobile pipelines as much as a mile long. The BNSF Railway Co. train that derailed and caught fire in Galena, Ill., 160 miles northwest of Chicago, was roughly a mile long and carrying 103 railcars loaded with crude from North Dakota’s Bakken Shale. BNSF is a unit of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.
“We certainly believe that a stronger tank car is necessary and appropriate,” said Mike Treviño, a BNSF spokesman. A Canadian National spokesman said the company is in favor of stronger tank-car design standards.
Sarah Feinberg, the acting Federal Railroad Administrator, said improving the safety of crude transportation will require a multipronged approach. “This situation calls for an all-of-the-above approach—one that addresses the product itself, the tank car it is being carried in, and the way the train is being operated,” she said.
The train in the Canadian National accident in Ontario over the weekend was 94 cars long, while the West Virginia train had 109 tankers full of North Dakota crude oil.
Canadian Transport Minister Lisa Raitt referred to “very long” unit trains last month when she proposed a new tax on crude shipments by rail aimed at building an insurance fund. “With that increased length of car, there’s an increased risk associated with it,” she said.
The number of derailments on long-haul tracks in the U.S. has declined 21% since 2009, according to the Federal Railroad Administration. But the number of train accidents related to “fire” or “violent rupture” climbed to 38 last year from 20 in 2009.
-
A Third Blast on Oil Trains Stirs Scrutiny
Mar 6, 2015 | The New York Times
By Jad Mouawad
For the third time in less than a month, a train carrying flammable crude oil has derailed and burst into flames, prompting questions over whether stricter measures being considered to ensure their safety will be enough.
All three accidents involved a newer generation of tank cars that are supposed to be sturdier and safer than older models.
Those cars will be upgraded as part of a new federal standard that is being phased in this year and will take effect in 2017. The new standard will require thicker steel shielding and better thermal protections, and will have to be fitted with more crash-resistant valves. Older models, mostly built before 2011, that cannot be refitted with those features will have to be retired from use with hazardous materials.
But some lawmakers and safety experts are worried the new measures might prove inadequate.
“We shouldn’t have to tolerate or get into our minds that accidents and derailments and loss of hazardous materials is normal,” said Brigham A. McCown, a former administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. “It’s not.” Photo Another derailment in Mount Carbon, W. Va., last month. All three accidents involved a newer generation of tank cars that are supposed to be sturdier and safer than older models. Credit Steven Wayne Rotsch/Office of the Governor of West Virginia, via Associated Press
The most recent accident took place on Thursday in a rural area of northern Illinois, south of Galena. Two of its cars ruptured and burst into flames after a BNSF train loaded with crude from North Dakota derailed.
BNSF is still investigating the cause of the accident, according to a spokesman, Michael Trevino.
But even before that accident, lawmakers at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on Tuesday were pressuring regulators to act more aggressively.
“We are not moving fast enough,” Senator Maria Cantwell, a Democrat from Washington State, told Anthony Foxx, the transportation secretary, referring to the adoption of new tank car standards. She said that she planned to introduce a bill calling for stricter tank car standards than the ones currently contemplated by the Transportation Department.
The new tank cars for oil and ethanol should have thicker hulls, she said, adding that older cars should be phased out more quickly than is currently being considered. The Department of Transportation’s new rules are expected to be completed in May.
Mr. Foxx responded that there was a “high level of urgency” to imposing the new rule on tanker cars, but was not specific on a date when the new regulations would be adopted.
The recent accidents — which also occurred in West Virginia and Ontario — are the latest in a series of derailments that have accompanied the booming business of carrying crude oil by rails from North Dakota in recent years.
Oil production has surged there, reaching about 1.2 million barrels a day. Most of that oil relies on trains, not pipelines, to reach refineries on the East and West Coasts, as well as the Gulf Coast.
As a result, hundreds of mile-long oil trains crisscross the nation each week, though the exact number is not made public by rail companies. It is unclear if derailments on oil trains occur at a higher rate than on trains hauling different cargo, like grain or coal.Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story
Some experts say that the accidents are adding to the pressure on an industry that, at least for now, has little choice but to ship the oil on trains.
Kevin Book, an analyst with ClearView Energy Partners, said that fewer gallons of crude oil spilled over all last year than in 2013, but that they were spilled from a greater number of incidents and in a larger number of states.
“That puts more lawmakers on the spot to respond to constituent concerns,” he said.
And a chilling projection by the Department of Transportation last month forecast that trains hauling oil or ethanol would derail on average 10 times a year over the next two decades, according to a recent report by The Associated Press.
Making matters worse, crude oil from the Bakken formation is laden with gas particles that make it more flammable than other grades of oil.
Bakken oil is prized by refiners because it can easily be turned it into gasoline or jet fuel. It is those properties, though, that make the oil more prone to bursting into flames in the event of a crash. There are no federal rules on what oil producers should do to stabilize the oil before shipping by rail.
Oil producers, in response, have said those concerns are misplaced. Stripping out those gases — commonly known as vapor pressure — from the oil before shipment would increase production costs but would not make the oil safer, they say.
The National Transportation Safety Board, an independent investigative agency, has recently identified the hazards of oil trains as one of its top 10 safety concerns this year.
The safety board has called on rail companies to reduce the hazards of carrying such flammable material on rails, for instance by selecting routes that reduce the amount of hazardous material that travels through populated areas.
“Safety, however, has not kept pace with the sheer demand and vigor of the market, potentially placing many who live amid the complex rail network in danger,” Christopher A. Hart, the safety board’s acting chairman, said in a statement last month.
Thursday’s accident followed what has become a familiar pattern: A mile-long train loaded with crude derailed while churning through a rural area, puncturing cars and igniting its cargo.
The fire and plumes of smoke could be seen for miles, according to several news reports. No injuries were reported.
The accident occurred on a major rail line by the Mississippi River that handles a high level of oil train traffic. Six cars derailed, according to local officials, and at least two burst into flames. All but two of the BNSF train’s 105 cars were carrying crude oil. The other two were buffer cars filled with sand.
The cars that derailed were known as CPC-1232s, the latest generation of tank cars that was built since 2011. Last month, a CSX train with 109 tank cars of oil derailed in Fayette County, W.Va., erupting into flames and leaking oil for several days. This followed another explosion, in Ontario, that involved a 100-car train, where 29 cars derailed. Both trains were traveling under the speed limit.
The hazards of carrying flammable material in the older generation of tank cars, known as DOT-111, were known for years.
Those risks became apparent after a runaway oil train caused a deadly blast in Canada that killed 47 people in July 2013. Since then, American and Canadian regulators have sought to improve standards and phase out the older models.
But to Mr. McCown, the former federal regulator, the push to improve tanker cars is only part of the solution.
“We haven’t focused on the real issue here,” he said. “If the cars stayed on the rail tracks, we wouldn’t have these discussions.”
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested