Preview Newsletter
ACC AM
-
(ACC Mentioned) Leading Economic Indicator Shows Signs Of A Spring Thaw
Mar 24, 2015 | Gnomes National News Service
The Chemical Activity Barometer (CAB), a leading economic indicator created by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), was flat in March following a 0.3 percent and 0.1 percent upward revision in January and February, respectively. Data is measured on a three-month moving average (3MMA). Accounting for adjustments, the CAB remains up 3.0... -
Despite New Clarity On TSCA Reporting, EAB Ruling Raises Other Concerns
Mar 24, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dave Reynolds
Despite providing clarity on Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reporting requirements, a recent EPA Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) decision is raising other concerns for industry and EPA by finding agency guidance is binding and, due to the specifics of the ruling, eliminating the chance of judicial review, observers say. -
California Gives Six Pesticides Proposition 65 Listing
Mar 24, 2015 | Chemical Watch
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has listed the following chlorinated triazine pesticides as known to cause reproductive toxicity, under Proposition 65... -
EPA Partially Approves Advocates' Request For Nanosilver Pesticide Rules
Mar 24, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA is partially approving environmentalists' years-old petition urging the agency to regulate the nanoscale material nanosilver as a pesticide subject to federal registration requirements, but is rejecting advocates' call to undertake broader regulation and launch sweeping enforcement against unregistered nanosilver products already in commerce. -
BLM Has Begun Work on State Variances From Requirements of Federal Fracking Rule
Mar 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
By the time new federal regulations on hydraulic fracturing go into effect June 24, the Bureau of Land Management intends to have identified the regulatory variances that will be allowed in some states, BLM Director Neil Kornze said March 24. Kornze told Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) during a House Natural Resources subcommittee... -
Bills to Address Fracking Liability, Permit Moratorium Advanced by Maryland Assembly
Mar 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Kathy Lundy Springuel
Two measures that would affect horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing in Maryland advanced in the General Assembly March 24. The House of Delegates passed H.B. 449, which would place a three-year moratorium on the issuance of any “fracking” permits. -
As Fracking Becomes a Possibility in Maryland, Lawmakers Try to Stall It
Mar 24, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Jenna Johnson & Ovetta Wiggins
The Maryland House of Delegates passed legislation Tuesday that would forbid natural-gas drilling in the western part of the state for three years, while the state Senate approved a bill that would hold drilling companies financially responsible if things go wrong. Each bill generated hours of debate and is far from becoming law. -
EPA Regulations Face New Test at High Court
Mar 24, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Lydia Wheeler
The Environmental Protection Agency’s regulatory power faces another key test at the Supreme Court Wednesday, when justices weigh arguments that the agency failed to consider industry costs before issuing a landmark air quality rule. The case, Michigan v. EPA, centers on the EPA’s first-ever limits on mercury, arsenic and acid gases... -
EPA Prioritizes Contaminated Sites in Michigan, Indiana
Mar 24, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) added contaminated areas in Michigan and Indiana to its list of Superfund priority sites. The more than 1,000 contaminated sites on the Superfund national priority list qualify for financing for long-term cleanup under the EPA’s Superfund program, established in the 1980s to remove the worst... -
McConnell, Portman Float 'Just Say No' Amendment to Budget
Mar 24, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jean Chemnick
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell introduced an amendment today to the fiscal 2016 budget resolution that would allow states to opt out of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. The amendment, which the Kentucky Republican introduced on behalf of Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), who is up for re-election, tracks roughly with a draft Rep. Ed... -
An EPA Rule on Power Plant Hazardous Air Pollutants is ‘Appropriate’
Mar 24, 2015 | The Washington Post
One can understand why critics of the Obama administration are angry about the so-called mercury rule, an Environmental Protection Agency clean-air regulation that they will ask the Supreme Court on Wednesday to quash. The EPA did not conduct a cost-benefit analysis when it decided to regulate hazardous air pollutants, such as mercury... -
GOP Amendment Would Let the States Opt Out of EPA Climate Rule
Mar 24, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Senate Republicans are proposing a budget amendment that would let states opt out of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) controversial climate rule for power plants. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) proposed the amendment Tuesday on behalf of Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), who is up for reelection in 2016. -
Whitfield Floats Bill To Delay EPA's Climate ESPS, Grant States 'Safe Harbor'
Mar 24, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Lee Logan
Implementation of EPA's greenhouse gas (GHG) rule for existing power plants would be delayed until court challenges to the rule are completed, and states could also avoid compliance entirely if they can certify that the rule would adversely impact electricity rates or reliability under new draft legislation offered by a top House Republican. -
Why the Supreme Court Mercury Case Matters
Mar 24, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Graham McCahan
The stakes are high when the Supreme Court hears arguments this week on new standards that – for the first time – establish nationwide limits on mercury and other toxic emissions from power plants. The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards are in place to protect lives and prevent billions of dollars in health impacts. Unfortunately, some... -
No Endorsement From Stanislaus on Bill To Give States More Coal Ash Authority
Mar 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
An Environmental Protection Agency official stopped well short of endorsing a House bill March 24 that essentially would substitute state-driven permitting and enforcement requirements for the agency's attempt to impose federal requirements on coal ash storage facilities. Mathy Stanislaus, EPA assistant administrator for solid waste and... -
Northeastern States Urge EPA To Grant Request For nPB Air Toxics Listing
Mar 24, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
Northeastern states are urging EPA to grant petitions requesting that the agency add the replacement dry cleaning chemical n-propyl bromide (nPB) to its list of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) subject to Clean Air Act limits, with Rhode Island noting it has regulated nPB since 2008 due to concerns about its harm to human health. -
Benzene Exposure Returned to State Court; Clean Air Act Doesn't Preempt State Claims
Mar 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
The Clean Air Act doesn't completely preempt state law claims, necessitating remand of a benzene exposure lawsuit to state court, a federal court in Alabama ruled March 23 (Morrison v. Drummond Co. Inc., 2015 BL 78709, N.D. Ala., No. 14-cv-0406, 3/23/15). Complete preemption of state law claims is appropriate only in “extraordinary” circumstances not evident in this case, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern... -
Scientists Urge Museums to Sever Ties With Board Members Denying Climate Change
Mar 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ben Brody
Dozens of scientists have signed an open letter to museums urging them to cut ties with donors and board members who deny climate change, singling out billionaire political donor David Koch, who sits on the boards of the two of the nation's largest natural history museums. “We are deeply concerned by the links between museums of science ... -
Air Pollution Raises Stroke Risk
Mar 24, 2015 | The New York Times
By Nicholas Bakalar
Air pollution — even for just one day — significantly increases the risk of stroke, a large review of studies has found. Researchers pooled data from 103 studies involving 6.2 million stroke hospitalizations and deaths in 28 countries. The analysis, published online in BMJ, found that all types of pollution except ozone were associated with increased... -
Performance-Based Rules May Have Future in Crude-by-Rail Efforts: DOT
Mar 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The Transportation Department is cautious about utilizing federal performance-based rules as a replacement for prescriptive-based ones, especially when low-frequency, high-consequence accidents are possible, a department official said. Worker and passenger safety needs to be considered and accidents such as crude oil train derailments... -
Link Between Crude Oil, Flammability In Rail Accidents Not Established, DOE Says
Mar 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The relationships between properties of crude oil and the likelihood and severity of combustion during rail car accidents “have not been established,” the Energy Department said in a March 24 report on the safety of shipping Bakken and other forms of crude oil by rail. The report, an analysis of existing data and literature on chemical and... -
Multi-Modal Safe Energy Transport Efforts Should Be Funded in FY 2016: Democrats
Mar 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Democrats are urging congressional appropriations committees to fund federal efforts for safe energy transportation, including crude oil, in fiscal year 2016. Nearly 60 Democratic representatives and senators called on the leadership of their respective Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations subcommittees...
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Mentioned) Leading Economic Indicator Shows Signs Of A Spring Thaw
Mar 24, 2015 | Gnomes National News Service
The Chemical Activity Barometer (CAB), a leading economic indicator created by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), was flat in March following a 0.3 percent and 0.1 percent upward revision in January and February, respectively. Data is measured on a three-month moving average (3MMA). Accounting for adjustments, the CAB remains up 3.0 percent over this time last year, a slight deceleration over prior year-over-year growth.
The Chemical Activity Barometer has four primary components, each consisting of a variety of indicators: 1) production; 2) equity prices; 3) product prices; and 4) inventories and other indicators. During March, the components were mixed, with production and inventories up, and equity and product prices slightly down.
“Economic data for recent months are likely slightly skewed by seasonal factors, including the unusual deep freeze that engulfed a good part of the country. The housing sector was particularly adversely affected by weather,” said Kevin Swift, chief economist at the American Chemistry Council. Each housing start represents approximately $15,000 of chemistry, Swift noted. “March is returning to normal, but it may take a few more weeks before the data reflect a real normalcy, but we know with certainty that U.S. chemical exports are softening as a result of the strong dollar,” he added.
The Chemical Activity Barometer is a leading economic indicator derived from a composite index of chemical industry activity. The chemical industry has been found to consistently lead the U.S. economy’s business cycle given its early position in the supply chain, and this barometer can be used to determine turning points and likely trends in the wider economy. Month-to-month movements can be volatile so a three-month moving average of the barometer is provided. This provides a more consistent and illustrative picture of national economic trends.
Applying the CAB back to 1919, it has been shown to provide a lead of two to 14 months, with an average lead of eight months at cycle peaks as determined by the National Bureau of Economic Research. The median lead was also eight months. At business cycle troughs, the CAB leads by one to seven months, with an average lead of four months. The median lead was three months. The CAB is rebased to the average lead (in months) of an average 100 in the base year (the year 2007 was used) of a reference time series. The latter is the Federal Reserve’s Industrial Production Index.
Chemical Activity Barometer for the Latest Six Months and Year-Ago Month*
The CAB comprises indicators relating to the production of chlorine and other alkalies, pigments, plastic resins and other selected basic industrial chemicals; chemical company stock data; hours worked in chemicals; publicly sourced, chemical price information; end-use (or customer) industry sales-to-inventories; and several broader leading economic measures (building permits and new orders). Each month, ACC provides a barometer number, which reflects activity data for the current month, as well as a three-month moving average. The CAB was developed by the economics department at the American Chemistry Council.
The next CAB is currently planned for:
21 April 2015
9:00 a.m. Eastern Time -
Despite New Clarity On TSCA Reporting, EAB Ruling Raises Other Concerns
Mar 24, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dave Reynolds
Despite providing clarity on Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reporting requirements, a recent EPA Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) decision is raising other concerns for industry and EPA by finding agency guidance is binding and, due to the specifics of the ruling, eliminating the chance of judicial review, observers say.
Elementis, the only domestic manufacturer of hexavalent chromium (Cr6), recently won its appeal of an administrative law judge's (ALJ) November 2013 ruling that the company violated section 8(e) of TSCA by failing to forward to EPA a 2002 study showing increased risk of lung cancer to workers exposed to Cr6, widely used as an anti-corrosive agent in pigments, dyes, paints and plastics and in the production of stainless steel.
But the EAB's March 13 decision in the case, In re: Elementis Chromium Inc., gives wins to both sides, finding Elementis was not obligated to report to EPA because the study corroborated known information, while also largely backing EPA's long-standing position that section 8(e) violations are continuing violations subject to daily penalties.
Elementis' appeal had become a test case for the reach of TSCA reporting requirements, including when information does not have to be reported because it is "corroborative" of a known risk, and also of EPA's long-held position that 8(e) reporting violations are continuing and not subject to a general five-year statute of limitations.
Several industry observers say EAB's ruling scrapping a $2.5 million penalty against Elementis, which the ALJ had upheld, helps clarify both those long-standing questions.
"This decision is fantastic for industry; it provides perfect clarity on two issues that needed it," one industry source says, adding that despite EPA guidance on the issue, questions around TSCA section 8(e) reporting requirements have persisted and industry has sought additional guidance for years. "Elementis is going to walk away from this thinking they've done themselves and everyone else a huge favor."
While other industry observers agree the EAB has clarified key questions, one industry observer and a second source say the decision also raises new concerns.
A former EPA enforcement attorney says by strictly holding EPA to language in its guidance on when a health study is exempt from reporting because it is corroborative of a known risk, EAB could set a precedent for strict EPA adherence to guidance documents, something agency guidance is generally not intended to require.
"The EAB did very strictly impose the guidance on the agency in a binding way," the source says, adding that EAB found that but for agency guidance, Elementis would have been liable for not reporting the 2002 study. In that way, the source adds, the ruling appears at odds with the agency's past interpretation of guidance as non-binding and not conferring rights on anyone.
A second industry source says EAB's determination that violations of section 8(e) reporting requirements are continuing, thereby limiting the application of the statute of limitations, is something that companies would like to see challenged.
Mark Duvall of the law firm Beveridge and Diamond says an EPA win in the case could have set up a first-time appellate review of when the federal statute of limitations applies in TSCA reporting cases, but that Elementis will not challenge the EAB's mixed ruling that largely backed EPA on the statute of limitations question because it also found the company was not obligated to report.
"It's ironic that Elementis' victory on the corroborative issue is going to preclude it from being able to seek judicial review of the statute of limitations issue, because it won the case so it can't appeal," Duvall said.
TSCA Reporting
TSCA section 8(e), generally requires domestic chemical manufacturers, distributors and importers to report information showing their chemicals or mixtures pose "substantial" health or environmental risks, unless industry has "actual knowledge" that the administrator has been "adequately informed" of such information.
While EPA has published several guidance documents to clarify section 8(e) reporting requirements, industry observers says confusion over the requirements persists, and that recent requests for further guidance from EPA have been denied due to limited resources.
In challenging the EPA penalty, attorneys for Elementis argued the company was under no obligation to provide the 2002 study to EPA because the link between Cr6 exposure and increased risk of lung cancer was already known and because a general five-year statute of limitations had expired before the agency filed its complaint in September 2010.
The company argued that agency claims chemical producers have a broad duty to disclose results of health and safety studies are at odds with agency guidance. And Elementis noted that an earlier EPA study showed the adverse effect of lung cancer occurred at a lower dose than was shown by the industry-funded 2002 study that the agency argued the company should have reported.
While EPA acknowledged the prior study found that Cr6 exposure at modern facilities causes lung cancer, the agency contended the risk was not well-established and that the later industry-funded study addressed limitations and uncertainties in the agency's earlier study.
EAB in its March 13 ruling, held that Elementis was not required to report the 2002 study because EPA guidance documents "constrained the broad reach" of TSCA section 8(e) and exempt Elementis from a reporting requirement that would have otherwise existed under the statute.
"Our decision is controlled, as it must be, by the language of the statute and EPA's long-standing interpretive guidance to the regulated community as to what the statutory requirements mean," the EAB decision says. "We would have affirmed the ALJ's decision if we were limited to the plain language of TSCA section 8(e)."
Additionally, EAB says that a study may contain "new, different and valuable" information yet still be considered corroborative and therefore exempt from reporting unless the study shows that a well established adverse effect is "of a more serious degree or a different kind" than previously known.
"EAB seems to be saying, 'corroborative means corroborative, you've articulated a standard and we're going to hold you to it,'" the first industry source says, calling the EAB ruling a surprise.
A second industry source says the enforcement action against Elementis showed EPA seeking to broaden the scope of information companies must report under section 8(e), and that EAB was correct in preventing an agency overreach.
"To have the enforcement team decide that [the reporting requirement] should be broader would be a bad way to make policy, so it's good that EAB stepped in," the source says.
Although, those two sources say the ruling could lead companies to report fewer studies, because they deem them corroborative of known information, they also say determining when certain information is already known to the agency remains a tricky proposition, and so companies will still be cautious when deciding against reporting, especially given that violations are continuing and subject to daily penalties.
The case "is a reminder that every time they get this information the one thought in the mental checklist they have to go through is whether this is something that needs to be reported," the second industry source says.
Continuing Violations
The EAB also sought middle ground on whether the general five-year statute of limitations, contained in U.S.C. Section 2462, applies to section 8(e) violations, a long-standing question for which the legal landscape is uncertain. Although EAB has previously upheld agency arguments that section 8(e) violations are continuing, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the appellate court that reviews many EPA decisions, has rejected EPA's interpretation of the statute of limitations, which is a general federal statute of limitations that governs enforcement of many laws.
In 3M v. Browner, a 1994 TSCA enforcement case that centered on the manufacturer's failure to submit a premanufacture notice at least 90 days before importing a chemical, the D.C. Circuit rejected agency arguments on when the statute of limitations would begin. Specifically, the court held that the general five-year statute of limitations in section 2462 starts on the day that the violation began, not on the day that EPA discovered the violation.
In its appeal, Elementis defended against EPA claims that the company was continually liable for reporting violations, arguing that the agency brought its enforcement action long after the general five-year statute of limitations had run and so the case should be dismissed.
But in the ruling, EAB backed EPA's position that section 8(e) reporting violations are continuing, which "can mitigate the effect of the statute of limitations."
But the first industry source says that EAB capped companies' potential liability at five years, while EPA had argued that continuing violations are not subject to the statute of limitations. The source said a maximum of five years of liability is a small consolation when violations are subject to daily penalties that can still accrue into very large fines.
Duvall says EAB's decision on the statute of limitations question is consistent with past EAB rulings, but that does not mean it is correct. The issue "needs to be heard by a federal court," he said. "But we're going to have to wait until another opportunity, that will not come on this case," he says.
-
California Gives Six Pesticides Proposition 65 Listing
Mar 24, 2015 | Chemical Watch
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has listed the following chlorinated triazine pesticides as known to cause reproductive toxicity, under Proposition 65:
atrazine;propazine;
simazine;
des-ethyl atrazine (DEA);
des-isopropyl atrazine (DIA); and
2,3-diamino-6-chloro-s-triazine (DACT).
The listing is based on formal identification by the US EPA, and takes effect from 3 August.
The office has also added the substance beta-myrcene to the list as a known carcinogen. It is used as an intermediate in the fragrance industry. The action takes effect from 27 March.
Suppliers of products containing a Proposition 65 substance must label them accordingly.
-
EPA Partially Approves Advocates' Request For Nanosilver Pesticide Rules
Mar 24, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA is partially approving environmentalists' years-old petition urging the agency to regulate the nanoscale material nanosilver as a pesticide subject to federal registration requirements, but is rejecting advocates' call to undertake broader regulation and launch sweeping enforcement against unregistered nanosilver products already in commerce.
In a March 19 letter to the environmentalist International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA), EPA Office of Pesticide Programs Director Jack Housenger says the agency agrees with advocates' long-standing claims that nanosilver -- a widely used nanoscale material -- may pose different human health or environmental risks because of its unique properties, and warrants regulations.
“EPA agrees with the Petitioner and commenters that, because of the unique characteristics of nanosilver, products containing nanosilver may have different toxicity and/or fate profiles than products containing only macro-scaled silver or other silver ingredients,” Housenger writes.
But the letter notes that the agency is rejecting various other requests that ICTA made, including to classify all products containing nanosilver as pesticides and enforce against existing products in the marketplace. EPA says it will instead weigh those issues on a case-by-case basis, prompting criticism from ICTA.
Still, the decision to subject nanosilver to Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) pesticide registration mandates and other federal requirements is a major win for ICTA, which filed a petition with the agency in 2008 seeking such rules and for EPA to assess nanosilver's impacts on health and the environment.
EPA failed to respond quickly to the petition, prompting environmentalists to file a suit last December in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking a court-ordered deadline for a response.
In the suit, Center for Food Safety (CFS) et al. v. Gina McCarthy, environmentalists argued that while EPA has acknowledged in previous statements that nanosilver products are pesticides, the agency has failed to regulate the products under FIFRA, leading to increased exposures and unique health risks to consumers.
Environmentalists have long pushed for stricter regulation of nanoscale materials, which they say present a novel challenge for regulators because of vast differences in performance and potential toxicity of the particles based on relatively small changes in their properties, using their petition to ask for such rules.
Advocates' suit sought a binding deadline for EPA to decide on the petition, but following Housenger's letter, the parties agreed in a March 23 filing to ask the district court to dismiss the litigation as moot.
In a March 24 statement, CFS -- which signed onto ICTA's petition -- hails EPA's decision to regulate nanosilver under FIFRA and other laws, noting that in the time since ICTA filed the petition, the number of consumer products on the market containing materials has grown from 260 to more than 400, adding that there are likely many more since there are currently no labeling requirements for products containing nanomaterials.
“We are gratified that EPA has now fundamentally acknowledged that, with regard to both the legal and scientific evidence, nano-silver antimicrobial products must be regulated as new pesticides,” said CFS attorney George Kimbrell. “This is an important step in safeguarding the public,” Kimbrell said.
Petition Response
But in the March 19 response, EPA denies several aspects of the 2008 petition. While advocates urged EPA to classify all products containing nanosilver as pesticides, subject to regulation under FIFRA, EPA says it will determine on a case-by-case basis which products have pesticidal intent and will be subject to FIFRA regulation.
And EPA agreed only partially to advocates' demands for regulation under other laws such as the Food Quality Protection (FQPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
While EPA will assess risks of pesticide products containing nanosilver, the agency said it requires a specific application for registration before setting a tolerance, or limit of allowable residues on food, under the FQPA.
EPA also said it intends to weigh risks under the ESA when registering new pesticides containing nanosilver, but that FIFRA registrations do not require reviews under NEPA.
The agency also declined petitioner's calls to take broad enforcement action against products containing nanosilver already on the market, saying it will follow its discretion to enforce FIFRA rules.
“Although EPA is denying Petitioner's request to treat all products containing nanosilver as pesticides, to the extent that any unregistered pesticides are being sold or distributed in the United States, EPA will address them, as appropriate, through its general FIFRA enforcement program,” the letter says.
In a statement on the response, ICTA's Jaydee Hanson says, “We are disappointed that EPA has not agreed to investigate and take enforcement action against all current product manufacturers, despite agreeing with our basic legal and scientific arguments indicating such a need.”
Pending Regulation
EPA's plan for FIFRA regulation of nanosilver outlined in the recent letter is one of a several efforts EPA is taking to better assess and possibly regulate nanomaterials.
For example, the White House Office of Management and Budget March 19 completed its pre-publication review of EPA's planned Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reporting and recordkeeping requirements for nanoscale materials, a proposal that is expected to include a first-time definition of the substances for regulatory purposes. Industry sources have said the proposed TSCA rule seeks to gather information on nanoscale materials already in commerce, yet shelves a past plan to develop a broad significant new use rule that would require industry to provide information on nanoscale substances before they enter the market.
-
BLM Has Begun Work on State Variances From Requirements of Federal Fracking Rule
Mar 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
By the time new federal regulations on hydraulic fracturing go into effect June 24, the Bureau of Land Management intends to have identified the regulatory variances that will be allowed in some states, BLM Director Neil Kornze said March 24.
Kornze told Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) during a House Natural Resources subcommittee hearing that he has begun the work of comparing elements of the new federal rule with Wyoming regulations to determine the regulations that will merit a variance for the state.
He said it is his goal to make that determination for Wyoming “and perhaps with other states” before the new rules have an impact on oil and natural gas development on federal and Indian lands.
A variance may be provided for specific regulations within a state's program that are equal to or more protective than the regulations in the new federal rule, according to the text of the rule, released March 20. Those regulations focus on such factors as well integrity and waste fluid management for any well that is hydraulically fractured, or fracked (55 DEN A-14, 3/23/15). A variance will not be available for a state's entire regulatory program.
Lummis said it is worrisome that the variances will be tied to specific regulatory elements rather than a regulatory program. Kornze said that is how the current regulatory system works for oil and gas.
‘Split Estate' Issue Raised
Kornze was testifying at a hearing of the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Federal Lands. Testifying along with him was Tom Tidwell, chief of the U.S. Forest Service.
Some mineral rights beneath federal lands are held by private parties, a situation called a “split estate.” Privately owned mineral rights underlie about 38 percent of the Monongahela National Forest in West Virginia and about 93 percent of the Allegheny National Forest in Pennsylvania. BLM manages mineral rights beneath national forests; the Forest Service manages the surface.
Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.), whose district includes the Monongahela National Forest and a chunk of the Marcellus Shale gas-producing region, asked whether the BLM fracking rule would apply to wells in split estates.
“The regulations would apply,” Kornze responded.
“Good luck with that,” Thompson said.
Referring to the fracking regulations, the Pennsylvania lawmaker said, “I think they're just clearly going against case law and stepping on private property rights owners.”
-
Bills to Address Fracking Liability, Permit Moratorium Advanced by Maryland Assembly
Mar 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Kathy Lundy Springuel
Two measures that would affect horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing in Maryland advanced in the General Assembly March 24.
The House of Delegates passed H.B. 449, which would place a three-year moratorium on the issuance of any “fracking” permits.
The Senate passed S.B. 458, which would adopt a strict liability standard for drillers without the need to show negligence.
Final passage of either bill would require approval by the opposite chamber as the General Assembly nears its scheduled April 13 adjournment.
Enactment also would require the signature of Gov. Larry Hogan (R), a pro-business executive who has not taken a stance on the bills, but who has spoken favorably in the past about fracking as a potential means to create jobs in the two Western Maryland panhandle counties that sit atop a small portion of the Marcellus Shale formation.
Hogan spokeswoman Erin Montgomery told Bloomberg BNA in a March 24 e-mail that “the governor is currently reviewing both pieces of legislation. However, as he has repeatedly said, if fracking can be done in an environmentally safe way, then he would want to move forward with it.”
Fracking on Hold in Maryland
No fracking has taken place in Maryland because former Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) imposed a de-facto moratorium in 2011 and called for a three-year study that formed the basis for strict regulations officially proposed just 12 days before he left office (07 DEN A-8, 1/12/15).
The Maryland Department of the Environment under the Hogan administration has neither promulgated nor withdrawn O'Malley's proposed regulations.
MDE spokesman Jay Apperson told Bloomberg BNA in a March 18 e-mail that “the public comments received on the proposed regulations are under review.”
If implemented as currently proposed, the regulations would set strict performance standards for all aspects of fracking and effectively would extend O'Malley's moratorium by two more years because shale gas developers would have to conduct two years of baseline environmental monitoring before seeking a permit.
House Bill Would Codify Moratorium
H.B. 449, which cleared the House 93-45, would write into law a three-year moratorium, barring MDE from accepting any fracking permit applications until April 30, 2018.
The bill also would establish a 10-member panel of experts to examine the scientific literature, assess whether fracking can occur with no detrimental impact on public health or the environment and report to lawmakers on whether the state should issue permits.
H.B. 449 originally would have imposed an eight-year moratorium, but an amendment shortened that to three years.
Senate Bill Would Address Liability
S.B. 458, which cleared the Senate 29-17, would establish a strict liability standard for fracking permittees, require them to disclose to a plaintiff the chemical constituents used in fracking and increase certain insurance mandates.
Unlike past legislation that has added fracking requirements to the state's Environment Article, S.B. 458 would add a new Subtitle 21 to Title 3 of Maryland's Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article called the Hydraulic Fracturing Liability Act.
The bill would establish a presumption of liability on the part of shale gas developers for any harm caused by fracking.
The liability language took a few twists and turns during Senate deliberations as the bill's original “strictly liable” provision was deleted and replaced with a definition that would declare hydraulic fracturing “an ultrahazardous and abnormally dangerous activity.”
Attorney General's Input Sought
Floor debate was put on hold March 18 as lawmakers sought input from the state attorney general's office on whether the new language was another term for strict liability.
Sandra Benson Brantley, counsel to the General Assembly in the AG's office, replied in a March 18 letter that “Maryland, like most if not all states, has adopted the legal doctrine of strict liability for ultrahazardous or abnormally dangerous activities.”
Because the bill would define fracking as such, it would impose “liability on a person who holds a permit to conduct hydraulic fracturing if the injured person proves the activity caused the harm, regardless if the permit holder exercised reasonable care,” she wrote.
The bill, as passed, retained the definition of fracking as an ultrahazardous and abnormally dangerous activity.
Other portions of S.B. 458 would bar any contract agreement that waived the right to bring an action against a permittee or reduced any liability for injury, death or loss to a person or property that is caused by fracking.
For purposes of an action brought against a permittee, the bill would provide that information about any chemical constituent used in fracking is not protected as a trade secret and is discoverable and admissible as evidence.
Would Increase Insurance Limits
Another portion of S.B. 458 would increase the liability insurance limits currently mandated under the state's Environment Article.
Every holder of a permit to drill for gas or oil would have to obtain comprehensive general liability insurance of at least $1 million for each person and $5 million for each occurrence or accident, up from current limits of $300,000 and $500,000, respectively.
Permit holders also would have to obtain environmental pollution liability insurance of at least $10 million per loss, up from $1 million under current law.
The environmental pollution liability insurance would have to be maintained for six years—up from the current five—after MDE determined that the gas or oil well was properly sealed and plugged and the site was reclaimed.
The bill's sponsors wanted insurance to be kept in effect for 21 years, but the measure was amended to require six.
Existing Liability Provisions Retained
S.B. 458 would not alter a provision added to state law in 2013 that requires permit holders to provide financial assurance of at least $50,000 for each gas or oil well, including each well on a multi-well pad.
Also unaffected by S.B. 458 is a provision added to state law in 2012 that established the presumption that contamination of a water supply in the area around a gas well is caused by the gas exploration or production activity, unless the driller rebuts the presumption by “a preponderance of the evidence.”
The presumptive impact area covers a radius of 2,500 feet from the vertical wellbore and applies for 365 days after the last event of well drilling, completion or hydraulic fracturing.
-
As Fracking Becomes a Possibility in Maryland, Lawmakers Try to Stall It
Mar 24, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Jenna Johnson & Ovetta Wiggins
The Maryland House of Delegates passed legislation Tuesday that would forbid natural-gas drilling in the western part of the state for three years, while the state Senate approved a bill that would hold drilling companies financially responsible if things go wrong.
Each bill generated hours of debate and is far from becoming law. Even if approved by the other chamber, either or both bills could be vetoed by Gov. Larry Hogan (R), who has called such drilling “an economic gold mine.”
For years, Maryland officials have weighed the potential benefits and risks of hydraulic fracturing, which injects high-pressured liquids into underground rock formations to extract natural gas.
The practice, known as fracking, could provide much-needed jobs in the state while tapping a cleaner source of energy. But there are many unknowns about fracking, and opponents say it could lead to contaminated water, earthquakes and other environmental problems.
On Friday, the Obama administration imposed tighter standards for fracking on federal land. Some environmental groups complained that those rules did not go far enough, while two energy industry groups called them a “reaction to unsubstantiated concerns.”
Pennsylvania and West Virginia, which border Western Maryland, allow fracking. Both states have large chunks of gas-rich land, but only a small swath of Maryland is suitable for fracking.
Late last year, then-Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) said Maryland could allow fracking — but only if coupled with public health and environmental safeguards that would be among the most restrictive in the country. The regulations, introduced by O’Malley on Jan. 9, are working their way through a review process.
Hogan, who took office Jan. 21, “is currently reviewing both pieces of legislation,” spokeswoman Erin Montgomery said. “However, as he has repeatedly said, if fracking can be done in an environmentally safe way, then he would want to move forward with it.”
The House bill that would forbid the state from issuing fracking permits for three years so that a panel could study the potential public health and environmental impacts passed 93 to 45. Proponents noted a recent fracking ban in New York, which followed a state report that raised a number of health concerns.
“We want to get the science right,” said Del. Kumar P. Barve (D-Montgomery).
Some lawmakers argued against the bill, saying the future of the region’s economy depends on fracking. “This issue has been studied to death,” said Del. Haven N. Shoemaker Jr. (R-Carroll), sounding frustrated. “We need to quit fracking around and bring jobs to Western Maryland.”
But several argued that there is still more to study — and that the state needs to be cautious. “It is the health and safety of our citizens,” said Del. Dereck E. Davis (D-Prince George’s). “If we get this wrong, it’s not fixable. You cannot undo this.”
The moratorium legislation now needs the approval of the Maryland Senate, which voted 29 to 17 Tuesday in favor of a bill that would hold energy companies financially liable if their fracking causes injury, death or loss of property.
“Strict liability” already exists for fracking that happens on state property, said Sen. Robert A. Zirkin (D-Baltimore County), the bill’s sponsor. The legislation would extend that protection to include land owned by counties or private individuals.
“This bill is about the law,” Zirkin said. “It’s about what happens when there are problems, when somebody is injured, when there is contamination. And the question is: In a court of law, who pays for it? Who is responsible?’
A few Republicans questioned why Zirkin’s bill describes hydraulic fracturing as “an ultrahazardous and abnormally dangerous activity.” Sen. George C. Edwards (Garrett) said several industries are much more dangerous yet don’t have the same restrictions. He urged lawmakers to wait for Hogan’s review of the pending regulations before passing legislation like this.
“If we’re going to do this for one industry, we should do it for all of them,” Edwards said.
With just three weeks left in the 90-day session, lawmakers worked late into the night Monday and then gathered again Tuesday morning to work through a backlog of bills.
The Senate voted unanimously Tuesday to increase the mandatory retirement age for state judges from 70 to 73, to monitor the number of opioid treatment programs in some Zip codes and to include a prepaid envelope when distributing absentee ballots.
Senators voted 32 to 15 to require online hotel booking companies to collect sales tax for the entire cost of a hotel room and give that full amount to the state, rather than keeping part of it as a service fee. Senators also approved the Maryland False Claims Act, which was proposed by Attorney General Brian E. Frosh (D) and would make it easier for the state to recover money from private contractors who submit fraudulent bills.
All those bills now go to the House for consideration.
The House approved a bill that sets up an “Orange Ribbon” certification for schools with later start times, as recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics, along with the state’s education and health departments. To qualify, schools may not have middle or high school students in class before 8:30 a.m. or on the bus before 7:30 a.m. The bill heads to the Senate.
Both chambers approved a bill that would allow residents who have an intersex condition or who have undergone a sex change to receive a new birth certificate and another bill that would require health insurance companies to cover infertility services for same-sex couples.
-
EPA Regulations Face New Test at High Court
Mar 24, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Lydia Wheeler
The Environmental Protection Agency’s regulatory power faces another key test at the Supreme Court Wednesday, when justices weigh arguments that the agency failed to consider industry costs before issuing a landmark air quality rule.
The case, Michigan v. EPA, centers on the EPA’s first-ever limits on mercury, arsenic and acid gases emitted by power plants, slated to take effect next month for some plants.
It is the latest in a series of legal clashes between the EPA and critics who contend the agency has repeatedly overstepped with its rules. The agency, however, has held a formidable federal court winning streak that environmental groups believe will continue.
“We believe EPA’s arguments are very strong,” said Sean Donahue, counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund, one of several groups touting the benefits of a rule projected to prevent thousands of deaths each year.
But opponents, including the National Federation of Independent Business, place the rule among the costliest ever. They warn that upholding it could set a dangerous standard.
“We are concerned that businesses will have to absorb many of the regulatory costs if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the EPA, but our bigger concern is ensuring agencies do not overstep their authority by refusing to consider the costs of all regulations before implementing them,” said Karen Harned, NFIB Small Business Legal Center director.
The EPA estimates the rule would cost $9.6 billion and produce between $37 billion and $90 billion in benefits, preventing up to 11,000 premature deaths annually. But, importantly, the agency concluded that its regulatory impact analysis should have “no bearing on” the determination of whether regulations are appropriate, as set forth in the Clean Air Act.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the EPA. A Supreme Court decision upholding that ruling would add a victory to the agency’s record in the courts.
Last June, the high court handed down a split decision largely affirming the EPA’s power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. That case capped a string of cases in which federal courts upheld the agency’s air pollution decisions eight times and never ruled against it.
Twenty-three states and more than two dozen industry and labor groups argue that the agency unreasonably refused to consider costs before imposing the mercury regulations on coal- and oil-fired electricity generating units.
Challengers say the benefits of controlling the utility emissions of mercury, which ends up in fish that’s eaten, only amount to $4 million to $6 million annually and that the rest of the benefits come from the reduction of particle pollution.
“No rational person would spend $960 for something worth 40-60 cents,” the National Mining Association said in its opening brief. “A decision to do so would be decidedly inappropriate under any common understanding of the word. Perhaps understandably, EPA asserts that it does not have to offer a reason why spending so much for so little is a rational decision.”
Other critics of the rule say it’s unnecessary because fine particles are already regulated by other mandates.
“If they were regulating just mercury it’d be a very different rule and less costly,” said Susan Dudley, director of the GW Regulatory Studies Center at The George Washington University and former administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
On top of the $9.6 billion in annual compliance costs, the rule would result in higher electricity costs for consumers, according to Peabody Energy Corp., which filed an amicus brief.
“Fixed-income seniors are particularly vulnerable to increased energy costs,” Peabody Energy said. “Consumer electricity prices correlate strongly with the poverty rate. In fact, inability to pay utility bills is the second leading cause of homelessness in the United States.”
In a prepared statement, the EPA said it “acted properly under its Clean Air Act authority in regulating harmful toxic air pollution from power plants.”
How the court’s ruling will impact the federal rule-making process going forward, experts say, depends.
“The broader implications could be small,” said Stuart Shapiro, Rutgers University public policy program director.
Supporters of the rule say even a finding that the EPA failed to consider costs would not ultimately derail it.
“What would happen is there would be some sending of the rule back to the agency for consideration, but the agency has already taken a close look at cost and benefits,” Donahue said, adding that Environmental Defense Fund is confident the costs would still be justified.
“It’d be overwhelmingly likely that the rule would stand up,” he said.
But that could be a major hiccup for the Obama administration.
If the high court sends the rule back to the EPA for cost consideration, Shapiro said, it could take the agency the rest of the Obama administration to reissue the rule.
“Nothing is ever easy in a large government organization,” he said. “My guess is, given that it’s not that complicated, they would have time to get it out before the end of the administration, but I would not be surprised if it took the bulk of that time.”
-
EPA Prioritizes Contaminated Sites in Michigan, Indiana
Mar 24, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) added contaminated areas in Michigan and Indiana to its list of Superfund priority sites.
The more than 1,000 contaminated sites on the Superfund national priority list qualify for financing for long-term cleanup under the EPA’s Superfund program, established in the 1980s to remove the worst environmental contaminants.
Tuesday’s action from the EPA added to this list a large area of groundwater — used for water wells — in Kokomo, Ind., that contains vinyl chloride and arsenic.
It also added the site of the former DSC McLouth Steel Plant in Gibraltar, Mich., where the soil contains phenolic compounds and metals that the EPA fears could seep into the nearby Detroit River.
“By updating the [list], we continue to fulfill our mission to protect public health and the environment by cleaning up contaminated land and returning formerly toxic sites to communities for productive use,” Mathy Stanislaus, the EPA’s assistant administrator for solid waste, said in a statement.
“Superfund cleanups help advance the economic well-being of communities by turning contaminated properties into productive community resources that can enhance property values, create jobs and broaden tax bases,” he said.
The EPA also proposed another six sites for national priority designation.
-
McConnell, Portman Float 'Just Say No' Amendment to Budget
Mar 24, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jean Chemnick
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell introduced an amendment today to the fiscal 2016 budget resolution that would allow states to opt out of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
The amendment, which the Kentucky Republican introduced on behalf of Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), who is up for re-election, tracks roughly with a draft Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) is preparing to introduce in the House (E&E Daily, March 24). Both measures would exempt states from complying with the existing power plant carbon rule and bar EPA from imposing a federal implementation plan if the state claims the rule will create a hardship.
The McConnell-Portman language would allow either the governor or the state legislature to make this determination if they judged the rule would increase electricity costs in a way that would hurt low-income ratepayers, affect reliability, impair investments in existing generating units, harm manufacturing and "other important sectors of the economy of the state," or hurt the state in numerous other ways.
McConnell has repeatedly proposed that state lawmakers refuse to comply with the EPA rule, saying that the agency has little ability to impose a federal plan that would be more onerous than the state plans it would approve. And state plans will become federally enforceable, he warns, giving EPA and third parties new grounds to sue for their enforcement.
"This commonsense amendment returns power to the states by ensuring they can make their own decisions when determining if a federal regulation will negatively impact their electricity prices and economy," Portman said in a statement introducing the amendment.
-
An EPA Rule on Power Plant Hazardous Air Pollutants is ‘Appropriate’
Mar 24, 2015 | The Washington Post
One can understand why critics of the Obama administration are angry about the so-called mercury rule, an Environmental Protection Agency clean-air regulation that they will ask the Supreme Court on Wednesday to quash. The EPA did not conduct a cost-benefit analysis when it decided to regulate hazardous air pollutants, such as mercury, from power plants. When the agency did consider costs, the balance ended up looking good only because the rule would coincidentally reduce another type of pollution.
But this minor regulatory sleight-of-hand doesn’t mean the rule is misguided. It will save lives at an acceptable cost. Certainly there is no basis for Supreme Court intervention.
The EPA’s opponents, including the state of Michigan, have offered the court a seemingly unassailable argument. The Clean Air Act obligates the EPA to determine if regulating power plant emissions of “hazardous air pollutants,” a specific class of dangerous compounds, is “appropriate and necessary.” But the agency didn’t consider costs when it decided whether to submit power plants to hazardous air pollution regulation; it got around to conducting a cost-benefit analysis only after it decided to regulate, while it figured out how strong regulations should be. How could the agency have reasonably determined that regulation is “appropriate” without considering costs? Wouldn’t Congress have wanted the EPA to exercise a little common sense?
The government argues that it did. First, the EPA determined whether hazardous air pollutants emitted from power plants posed a public health threat. Because mercury spewed from coal-fired power plants lands on surrounding terrain, from there entering the food chain, the agency determined there was grounds for concern. Then it tailored regulations to address the issue, including cost estimates as a major consideration.
It turns out that requiring power plants to reduce hazardous air pollutants also cuts emissions of harmful particulate matter, which causes respiratory, heart and other health problems. All told, the EPA figured the regulations would cost about $9.6 billion a year but produce $37 billion to $90 billion in public health benefits annually. In other terms, the rule would prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths per year.
It’s true that these are only estimates. But the balance looks lopsided in the government’s favor. It’s also true that a separate EPA rule would reduce particulate emissions to a degree. But that doesn’t mean the mercury rule is useless; the agency tried to avoid double-counting when calculating the benefits each rule would have.
To prevail, those challenging the EPA must convince the court that the agency was wholly unreasonable in the way it interpreted the Clean Air Act’s command to regulate hazardous air pollution when “appropriate.” That’s a high legal hurdle, and the challengers aren’t anywhere close to clearing it.
-
GOP Amendment Would Let the States Opt Out of EPA Climate Rule
Mar 24, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Senate Republicans are proposing a budget amendment that would let states opt out of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) controversial climate rule for power plants.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) proposed the amendment Tuesday on behalf of Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), who is up for reelection in 2016.
Under the amendment, a state’s governor or legislature would be able to opt out of the rule’s requirements for a variety of reasons.
In order to be exempt from the rule, a governor or legislature would have to cite one of the following reasons: the rule would hurt low-income or fixed-income households, risk electric reliability, impair investments in power plants, impair manufacturing or other sectors important to the state’s economy, decrease employment or reduce state or local government revenue.
The emissions regulation, which the EPA plans to make final this fall, is a key piece of the Obama administration’s environmental agenda. The rule aims to cut power plants’ greenhouse gases 30 percent by 2030, but Republicans and businesses argue it will dramatically increase energy costs.
States would be required under the EPA’s rule to submit detailed plans to meet the greenhouse gas reduction targets the EPA set for them.
"This commonsense amendment returns power to the states by ensuring they can make their own decisions when determining if a federal regulation will negatively impact their electricity prices and economy," Portman said in a statement.
Portman hopes to attach the amendment to the Senate’s budget legislation, which it plans to vote on this week.
Sens. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) are co-sponsoring Portman’s proposal.
House Republicans unveiled draft legislation Monday that would provide another kind of opt-out for states. It would let governors veto any compliance plan for the rule, but would not completely shield states from complying like Portman’s amendment.
-
Whitfield Floats Bill To Delay EPA's Climate ESPS, Grant States 'Safe Harbor'
Mar 24, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Lee Logan
Implementation of EPA's greenhouse gas (GHG) rule for existing power plants would be delayed until court challenges to the rule are completed, and states could also avoid compliance entirely if they can certify that the rule would adversely impact electricity rates or reliability under new draft legislation offered by a top House Republican.
Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY), chairman of the House Energy & Commerce Committee's energy and power subcommittee, March 23 unveiled a discussion draft as part of a broader GOP response to EPA's existing source performance standards (ESPS), with the legislation designed to increase public scrutiny of the rule while also offering targeted changes.
“We want the American people to be aware of just how far reaching this regulation is,” Whitfield said during a briefing with reporters.
Whitfield, who has previously acknowledged he lacks the votes to block the rule entirely, added that various hearings and markups on his bill would let people know about the “effort made by EPA to control the electric generating system in each state. If we can't pass it, then at least the American people were aware, and their elected representatives were aware, and made a conscious decision to keep it as it is.”
A Whitfield aide says the Senate likely would move forward in the coming weeks on a “parallel track,” and that its legislation would look slightly different but share a similar tone.
Whitfield pledged to consider his legislation under “regular order,” starting with an April 14 hearing. He said he would consider amendments to craft a bill that could gain enough Democratic support to clear the Senate, though like the bill approving the Keystone XL pipeline, Republicans have struggled to cobble together enough support to overcome presidential vetoes.
“The Democrats will be coming forth with amendments, and if we find an amendment that we think is able to obtain some of our goals and would help pass the bill and provide some relief to the states and give them additional flexibility, that's really what the legislation is about,” he said.
The bill has two chief provisions. First, it would extend the deadline for states to submit ESPS compliance plans until the lawsuits over the rule are “no longer subject to further appeal or review.”
As proposed, initial state plans would be due roughly a year after the rule is finalized this summer, though states could request a one-year extension if they need to pass legislation to comply, and states would receive an additional two years if they are working on a multi-state compliance plan.
EPA has said it sees no need for such a stay of implementation, with EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and the agency's top air official recently saying EPA will “move forward” with the rule and there is no need to delay finalizing or implementing it.
The bill also would give states a “safe harbor” from ESPS compliance if a state's governor certifies that compliance with a state or federal plan would have a “significant adverse effect” on either electric ratepayers or grid reliability.
In making such a determination, the governor must consult with state utility commissioners, state environmental and economic development agencies, and any regional entity with jurisdiction over the state's power system. “EPA is always talking about maximum flexibility under this rule,” Whitfield said. “We simply are trying to provide some additional flexibility.”
Under his bill, a state with “unique circumstances” could take a “different path. . . . They would not have to meet any additional requirements other what is already being met” under other EPA power sector rules, he said.
CCS Funding
Whitfield said he has not specifically discussed the bill with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), with whom he has previously crafted measures addressing EPA rules and who has previously voiced opposition to the proposed ESPS. But Whitfield said the West Virginia attorney general -- who initiated early litigation over the ESPS -- “and many other state officeholders in West Virginia are supportive of this bill.”
Whitfield added that he and Manchin have “worked closely” in the past on the issue of GHG regulation. He said he also plans to re-introduce legislation that would weaken the GHG limits in EPA's companion rule for new power plants, but that the two bills would remain separate.
Whitfield also downplayed efforts to boost research and other incentives for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology, noting that the Department of Energy has “given away billions of dollars on it” in recent years.
“We don't think there's a need for any additional research on carbon capture and sequestration,” he said. “I'm not going to support any additional funding. Some people in the coal industry probably want it, but I think we spend enough right now, particularly when we have a debt approaching $20 trillion. I'm just talking about me personally, I'm just not a big fan of that right now.”
Further, the Bluegrass State Republican also said he believes that humans have some impact on climate change. “I've said repeatedly that everyone recognizes we've had climate change. . . . Our disagreement with the president is on the priority of the issue. He thinks it is the No. 1 issue.” He added: “No one has ever denied that, sure, human activity contributes to climate change. As I said, the president, that's his No. 1 issue. America, why should we be taking these extreme positions when we're doing better than any other country in the world” in CO2 reductions over the last 20 years.
-
Why the Supreme Court Mercury Case Matters
Mar 24, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Graham McCahan
The stakes are high when the Supreme Court hears arguments this week on new standards that – for the first time – establish nationwide limits on mercury and other toxic emissions from power plants.
The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards are in place to protect lives and prevent billions of dollars in health impacts. Unfortunately, some opponents have spent years litigating over these clean air safeguards.
But we have science and a broad coalition of medical professionals, public health organizations, civil rights groups, environmental allies and several large power companies on our side.
We already defended the standards against an array of claims in the U.S. Court of Appeals, and prevailed. Now it's up to the high Court. Why are the new standards important?
The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards would each year prevent an estimated 11,000 American premature deaths and 540,000 missed workdays that occur due to asthma and other health problems for which power plants emissions are responsible.
There is also medical evidence showing that elevated blood levels of mercury can damage developing brains and are associated with heart attacks.
Scientists estimate that hundreds of thousands of children are born each year with mercury levels that can impair brain development.
The Environmental Protection Agency determined that the new emission standards will mean fewer trips to emergency rooms and prevent up to $90 billion a year in public health impacts.
By affirming these vital emission standards, the Supreme Court would also help level the playing field for the two-thirds of coal-fired plants that have already upgraded their plants in time for the 2015 compliance deadline.
The Clean Air Act Amendments have been in place for 25 years, but it took more than two decades for the EPA to adopt national limits on mercury, arsenic, chromium and other toxic metals discharged from around 600 coal and oil-fired power plant, our nation's single largest source of such contaminants.
Today, these plants emit about 50 percent of all mercury, more than 75 percent of acid gases and up to 60 percent of toxic metals in the United States.
In 2012, the EPA finalized new standards requiring such plants to cut emissions using already-available technology. In fact, nearly two-thirds of plants already have scrubbers and other pollution controls in place to comply.
The question the Supreme Court will decide is whether the EPA “unreasonably refused to consider costs” when it made the threshold decision whether to regulate toxic emissions from power plants. EPA considered costs in the second phase of its decision making focused on how stringently to regulate these toxics. Who are the key players in this battle?
The U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the new standards in 2014. However, the State of Michigan, representing 20 states; the National Mining Association; and the Utility Air Regulatory Group, a utility lobbying group petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case.
The EPA, meanwhile, will be joined by a long list of supporters at the March 25 oral argument.
In addition to Environmental Defense Fund, the coalition mentioned above includes 16 states and a number of cities, four large power companies, Native American tribes, the NAACP, Moms Clean Air Force, pollution control technology companies and leading scientists and doctors.
-
No Endorsement From Stanislaus on Bill To Give States More Coal Ash Authority
Mar 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
An Environmental Protection Agency official stopped well short of endorsing a House bill March 24 that essentially would substitute state-driven permitting and enforcement requirements for the agency's attempt to impose federal requirements on coal ash storage facilities.
Mathy Stanislaus, EPA assistant administrator for solid waste and emergency response, said “we appreciate provisions” the bill supporters essentially pulled from the agency's final rule and folded into a draft bill, the Improving Coal Combustion Residuals Regulation Act. But the legislation still lacks “additional essential elements of transparency, prevention and response” that are key components of the EPA rule, which he said are critical to the safe management of coal ash disposal and storage.
Also lacking in the bill, the EPA official said, is a requirement that facility compliance data and other information be posted on the Internet for public viewing, as well as specific criteria for storage operators to use to determine when a storage site should be closed.
Stanislaus testified before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy on the bill, a discussions draft authored by Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.). The bill has not been formally introduced. The subcommittee began debating the measure late March 24 and is expected to debate amendments and conclude its markup March 25.
The agency's final requirements, released in December 2014, would be the first to set federal minimum criteria for disposing coal combustion residuals, produced from power plants and stored in landfills and surface impoundments, Stanislaus said (245 DEN A-1, 12/22/14).
Barring Future Reclassification?
The EPA rule is designed to prevent groundwater contamination from coal ash containment areas and the collapse of such storage facilities, such as the December 2008 spill of more than 5 million cubic yards of the material in Kingston, Tenn.
One provision in the bill but missing from EPA's final rule: language permanently barring the EPA from regulating the material as hazardous waste, language supported by coal ash recyclers.
The EPA's final rule would in fact classify the material as nonhazardous waste under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. But utilities and coal ash recyclers say a legislative prohibition is necessary because there is nothing in the agency rule to prevent the EPA from regulating the material as hazardous waste in the future.
Stanislaus said the bill also lacks provisions the EPA includes in its December rule to provide “comprehensive structural integrity requirements” for storage facilities as well as language explicitly requiring that any spills or leaks of the material “be cleaned up” by the operator.
While EPA finalized its coal ash standards in December (RIN 2050-AE81), they have not been formally published in the Federal Register. Republicans on the subcommittee repeatedly pressed Stanislaus on the delay and whether the agency is attempting to use the delay to make significant changes from the final rule it unveiled three months ago.
Stanislaus said the final rule will be published “very shortly” and stressed that only “technical corrections” are being made before the rule appears in the Federal Register.
-
Northeastern States Urge EPA To Grant Request For nPB Air Toxics Listing
Mar 24, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
Northeastern states are urging EPA to grant petitions requesting that the agency add the replacement dry cleaning chemical n-propyl bromide (nPB) to its list of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) subject to Clean Air Act limits, with Rhode Island noting it has regulated nPB since 2008 due to concerns about its harm to human health.
EPA is considering two petitions to add nPB to the HAP list, one filed by New York and the other by the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance (HSIA). HSIA filed the first of the two petitions against a rival chemical, increasingly marketed and used as a drop-in replacement for perchloroethylene (perc) in drycleaning systems after local and federal efforts to phase out perc. Perc, which is produced by HSIA members, is also a neurotoxicant, according to EPA, which also labels the chemical a likely carcinogen.
But HSIA and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC) in separate 2010 and 2011 petitions argue that the replacement chemical, nPB, causes neurological effects in workers and is a reproductive toxicant and carcinogen, which make the chemical eligible to be included on the HAP list.
EPA did not appear to act upon the petition until HSIA wrote the agency a notice of intent to sue last December. EPA in a Feb. 6 Federal Register notice did not mention HSIA's deadline lawsuit threat, but said that it now considers both petitions complete, and is starting a formal review process of the requests.
EPA recently announced that it was extending by 60 days the public comment period for the petitions, explaining in a March 11 Federal Register notice that it was extending the comment deadline until May 7 in response to a request.
The request appears to have come from Albemarle Corporation, a producer of nPB, according to a Feb. 19 letter from the company to EPA recently obtained by Inside EPA. The letter had not been posted to the public docket as of press time.
"Albemarle believes an extension is necessary because the supporting documents were not available when notice of the comment period was provided, and most of the relevant information supporting the petition is still not available on the public docket which makes comment on the existing technical information impossible," writes Karen Narwold, Albemarle's vice president and general counsel.
Listing Petition
The company requested 150 additional days to comment, arguing that was necessary to provide the public a fair opportunity to comment. EPA noticed the public of more than a score of documents regarding the petition in early February, but many are not available through the electronic docketing system for copyright protection or other reasons.
"The nPB petition is among the first of petitions filed under Section 112 (b)(1) of the Clean Air Act to add a pollutant to the list of Hazardous Air Pollutants," Narwold writes. "Evaluating the technical and legal bases for nPB is a daunting task and EPA has already granted the petitioner over five years to gather additional information to support its petition."
NYDEC's and HSIA's petitions are supported in comments from the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, consisting of the state air pollution control agencies of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont, with a couple of the New England states submitting their own comments as well.
For example, Rhode Island, which has regulated nPB since 2008, indicated in March 5 comments that it first became aware of the chemical when dry cleaners began substituting it for other chlorinated solvents.
"The main impetus for that substitution was that, since n-PB is not a listed HAP, cleaning operations that use that solvent are not subject to the emissions control measures specified in the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) for that source category (40 CFR 63, Subpart T)," writes Douglas McVay, chief of Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management's (RI DEM) Office of Air Resources. "While RI DEM supports substitutions that reduce use and emissions of toxics, the toxicity and physical properties of n-PB raised concerns that switching to that substance could increase, rather than reduce, the risks associated with air emissions from cleaning operations."
McVay adds that the Ocean State's 2008 regulations did not ban the use of nPB, but rather "removed the impetus for facilities to switch to this substance to avoid emissions limitations applicable to other air toxics," and he argued that adding nPB to the federal HAP list would have similar implications nationally, as well as allowing "EPA to gather national emissions data for n-PB."
Ali Mirzakhalili, director of the air quality division within Delaware's Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, sent March 9 comments reminding EPA that if it were to add nPB to the HAPs list, sources emitting nPB could be controlled with Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards.
"Delaware recommends that the EPA not wait until the next review for source category standards under Section I 12(d)(6) of the Act, but instead proceed in a timely manner to incorporate nPB requirements into those existing Part 63 source categories where nPB is also emitted," Mirzakhalili writes. "Two such source categories are dry cleaning facilities under 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart M and halogenated solvent cleaning operations under 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart T."
'Serious' Hazards
Meanwhile, NYDEC's Assistant Commissioner Jared Snyder provides in March 9 comments additional information about nPB's "serious occupational hazards" that he indicates has become available since the NYDEC submitted its original petition.
Snyder points to American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienist's decision last year to tighten their eight-hour time weighted average exposure level from 10 parts per million (ppm) to 0.1 ppm, as well as the National Toxicology Program's decision to list nPB for the first time last year in its latest Report on Carcinogens, declaring it reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.
"These serious occupational hazards have resulted in recommendations for increased worker safety measures to reduce inhalation and dermal occupational exposure to n-PB by [the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)]. These actions will require the increased ventilation of the workplace air and will result in increased emissions into communities from point sources that are using n-PB," Snyder writes. "In some cases these emissions will be largely uncontrolled since emissions of n-PB may not be regulated in many states that are only implementing the federal air toxics program. For many states, n-PB will only be controlled as a volatile organic compound and controlled after the emissions exceed 50 or 100 tons per year." Further, NYDEC provides EPA with the toxicity assessment of nPB that it requested New York's Department of Health to conduct, to "derive specific air concentrations for consideration in establishing an annual guidelines concentration for the Department to use when permitting emission sources of n-PB." New York listed this new value of 0.43 micrograms per cubic meter of air, based on a one in one million excess cases of cancer risk, on its annual guidelines concentration table last year.
-
Benzene Exposure Returned to State Court; Clean Air Act Doesn't Preempt State Claims
Mar 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
The Clean Air Act doesn't completely preempt state law claims, necessitating remand of a benzene exposure lawsuit to state court, a federal court in Alabama ruled March 23 (Morrison v. Drummond Co. Inc., 2015 BL 78709, N.D. Ala., No. 14-cv-0406, 3/23/15).
Complete preemption of state law claims is appropriate only in “extraordinary” circumstances not evident in this case, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, said.
Here, the Clean Air Act includes a savings clause preserving certain state law causes of action, the court said.
Joel Morrison filed a negligence action in Alabama state court alleging that he developed acute myelogenous leukemia as a result of his occupational exposure to benzene and other harmful chemicals emitted from a coke oven operated by Drummond Co.
Drummond removed the case to federal court, arguing that the Clean Air Act completely preempted Morrison's state action because his claims hinged on the determination of whether the coke plant's emissions were unreasonable under the federal law.
The court disagreed and remanded the case for lack of jurisdiction.
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized complete preemption of state law claims in three circumstances—none of which include the anti-pollution laws at issue here—and the Clean Air Act expressly includes savings clauses preserving state control over air pollution at its source, citizen suits, and states' rights, the court said.
Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn wrote the opinion.
The law offices of the Environmental Litigation Group represented Joel Thomas Morrison.
Starnes Davis Florie represented Drummond Co. Inc., successor-in-interest to Alabama By-Products Corp.
-
Scientists Urge Museums to Sever Ties With Board Members Denying Climate Change
Mar 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ben Brody
Dozens of scientists have signed an open letter to museums urging them to cut ties with donors and board members who deny climate change, singling out billionaire political donor David Koch, who sits on the boards of the two of the nation's largest natural history museums.
“We are deeply concerned by the links between museums of science and natural history with those who profit from fossil fuels or fund lobby groups that misrepresent climate science,” says the letter, published March 24 at thenaturalhistorymuseum.org.
“David Koch's oil and manufacturing conglomerate Koch Industries is one of the greatest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.”
Koch, who sits on the boards of the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History in D.C. and the American Museum of Natural History in New York, has also helped finance efforts to deny the scientific consensus that human actions cause climate change, according to a 2013 study from Drexel University.
Along with his brother, Charles, Koch is a major political donor. They send millions to conservative and libertarian candidates and causes each cycle, usually through a network of non-profits for which they also act as bundlers, and their political network plans to pump nearly $1 billion into the coming presidential election.
“We are concerned that the integrity of these institutions is compromised by association with special interests who obfuscate climate science, fight environmental regulation, oppose clean energy legislation, and seek to ease limits on industrial pollution,” the letter reads.
37 Signers
It urges museums “to cut all ties with the fossil fuel industry and funders of climate science obfuscation.”
The letter's signers include James Hansen, the former head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and three authors of the Nobel Prize-winning 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The Natural History Museum that published the letter touts itself as a “mobile museum” that “makes a point to include and highlight the socio-political forces that shape nature” in a way traditional museum don't.
The letter so far has 37 signatures, but has been accompanied by petitions from environmental groups including Greenpeace and the Sierra Club to oust Koch.
Museum spokesmen told the New York Times that Koch's position as a board member and donor does not give him influence over museum content, although the article also linked to a 2010 New Yorker profile of Koch that suggested the Smithsonian's David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins downplayed rising global temperatures and carbon dioxide levels. Requests for comment from Koch Industries and Freedom Partners, the main headquarters for the brothers' political network, were not immediately returned.
-
Air Pollution Raises Stroke Risk
Mar 24, 2015 | The New York Times
By Nicholas Bakalar
Air pollution — even for just one day — significantly increases the risk of stroke, a large review of studies has found.
Researchers pooled data from 103 studies involving 6.2 million stroke hospitalizations and deaths in 28 countries.
The analysis, published online in BMJ, found that all types of pollution except ozone were associated with increased risk for stroke, and the higher the level of pollution, the more strokes there were.
Daily increases in pollution from nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide and particulate matter were associated with corresponding increases in strokes and hospital admissions. The strongest associations were apparent on the day of exposure, but increases in particulate matter had longer-lasting effects.
The exact reason for the effect is unclear, but studies have shown that air pollution can constrict blood vessels, increase blood pressure and increase the risk for blood clots. Other research has tied air pollution to a higher risk of heart attacks, stroke and other ills.
The lead author, Dr. Anoop Shah, a lecturer in cardiology at the University of Edinburgh, said that there was little an individual can do when air pollution spikes. “If you’re elderly, or have co-morbid conditions, you should stay inside,” he said. But policies leading to cleaner air would have the greatest impact, he said. “It’s a question of getting cities and countries to change.”
-
Performance-Based Rules May Have Future in Crude-by-Rail Efforts: DOT
Mar 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The Transportation Department is cautious about utilizing federal performance-based rules as a replacement for prescriptive-based ones, especially when low-frequency, high-consequence accidents are possible, a department official said.
Worker and passenger safety needs to be considered and accidents such as crude oil train derailments that could cause major damage, but happen less frequently, must be guarded against, Peter Rogoff, the undersecretary for policy at the Transportation Department, said March 24 at a subcommittee hearing. Lack of commitment to transparency by some transportation industry members is also a major road block for these types of rules, he told the Senate Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety and Security.
Despite these concerns, there have been instances where certain offices within the department have incorporated a performance-based approach into rules, Rogoff said. There are also possibilities of utilizing these approaches in the administration's multi-agency, multi-faceted efforts to improve the safety of crude oil by rail, he told reporters after the hearing.
“We're considering that and many other measures,” Rogoff said of the administration's crude-by-rail actions. “We've already done a lot with industry on voluntary compliance, but we also have emergency orders in place and more [actions] being considered in combination with our pending rulemaking.”
Performance-based standards require a certain type or level of accomplishment, whereas prescriptive-based rules require use of certain technologies, processes or practices, said John Graham, former administrator for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Performance-based rules can be less costly for the regulated entity as they are allowed to choose the most appropriate compliance method for them and allow for more “industrial innovation,” he said.
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP 21) (Pub. L. No. 112-141) required certain surface transportation programs to begin incorporating a performance-based approach.
Data, Analysis, Commitment
Performance-based rules pursued with great care and the performance data must indicate safety of workers and passengers would be the same or improved under these rules, Rogoff said. These rules must also guard the public against rare, but significant accidents, such as crude oil train derailments, he said.
“I earlier observed that this year was the safest year in railroad history, but as this committee knows well, we saw derailments in 2014 and 2015 involving crude rail unit trains that must be addressed because of the threat that even one catastrophic accident can [harm] a community,” Rogoff said.
To use effective performance-based rules, there needs to be performance data, analysis of the data and a commitment by regulated entities to be transparent in their performance data, However, there is a lack of respect or recognition by some members of the sector that this performance data need to be public, he said.
“Absent the commitment to such transparency, performance-based regulations cannot work and cannot be pursued,” Rogoff said.
Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) noted the “need to encourage people to be willing partners” in these efforts.
Regardless of other barriers, switching from prescriptive-based rules on the whole would take time, Graham said. One way this could be remedied is by allowing for industries to meet rules with prescriptive standards if they can prove through performance information that their alternative compliance method would bring about the same level of compliance, he said.
Some departments have already incorporated performance-based approaches into their rulemakings, in areas where Congress wouldn't have to legislatively alter their authority to do so. Rogoff cited the Federal Railroad Administration's proposed rule on risk management for certain railroads as one example (39 DEN A-3, 2/27/15).
Performance in Crude Efforts
Looking forward, the Transportation Department could use a combination of performance-based and prescription-based requirements to address the safe transport of crude oil by rail, Rogoff said.
For example, the department could implement performance-based tank car puncture standards, Rogoff said. Those requirements could be alongside prescription-based rules for operational controls and the “outfitting” of the tank cars, he said.
“We're considering that and many other measures,” Rogoff said, highlighting the agency's “multi-agency, multi-faceted” approach to crude-by-rail safety.
Rogoff didn't say whether these types of rule combinations were included in an upcoming final rule that would govern certain aspects of crude-by-rail transport, including tank car standards. That final rule is under review at the White House and is expected to be released in May.
-
Link Between Crude Oil, Flammability In Rail Accidents Not Established, DOE Says
Mar 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The relationships between properties of crude oil and the likelihood and severity of combustion during rail car accidents “have not been established,” the Energy Department said in a March 24 report on the safety of shipping Bakken and other forms of crude oil by rail.
The report, an analysis of existing data and literature on chemical and physical properties of crude oil, was conducted to “provide context for ongoing efforts to ensure the safety of crude oil transport.” The report comes as the Transportation Department works to finalize safety regulations for the shipment of crude oil and other hazardous materials by rail, a move prompted by a series of fiery derailments involving oil trains.
“There is some statistical evidence to suggest that Bakken crude has a higher true vapor pressure than other crude oils, however, the report identified a wide range of ways in which Bakken crude oil samples have been measured,” a summary of the report said. “Available analysis of tight crude oil does not provide the necessary data or conclusion to enable meaningful comparison with other crude oil.”
More Research Needed
The report, which the Energy Department said was the “most comprehensive survey” of existing information to date, said additional information was needed, including more research on how to collect and compare oil samples.
The survey follows a report released in July by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, which found crude oil from North Dakota's Bakken shale region is more volatile and flammable than other lighter crude oils because it has a higher gas content, high vapor pressure, and lower flash point and boiling point than other domestic crude oils.
The Energy Department's report “shows the need to focus more on preventing train derailments as part of a holistic approach to safety improvements of shipping oil by rail,” Robin Rorick, the American Petroleum Institute's director of midstream operations, said in a statement.
Lawmakers, such as Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), have called for the Transportation Department to include stabilization requirements to make the oil less volatile. Regulations that are expected to be finalized in May did not include such requirements when they were released in their proposed form.
-
Multi-Modal Safe Energy Transport Efforts Should Be Funded in FY 2016: Democrats
Mar 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Democrats are urging congressional appropriations committees to fund federal efforts for safe energy transportation, including crude oil, in fiscal year 2016.
Nearly 60 Democratic representatives and senators called on the leadership of their respective Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations subcommittees to build on existing prevention, response or other energy transport safety efforts. This includes allocating $5 million for a Safe Transportation of Energy Products Program that President Barack Obama proposed in his FY 2016 budget request.
“Despite pending administrative rulemaking to improve rail safety, Congress must provide adequate resources to keep our energy transport systems safe and secure,” the letter released March 24 by Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) and 36 other representatives said. “Americans living near oil train routes and terminals need to have confidence that we are making these investments to mitigate safety risks.”
The letters come weeks after the latest derailment of a train carrying crude oil occurred in Galena, Ill., and as the White House reviews a final rule that would govern parts of crude-by-rail safely (see related story).
Crude-by-rail derailments that have become more frequent with increased domestic oil production have caused environmental and property damage, as well as public health threats (45 DEN A-15, 3/9/15).
Funding Request
The Tonko letter specifically requested $204 million for the Federal Railroad Administration's safety and operations account, $92 million for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration hazmat program and emergency preparedness grant funding, $2 million for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's energy transport actions and $5 million for the safe energy program (22 DEN B-8, 2/3/15).
“We strongly support cross-modal coordinating dollars as well as individual account increases within the related agencies to address this critical safety issue,” the letter signed by 21 Senate Democrats, including Sens. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), said.
The Senate letter, released March 23, noted specific support for a Local Rail Facilities and Safety Program, which would “provide critical infrastructure improvements to facilities handling tank cars, particularly to small stations.”
The House letter was addressed to Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) and David Price (D-N.C.), chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the House appropriations subcommittee.
The Senate letter was addressed to Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.), chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Senate appropriations subcommittee.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested