Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) House TSCA Draft Gets Cautious Welcome
Apr 8, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darren Goode
Both public health and chemical industry advocates welcomed a draft plan in the House as a good starting point for talks to update the Toxic Substances Control Act, a contrast to the fight triggered in the Senate by a bill from Sens. Tom Udall and David Vitter. -
(ACC Mentioned) Shimkus Rolls Out Narrower TSCA Proposal in Bid for Consensus
Apr 8, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
A House lawmaker released a discussion draft of a plan to update the nation's 39-year-old chemicals law and will hold a hearing on the proposal next week, in what some advocates say could be a key opening on what's been a difficult effort to reach consensus. -
Shimkus to Hold Hearing on His Draft TSCA Plan
Apr 8, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darren Goode
House Environment and the Economy Subcommittee Chairman John Shimkus is planning a hearing next week on a draft plan he outlined yesterday to update the Toxic Substances Control Act. -
Opposition To Industry Chemical Bill Continues To Build
Apr 8, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Mary Ellen Kusti
Medical professionals, scientists, states attorneys general, legal scholars and public interest organizations are all speaking up against the Udall-Vitter Toxic Substances Control Act reform bill (S. 697) backed by chemical companies. -
New Regs for Thursday: Toxic Chemicals, Food Facilities and Deepwater Ports
Apr 8, 2015 | The Hill - Reg Watch
By Lydia Wheeler
Thursday’s edition of the Federal Register contains new rules from the Environmental Protection Agency for toxic chemicals, a rule from the Food and Drug Administration for food facilities and revisions to the Department of Homeland Security’s rules for deepwater ports. -
New Chemical Standards Could be Coming in Texas, 2 Years After Deadly Explosion
Apr 8, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Mike Lee
Texas legislators appear to be headed toward a compromise that would improve safety standards at businesses that handle ammonium nitrate, as they approach the second anniversary of a fertilizer plant explosion that killed 15 people in the small town of West. -
(ACC Mentioned) States, Advocates Attack 'Far-Reaching' EPA Plan For Risk-Based Air Rule
Apr 8, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
States and environmentalists are fighting what they see as EPA's unlawful and “far-reaching” plan to use a brick sector air toxics rule as a vehicle to expand the use of risk-based Clean Air Act air toxics rules that critics say lead to weaker regulations than technology-based maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards. -
Utilities Offer FERC Advice on Reliability Mechanism in EPA Climate Plan
Apr 8, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
The nation's investor-owned utilities want federal regulators to develop two separate processes to ensure that electric reliability will not be compromised as states move to comply with U.S. EPA's carbon-cutting targets through 2030, also known as the Clean Power Plan. -
Michael Bloomberg, Other Donors Add $60M to Sierra Club’s Coal Fight
Apr 8, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia
The Sierra Club’s anti-coal campaign is getting up to a $60 million boost from donors including Michael Bloomberg, who pledged $30 million personally Wednesday to further the group’s new goal of shuttering half the nation’s coal-fired power plants by 2017. -
Sierra Club Targets Half of US Coal-Fired Plants
Apr 8, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Sierra Club set a new, ambitious goal Wednesday to close half of the country’s coal-fired power plants by 2017. -
NRDC Ad Hits Portman on Anti-Clean Power Plan Amendment
Apr 8, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
Ohio Sen. Rob Portman (R) was the subject of a new advertisement from an environmental group assailing his position on U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. -
States Aren't Buying What the EPA is Selling
Apr 8, 2015 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Harry C. Alford
The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants have been hotly contested since proposed last June. -
Fracking Activities Pollute Nearby Air With Carcinogenic Hydrocarbons
Apr 8, 2015 | Chemical and Engineering News
By Deirdre Lockwood
Hydraulic fracturing activities to extract natural gas can release carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) into the air, a new study shows (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, DOI: 10.1021/es506095e). -
Better Data, More Research Will Sharpen Focus on Mitigating Methane
Apr 8, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Dennis Arriola
Even in Washington D.C., one thing everyone can agree on is: The more we mitigate methane emissions, the better. -
BNSF Goes Its Own Way on Crude-by-Rail Safety
Apr 8, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
BNSF Railway Co. isn't shy with its influence. -
Market, Safety Issues Dog Oil by Rail's Growth
Apr 8, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
Safety problems and low crude oil prices have stalled growth in oil-train shipments in the United States. The number of trains hauling crude oil and other petroleum products peaked last fall, according to data from the Association of American Railroads.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
-
(ACC Mentioned) House TSCA Draft Gets Cautious Welcome
Apr 8, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darren Goode
Both public health and chemical industry advocates welcomed a draft plan in the House as a good starting point for talks to update the Toxic Substances Control Act, a contrast to the fight triggered in the Senate by a bill from Sens. Tom Udall and David Vitter.
This targeted approach was an “effective way to begin discussions” on how to complement the Vitter-Udall proposal, the American Chemistry Council said in a statement.
“Their strategy to put out a discussion draft rather than a bill was clearly a good one because there’s a lot of discussion that needs to continue to make both sides more comfortable with what the House would proceed with,” one industry source said. “We very much look at this as a starting point and not necessarily indicative of where we end up with the House.”
A key issue is how the House bill treats the preemption of state toxics laws. Unlike the Senate bill, it would only preempt state actions after an EPA rule becomes final. But it also doesn’t have the Senate language grandfathering in existing state controls.
A sharp critic of the Senate proposal gave a more optimistic response to the draft issued Tuesday by House Environment and the Economy Subcommittee John Shimkus.
“The stripped-down framework of the House approach has some promise, said Andy Igrejas, director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families. “At the same time, the fundamentals of reform, like the standard for EPA to act, have to be there and it’s not clear if they are. We're looking at it closely.” -
(ACC Mentioned) Shimkus Rolls Out Narrower TSCA Proposal in Bid for Consensus
Apr 8, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
A House lawmaker released a discussion draft of a plan to update the nation's 39-year-old chemicals law and will hold a hearing on the proposal next week, in what some advocates say could be a key opening on what's been a difficult effort to reach consensus.
The discussion draft from Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy, takes the kind of narrower approach to updating the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 that House lawmakers have said for months they prefer -- including a significant change to how state laws would be affected that could sway chemical safety advocates.
Shimkus said in a statement that the draft bill "is an effort that everyone should be able to get behind as reforming the law is a win-win for safety and our economy."
The draft bill at 30 pages is less than one-quarter the size of S. 697, the proposal from Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.). It would make some of the most popular changes to TSCA and eliminate some of the provisions considered the most troublesome. Among language excised is the requirement that U.S. EPA select the "least burdensome" regulation of a chemical found to be harmful.
Last year, Shimkus put forward a broader draft bill, called the "Chemicals in Commerce Act," but negotiations with Democrats on the committee broke down. Former Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and others had called for restarting the talks with the aim of producing a less ambitious proposal that could find common ground among lawmakers (E&E Daily, April 30, 2014).
Shimkus said his subcommittee will examine the plan at a hearing next week. The hearing, scheduled for Tuesday, will feature testimony from Jim Jones, U.S. EPA's assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention, and other panelists who have not been announced.
The draft language appears to skirt some of the details that have made it difficult for some Senate Democrats to support the proposal under consideration there. For example, the bill appears to make narrower changes to the safety standard in TSCA by instead requiring EPA to determine whether to regulate a chemical by deciding if there is "a reasonable basis for concluding that the combination of hazard from and exposure to the chemical substance under the intended conditions of use has the potential to be high enough to present an unreasonable risk to health or the environment."
By comparison, the Udall-Vitter bill designates EPA's threshold for determining whether a chemical is safe as "a standard that ensures, without taking into consideration cost or other nonrisk factors, that no unreasonable risk of harm to health or the environment will result from exposure to a chemical substance under the conditions of use," including to the general public or "any potentially exposed or susceptible population" that the agency has deemed relevant.
In addition, Shimkus' draft would require that EPA complete risk evaluations on chemicals it selects for scrutiny within three years and within 180 days if a manufacturer requests that it complete a chemical evaluation. The bill does not mandate, however, a minimum number of chemicals that EPA must assess, as proposals in the Senate version do, which could be a point of contention among health advocates, nor does it include a maximum number of chemicals for which companies may fund EPA assessments.
The draft bill also tries to avoid the controversy over how state laws would be affected. While the proposal would still override state laws, unlike the Udall-Vitter Senate plan, it would not do so until EPA has reached a final decision on whether the chemical poses an unreasonable risk -- not when it begins evaluating a chemical. For safety advocates, that's a crucial change.
"I think it's a serious overture on their part toward a compromise solution, and we're taking it very seriously," said Andy Igrejas, the director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families.
Though the modification may quell some worries that the changes would create a dangerous regulatory gap that could prematurely tie the hands of states, Shimkus' plan also does not appear to contain an exemption for California's Proposition 65 program, as Udall and Vitter included. In addition, the bill appears to pre-empt new and existing state restrictions, not just new ones.
The Shimkus proposal also allows EPA to share companies' confidential business information with state and local officials, which is a change from current law and is also included in the Senate proposal.
The discussion draft did not immediately attract the kind of criticism from some Democrats and environmental groups as the Senate bill did. Energy and Commerce Committee ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) also did not indicate he opposed the proposal.
"Updating TSCA to ensure that the American people and our environment are protected from dangerous chemicals is critical," Pallone said in a statement. "I commend Chairman Shimkus for working with Committee Democrats in an open and bipartisan manner. This draft bill is a good starting point, and I look forward to hearing from and working with stakeholders as we move forward."
The American Chemistry Council said in a statement that Shimkus' draft "is an effective way to begin discussions about how to best complement the comprehensive proposal introduced by Sens. Vitter and Udall earlier this year and will allow the House to move expeditiously once the details are settled by the Committee and legislation is introduced."
-
Shimkus to Hold Hearing on His Draft TSCA Plan
Apr 8, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darren Goode
House Environment and the Economy Subcommittee Chairman John Shimkus is planning a hearing next week on a draft plan he outlined yesterday to update the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Jim Jones, EPA’s top chemical safety and pollution official, will be among those testifying at the April 14 hearing on the discussion draft. Here are copies of the draft text and a summary from the committee.
“I believe that this is the year we can finish the job,” Shimkus said in a statement, citing “countless hearings” and efforts to work with Democrats “to find common ground.”
Energy and Commerce ranking member Frank Pallone said the draft is “a good starting point.”
There is a bipartisan Senate TSCA plan from Tom Udall and David Vitter that has 20 other co-sponsors, 10 from each party, including liberals like Sherrod Brown and Gary Peters. It is named after the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg, who made TSCA a legacy issue in his later years.
But some environmental and public health groups say the Senate bill would worsen current law in part by preempting states like California from acting in the future to deal with high-priority chemicals. They prefer an alternative from Sens. Barbara Boxer and Ed Markey that has no Republican support. -
Opposition To Industry Chemical Bill Continues To Build
Apr 8, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Mary Ellen Kusti
Medical professionals, scientists, states attorneys general, legal scholars and public interest organizations are all speaking up against the Udall-Vitter Toxic Substances Control Act reform bill (S. 697) backed by chemical companies. This industry bill, which is worse than the existing law, is so broken the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency hasn’t even been able to ban asbestos under its authority.
Opposition has continued to mount in the few weeks since EWG last noted strong voices speaking out against the bill and Sen. Boxer highlighted 450 organizations that oppose the industry bill at the March 18th Senate hearing on Udall-Vitter industry bill.
Two weeks ago, more than 40 medical professionals penned their discontent with the bill in a letter to the Senate underscoring:The need for a “truly health-protective safety standard, one based on ‘reasonable certainty of no harm;’”The bill’s murky deadlines and review process would only address “a tiny fraction of the thousands of chemicals to which the public is exposed;” andThe imperative for states’ roles to be preserved to protect public health.
Additionally, nearly 60 public interest organizations joined together on a letter voicing opposition to the Udall-Vitter bill citing:Problems with its preemption of states abilities to protect people;Failure to fully address legacy chemical contaminations;Inclusion of a weak safety standard;Lack of strict deadlines and adequate resources; andThe addition of hurdles to regulating chemicals in products.
A group of scientists also sent an open letter to the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee outlining principles to which Congress must adhere in order for a true chemical safety law reform to be scientifically sound.
This outcry is coming on the heals of legal scholars and states attorneys general from Vermont, California, New York, Massachusetts, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Oregon and Washington all writing to voice their concerns about the industry’s bill inability to protect public health and safety.
-
New Regs for Thursday: Toxic Chemicals, Food Facilities and Deepwater Ports
Apr 8, 2015 | The Hill - Reg Watch
By Lydia Wheeler
Thursday’s edition of the Federal Register contains new rules from the Environmental Protection Agency for toxic chemicals, a rule from the Food and Drug Administration for food facilities and revisions to the Department of Homeland Security’s rules for deepwater ports.
Here’s a look at what's to come.
Chemicals: The Environmental Protection Agency is considering changing its rules for the significant new use of 24 new chemicals.
Under the Toxic Substances Control Act, the rule would require manufacturers to notify the EPA at least 90 days before making the chemical substance.
Significant use is determined by how much of the chemical will be manufactured, if the new use for the chemical changes how humans are going to be exposed to it and how the extent to which humans are exposed will change.
The proposed rule would apply to 24 chemicals including 1-Butanol, 3-methoxy-3-methyl and acetate, which are ingredients in paint thinners, cleaners, screen ink, airplane paint and printer ink. EPA said it has identified concerns that the products could be toxic to the liver, kidney and the nervous systems, and cause cancer.
The public has 30 days to comment.
Food: The Food and Drug Administration is considering a rule that would require domestic and foreign facilities that manufacture, process, pack or hold food for human or animal consumption in the U.S. to register with the agency.
The rule would amend the Food Safety Modernization Act and require facilities to renew their registration with the agency every two years, between Oct. 1 and Dec. 31 of each even-numbered year. FDA, which will be able to inspect the facilities at any time, said the proposed rule would help the agency respond to food safety issues.
The public has 60 days to comment.
Deepwater ports: The Department of Homeland Security is considering revising its rules for licensing, constructing, designing, equipping and operating offshore deepwater ports used for importing and exporting oil and natural gas.
The proposed revisions would provide additional information, clarify existing regulations, provide additional regulatory flexibility, and add new requirements to ensure safety. The proposed rule would not, however, affect the license to operate any existing deepwater port, nor would it result in the licensing of any new deepwater port, the rulemaking said.
The public has 90 days to comment.
-
New Chemical Standards Could be Coming in Texas, 2 Years After Deadly Explosion
Apr 8, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Mike Lee
Texas legislators appear to be headed toward a compromise that would improve safety standards at businesses that handle ammonium nitrate, as they approach the second anniversary of a fertilizer plant explosion that killed 15 people in the small town of West.
H.B. 942 would allow the state fire marshal, a local fire marshal or a local fire chief to inspect any facility that stores ammonium nitrate and to order safety improvements if a potential hazard is found. It also would allow local fire departments to hold planning inspections at the same facilities and puts state regulators at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality in charge of handling right-to-know reports, known as Tier 2 reports.
The bill codifies rules that the state chemist has written for ammonium nitrate businesses, a move meant to ensure "regulatory certainty" for the industry, state Rep. Kyle Kacal (R) said during a hearing of the House Environmental Regulation Committee. Kacal's district includes West.
"This bill writes the regulations into law instead of creating broad rulemaking authority," Kacal said, according to a webcast of the hearing.
The committee didn't vote on the bill, but none of the legislators raised objections. Two fertilizer business owners spoke in favor of the bill, as did the head of the Texas chapter of Public Citizen.
There was still some tension. Fertilizer owners have fought against more public disclosure of the chemicals they handle, while Public Citizen and other groups have pressed for more openness.
Kacal's bill is one of at least two aimed at beefing up chemical safety in Texas. The agriculture and chemical industries have opposed some of the other bills because they might require business owners to phase out wooden buildings (Greenwire, April 1).
The explosion in West happened April 17, 2013, in a warehouse that stored more than 20 tons of ammonium nitrate, a fertilizer so chemically potent that it's sometimes used as an explosive. Local volunteer firefighters were in the process of backing away from the fire when the warehouse detonated, killing 10 first responders and five others.
The deaths highlighted a string of problems in the way local communities prepare for emergencies involving chemicals. Information-sharing among local communities was sluggish, for instance, and the warehouse didn't have a sprinkler system or other precautions.
The Texas Legislature tried in 2013 and 2014 to beef up the state's chemical safety laws, but met resistance from the agriculture industry, which relies on fertilizer (Greenwire, April 14, 2014).
-
(ACC Mentioned) States, Advocates Attack 'Far-Reaching' EPA Plan For Risk-Based Air Rule
Apr 8, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
States and environmentalists are fighting what they see as EPA's unlawful and “far-reaching” plan to use a brick sector air toxics rule as a vehicle to expand the use of risk-based Clean Air Act air toxics rules that critics say lead to weaker regulations than technology-based maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards.
“We believe it is not appropriate to propose such a far-reaching and significant change in the manner in which MACT standards are established under section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act,” says the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) -- representing many state and local air agencies -- in recent comments on the agency's proposed brick MACT.
Environmental groups Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), meanwhile, say in their comments that EPA can only set risk-based standards for pollutants for which EPA has established a level of safe exposure, and that the brick sector's emissions do not qualify. They warn that as a result the proposed rule is “arbitrary and capricious,” the standard required under the air law for courts to overturn the rule if the groups sue over the final version.
Industry groups including the Brick Industry Association (BIA) and a “Residual Risk Coalition” including BIA, the American Petroleum Institute, American Chemistry Council and others, however, back the proposed brick MACT and suggest the agency should offer further flexibilities to the sector in setting risk-based rules.
The competing comments on the Dec. 18 proposed brick MACT show that the rule has broader significance beyond the sector that EPA is attempting to regulate, because it revives a long-running fight over risk-based air toxics rules -- sometimes also known as health-based standards -- that advocates say lead to weak rules.
Section 112(d) of the air law generally requires EPA to set MACTs using a “floor,” or minimum emissions standard, that is set based on the average emissions of the 12 percent least-polluting sources in a given source category. But section 112(d)(4) allows the less-stringent risk-based approach in some circumstances for a pollutant where a safe threshold for the substance has been established, and where the pollutant presents no risk of cancer.
EPA in its proposed brick MACT avoids strict standards for several of the industry's acid gas emissions and instead uses the risk-based method. While the agency and industry say this is appropriate for the industry -- which is composed mainly of small businesses that would struggle to afford tougher emissions controls -- a group of states and also two environmental groups say it is not permissible, and sets a dangerous precedent.
NACAA says it appears “that this would be the first time that EPA will use the health-based option under Section 112(d)(4)” for hydrogen fluoride (HF) and chlorine (CL2) “and in this magnitude” for hydrogen chloride (HCl) even though the air law's conditions for using that option do not appear to have been met.
“While we support focusing our efforts on the greatest risks, we are concerned that EPA has not adequately established that the approaches in its proposal are the appropriate vehicles to accomplish that goal. Furthermore, a precedent-setting change of the magnitude that EPA has proposed should be discussed openly and carefully with all affected parties, rather than being buried in an individual MACT proposal,” NACAA says.
Risk-Based Standards
The brick industry has for years been pushing for risk-based standards in EPA's long-delayed air toxics limits for the sector, arguing that setting numeric MACT limits according to the normal procedure prescribed by the air law is unnecessary. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2007 vacated EPA's last effort at an air toxics rule for the sector, after environmentalists sued, saying the rule's MACT limits were too weak. The court faulted EPA for ignoring the best performing sources in its MACT floor calculation, and for setting “no control” standards for some pollutants, among other failings. The new proposal therefore aims to fill a regulatory void.
But NACAA says it is “not satisfied that EPA has substantiated adequately that there is a safe threshold for these substances” in the new proposal. “We have multiple concerns about EPA’s analysis and do not believe it justifies the establishment of a health-based standard under Section 112(d)(4),” NACAA says. Nor is the group satisfied that EPA has enough proof that the substances are not carcinogens, the group says.
NACAA also faults EPA's risk assessment methodology for the rule, disagreeing with its use of the “centroid” of a census tract to determine risk to local inhabitants. Using this technique ignores higher exposures and greater risks for those living in parts of the census tract closer to the pollution source, making it difficult for EPA to argue it has met its air law requirement to ensure public health is protected “with an ample margin of safety,” NACAA says.
In its March 19 comments, Sierra Club and NRDC make similar points about the lack of established safe thresholds for the pollutants at issue, and the lack of strong evidence to show they are not carcinogens.
These failings, the groups say, render the proposed rule “arbitrary and capricious,” the standard required under the air law for courts to overturn EPA rules in the event of a seemingly likely legal challenge if EPA maintains its risk-based approach in the final brick air toxics rule. “HCl, HF, and chlorine do not have already established safe health thresholds, and, in any case, EPA’s proposed standards would not provide 'an ample margin of safety',” they write.
The environmental groups point to other EPA MACT rules where EPA has rejected the risk-based approach for the same pollutants at issue in the brick rule as evidence that the agency cannot now justify the weaker standards.
'Threshold' Pollutants
Former Bush EPA acting air chief William Wehrum, now with the law firm Hunton and Williams, in March 19 comments on BIA's behalf broadly welcomes EPA's proposal to set health-based standards.
As “EPA demonstrates in the proposed rule, the available health data indicate that hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, and chlorine are all threshold pollutants. The data show that each of these pollutants has a discernible exposure threshold below which adverse human health effects are not expected to occur. In addition, none of the available data suggest that these pollutants reasonably should be expected to act as a carcinogen or mutagen, or exhibit a mode of action that would result in non-threshold effects,” Wehrum writes for the sector.
EPA's risk assessment found “based on site-specific data from every affected source in the source category, that an ample margin of safety will be provided for the 'worst case' facility in the industry and more than an ample margin will be provided for all other affected facilities. . . . Here, rote application of the MACT standard setting provisions would result in emission standards that are far more stringent than are needed to protect health and the environment. Thus, these circumstances are exactly what Congress had in mind when it enacted§ 112(d)(4).”
BIA has objections to some aspects of the proposal, however. For example, it wants EPA to apply a risk-based approach to mercury from brick kilns in the final rule, claiming a safe threshold exists for the neurotoxin.
The U.S. Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy in March 17 comments makes a similar point, saying it “recommends further consultation with small businesses to gather the data necessary to justify greater flexibilities, including, if necessary, a delay in promulgating a mercury emission standard to better understand the sources and possible controls for mercury in this industry.” Echoing BIA, the comments say that no controls have been shown to be effective in stopping mercury emissions from brick and clay facilities.
Also, BIA says EPA cannot use “synthetic” area sources -- sources that have intentionally limited their emissions to a level below the threshold above which sources are considered “major” -- in order to calculate MACT floors. The MACT floor calculation can only include “major” sources, which are those emitting 10 tons per year (tpy) of one hazardous air pollutant (HAP) or 25 tpy of a combination of HAPs, BIA says.
In March 19 comments, the Residual Risk Coalition of various major industrial organizations also welcomes EPA's proposal of risk-based emissions limits for acid gases in the brick rule.
However, the groups “urge EPA not to set a 'one size fits all' risk-based limit for this category. This approach would require all affected facilities to meet a single standard that generally would be unreasonably over-conservative because it is based on the characteristics of the worst case facility in the source category. Because EPA has facility-specific data from virtually all potentially affected sources, EPA instead should establish multiple [risk-based limits] that more closely match the characteristics of smaller subsets of the source category.”
Another broad industry coalition, the Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction (SSM) coalition, which includes BIA, says in March 19 comments that EPA has in general failed to account for SSM periods in setting its brick rule emissions limits. EPA in the proposal does allow certain pieces of equipment to use “work practice standards” instead of numeric emissions limits during SSM periods, but the coalition says this does not go far enough.
Industry has made similar demands in other rules, after EPA removed regulatory exemptions from various regulations following court rulings against such exemptions.
-
Utilities Offer FERC Advice on Reliability Mechanism in EPA Climate Plan
Apr 8, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
The nation's investor-owned utilities want federal regulators to develop two separate processes to ensure that electric reliability will not be compromised as states move to comply with U.S. EPA's carbon-cutting targets through 2030, also known as the Clean Power Plan.
In comments filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Friday, the Edison Electric Institute weighed in on a subject about which its leaders had been unable to reach a consensus before FERC's first technical conference Feb. 19 on the Clean Power Plan.
At the time, DTE Energy Chairman and CEO Gerry Anderson told EnergyWire that EEI would file supplemental comments giving guidance on how to design a glide path that gives stakeholders more time to comply by pushing back EPA's interim targets for CO2 reductions.
As far as a reliability mechanism was concerned, "we haven't reached an agreement," Anderson said of EEI, noting that moving back the compliance timeline would reduce the occasion to use a safety valve (EnergyWire, Feb. 20).
But on Friday, EEI filed comments that reflect a "consensus view" on how the EPA rule should be crafted to protect grid reliability, said spokesman Jeff Ostermayer. "We don't anticipate having additional comments on the glide path or the safety valve beyond these comments," he said.
It is unclear whether EEI's shift in interest from elaborating on the glide path instead to a reliability mechanism indicates confidence in or an understanding that EPA is prepared to alter the compliance timelines in the final rule.
EEI is urging FERC to develop, in coordination with EPA, two processes. The first would be a Reliability Assessment Mechanism, or RAM, and the second is a Reliability Safety Valve, or RSV.
The assessment mechanism should be designed for use "preferably prior to state plan submittal, but no later than when state and regional plans are submitted to EPA for approval," EEI said. There should be an initial assessment coordinated by FERC before EPA approval of state and regional plans and then regular, periodic oversight once the CPP is implemented, EEI said.
The North American Electric Reliability Corp., regional transmission organizations and state utility commissions that already have a role in assuring reliability could assist FERC as it reviews state or regional plans.
Further, EEI could issue an opinion "regarding the nature of possible reliability issues as a result of simultaneous implementation of state and/or regional plans individually and collectively, as a result of both the initial assessment and/or regular periodic oversight. This finding or order made by the commission could identify the potential reliability issues, but need not identify, or discuss the merits, of any potential solutions," EEI said.
The second process, a safety valve, would "address unforeseen reliability issues that may arise during the compliance period" that were not identified in the RAM, EEI said.
The lobby for investor-owned utilities would have FERC advise EPA on whether to invoke the safety valve, in a way similar to how the agency does with regard to reliability matters arising from EPA's enforcement of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule.
However, EEI wants FERC to work with EPA so that the safety valve is incorporated into the final version of the Clean Power Plan when it is released this summer. In the case of the MATS rule, the reliability mechanism was developed outside the final rule after a post-rule EPA memorandum and FERC policy statement.
A formal role for FERC as adviser on reliability issues related to the CPP to EPA must be incorporated into the final rule, EEI said. FERC should encourage EPA to "recognize that the simplest solution to most reliability issues is the removal of interim targets," the utility group said.
-
Michael Bloomberg, Other Donors Add $60M to Sierra Club’s Coal Fight
Apr 8, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia
The Sierra Club’s anti-coal campaign is getting up to a $60 million boost from donors including Michael Bloomberg, who pledged $30 million personally Wednesday to further the group’s new goal of shuttering half the nation’s coal-fired power plants by 2017.
“America is leading the way not because of Washington, but because of you,” Bloomberg said during the announcement in front of cheering volunteers at the Sierra Club’s offices in Washington, D.C.
Bloomberg announced that more than a dozen additional donors have pledged to match Bloomberg Philanthropies’ $30 million commitment — bringing the total to $60 million.
“A clean energy economy is inevitable,” Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune said. “Dirty, outdated, deadly coal is a thing of the past.”
The former New York City mayor has long supported the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign, including a $50 million pledge he made in 2011 through his Bloomberg Philanthropies. He made his 2011 announcement in front of the GenOn coal-fired power plant in Alexandria, Va., which shut down the following year.
Beyond Coal’s goal of closing half the countries power plants by 2017 is based on a 2010 baseline.
The Sierra Club’s campaign had previously set a goal of retiring one-third of the country’s coal plants by 2020 and replacing them with low-carbon energy sources like wind and solar. Wednesday’s revised goal of shutting down half of U.S. coal plants reflects rapidly changing market conditions.
The Beyond Coal campaign says 187 coal plants have been retired or repurposed since 2010, with 336 plants to go until it reaches its initial goal.
Bloomberg called the Beyond Coal campaign “one of the most successful grassroots environmental efforts in this country’s history.”
Low natural gas prices, combined with federal policies like an EPA mercury rule that takes effect next week, have taken a heavy toll on the coal sector.
An estimated 28.4 gigawatts of coal-fired power in the U.S. is expected to be retired between this year and 2023, according to Energy Information Administration statistics, following the loss of 16.6 gigawatts since 2012. The total U.S. power supply from all sources is about 1,000 gigawatts.
Coal is being replaced largely by natural gas and wind. A combined 54 gigawatts of power from those sources is expected to come online between this year and 2023, EIA says.
Bloomberg’s anti-coal advocacy has made him a target of Republicans and industry groups. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s wife, former George W. Bush Administration Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, resigned from the board of Bloomberg Philanthropies in January amid news that the group would invest millions in efforts to cut emissions from electricity production.
-
Sierra Club Targets Half of US Coal-Fired Plants
Apr 8, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Sierra Club set a new, ambitious goal Wednesday to close half of the country’s coal-fired power plants by 2017.
The target, based on a starting point in 2010 when there were 523 such plants, goes beyond the group’s initial goal to close a third of them by 2020.
Sierra Club leaders announced the goal at the same time they accepted $30 million from media mogul Michael Bloomberg’s philanthropic operation for their Beyond Coal campaign. More than a dozen donors pledged to match Bloomberg's contribution, doubling it to $60 million.
“That will help move America to cleaner energy sources faster and help millions of lives be longer and healthier,” Bloomberg said at a rally at the Sierra Club’s headquarters in Washington.
“Beyond Coal is taking our country in the right direction,” Bloomberg said. “It’s the direct that will help our country, not hurt it, because the price of pollution and environmental damage is suffered in our economy as well as in our lives.”
Since the campaign launched in 2011, 187 coal-fired power plants have shut down, and the Sierra Club took credit.
“It’s because of you that we have knit together a movement of Americans for clean air, clean water, clean energy that is ringing from coast to coast,” Michael Brune, the group’s executive director, told staffers.
Bloomberg Philanthropies gave $50 million to the project at its 2011 launch, so its total contribution is now $80 million. Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York City, said the coal plant shutdowns have been the largest contributor to the United States’s greenhouse gas reductions, and have had large positive effects on health as well.
“Almost 6,000 fewer Americans will die prematurely this year,” he said, adding that thousands of heart attacks and asthma attacks will also be avoided because of the reduction in pollution from coal.
Coal currently accounts for about 39 percent of the country’s electricity needs, the most of any source.
“We are in the middle of a transformation,” said Mary Anne Hitt, director of the Beyond Coal campaign. “This energy transformation was not made possible by Washington or Wall Street. It happened on Main Street, thanks to regular people fighting in their backyards for the safety of their families and the future of the communities.”
While the Sierra Club took credit for the shutdowns, Obama administration policies have had a significant effect. The 2011 toxic air pollution rules from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could cause 24 percent of the nation’s coal fleet to shut down in the coming years, according to the Energy Information Administration, and upcoming limits on carbon dioxide emissions are likely to do more damage.
The coal industry quickly criticized Bloomberg and the Sierra Club.
“Instead of trying to make headlines, environmentalists could be partnering with industry to make headway in providing cleaner, reliable energy to Americans across the country and around the world,” Laura Sheehan, spokeswoman for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, said in a statement.
“Sierra Club’s effort is purely a political campaign that ignores the energy realities and needs of our nation."
-
NRDC Ad Hits Portman on Anti-Clean Power Plan Amendment
Apr 8, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
Ohio Sen. Rob Portman (R) was the subject of a new advertisement from an environmental group assailing his position on U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
The advertisement by the Natural Resources Defense Council alleges Portman "led the charge in Congress last month to allow power plants to keep polluting our air."
The commercial was referring to Portman's support of an amendment to the Senate budget resolution. Portman proposed an amendment to let states disregard the federal rules if they determine that the regulations would increase electricity prices or impede economic growth.
Portman is seeking re-election in 2016, and his challengers, Democrats Ted Strickland and P.G. Sittenfeld, both support the EPA regulations.
Portman campaign manager Corry Bliss said Strickland has "sold out the people he wants to represent" because he joined the Center for American Progress last year (Jack Torry,Columbus Dispatch, April 8). -- SP
-
States Aren't Buying What the EPA is Selling
Apr 8, 2015 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Harry C. Alford
The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants have been hotly contested since proposed last June. While the EPA continues its campaign to paint the proposal as a win for consumers, a number of states and federal lawmakers have been quick to unveil what the proposal truly is: a ticking time bomb.
The EPA's Clean Power Plan will have a domino effect leading to disaster. Once set forth in motion, the effects will be swift and felt by all. These standards — issued at the federal level — fail to consider the cost impacts that will burden state economies, and worse, underserved communities. The proposal will essentially force an overreliance on costly, less-reliable alternatives that will cause electricity rates to go through the roof, placing a heavy toll on Americans', and particularly minorities', wallets.
In fact, analysis released by Energy Ventures Analysis last November revealed just how severely the proposal will impact household budgets. According to the study, electricity costs could increase nearly $300 billion in 2020 while the average household's electricity and natural gas bills would grow by a whopping $680 annually. To put that in perspective, that's a 35 percent increase to consumers.
African-American business owners simply cannot withstand that kind of hit to their bottom line. Faced with their energy costs doubling, and perhaps even tripling, many will be forced to close up shop. Similar to these businesses, families across the country will fail to meet these rising costs and be forced to resort to drastic measures, including energy rationing and living without other basic necessities.
As these realities hit home, it's hardly a surprise that opposition is intensifying.
Since proposed last year, officials representing more than half of the country — 28 states total — have called on the EPA to withdraw its Clean Power Plan. Though the Obama administration views these actions as "red tape," these officials are validated in their actions and have cited credible concerns ranging from reliability threats and cost implications to the EPA's lack of legal authority to even impose the standards.
Federal lawmakers have also been quick to voice the serious dangers associated with the proposal.
In March, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) took action to protect states from the administration's harmful energy policy by issuing a letter to the National Governors Association outlining his concerns. McConnell's letter detailed the burdensome and costly effects of the illegal proposal while stressing that even if enacted, the plan will have little — if any — impactful effect on mitigating global greenhouse gas emissions.
The EPA's refusal to listen to the growing opposition only further risks putting our economy in a downward spiral. I urge states, therefore, that have not yet openly opposed the EPA's illegal mandate to stand up and join the growing list of lawmakers who are already standing up to this outlandish overreach.
Alford is co-founder, president and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce.
-
Fracking Activities Pollute Nearby Air With Carcinogenic Hydrocarbons
Apr 8, 2015 | Chemical and Engineering News
By Deirdre Lockwood
Hydraulic fracturing activities to extract natural gas can release carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) into the air, a new study shows (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, DOI: 10.1021/es506095e). In some cases, the estimated exposure of nearby residents to these compounds exceeded the Environmental Protection Agency’s maximum acceptable risk level for cancer.
Many researchers and community leaders are concerned about the human health impacts of air and water pollution from hydraulic fracturing, often called fracking, and the limited environmental regulation of the industry in the U.S. Fracking can release carcinogens such as benzene into the air along with other volatile organic compounds that are precursors of smog, which can contribute to asthma and other respiratory illnesses (Sci. Total Environ. 2012, DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.02.018).
But few studies have examined the impact of fracking on airborne PAHs, larger molecules that are also linked with cancer and respiratory illness (Atmos. Environ. 2008, DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.12.010). The compounds are present in fossil fuels and are also products of their combustion—for example, they’re found in the exhaust of truck traffic near fracking sites.
Kim A. Anderson, a researcher at Oregon State University, wanted to understand how these compounds might affect workers and residents near fracking operations. So she and her colleagues designed a citizen-science study in Carroll County, Ohio, a community with especially high fracking activity. As of June 2014, the county had 421 natural gas drilling leases, a density of more than one well per square mile. Many community members were concerned about their health impacts, Anderson says.
In February 2014, Anderson and colleagues installed passive air samplers on the properties of 23 volunteers living within 3 miles of active wellheads in the county. The samplers included low-density polyethylene strips to absorb the volatile compounds in air that a person would breathe in. After three weeks, the participants sent the samplers back to the lab in air-tight bags. The team analyzed the collected compounds for 62 PAHs using gas chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry. The researchers then calculated average total concentrations of a set of 14 PAHs for three groups of volunteers on the basis of how far they live from an active well: within 0.1 mile, between 0.1 and 1 mile away, and between 1 and 3 miles away.
For all three groups, the average total PAH concentrations were higher than those measured by a previous study in downtown Chicago and about 10 times greater than those measured in rural areas without fracking activity. The concentrations were 57% higher for the group that lived closest to a well than for the group that lived farthest away.
The researchers also examined the ratios of individual PAHs to determine whether they came from natural gas extraction or car exhaust. At sites closer to the wells, the main source of PAHs was the natural gas itself, whereas sites farther away showed a mixture of exhaust and natural gas signatures.
The researchers then estimated excess lifetime cancer risk for various levels of exposure to all the PAHs they measured using a standard EPA method. For maximum residential exposure of 350 days per year over 26 years, the calculated risk at every distance exceeded EPA’s acceptable range. In all the scenarios they considered, the excess risk for the group closest to wells was about 45% greater than that for the group farthest from them.
David O. Carpenter, an environmental health scientist and physician at the University at Albany, SUNY, says the study provides important new data on PAHs near fracking sites and supports the growing evidence that the process poses added health concerns to people living around the sites. He was surprised by the finding that PAHs are coming mainly from the natural gas itself, because earlier studies of the compounds near fracking sites assumed that vehicle exhaust was the main source. “It opens up a whole new area of research,” he says.
-
Better Data, More Research Will Sharpen Focus on Mitigating Methane
Apr 8, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Dennis Arriola
Even in Washington D.C., one thing everyone can agree on is: The more we mitigate methane emissions, the better. Methane, the primary component of natural gas, has become an increasingly hot topic within environmental and energy policy circles, and with the increased supply and use of natural gas across the U.S., a number of those discussions are now focusing on how much methane is escaping from natural gas systems.
Discussions about how to mitigate methane emissions are only productive when they are founded in good science and better data. The problem is, hypotheses and unrepresentative data have led to such a focus on natural gas systems that insufficient resources have gone into addressing the methane emissions from the biggest sources – emissions that the natural gas system actually has the potential to help mitigate.
One reason is the official estimates of natural gas system emissions on which the government bases its policies – and people their opinions – are calculated with emission factors that were determined by a benchmark study conducted back in 1992, around the time when email and the Internet were mere curiosities. As a result, inflated emission estimates have been published annually that do not account for the investments in infrastructure modernization and advancements in technology that have occurred over the last two decades.
Finally, a new Washington State University (WSU) study, sponsored by the Environmental Defense Fund, the American Gas Association and some of its members, including SoCalGas, has updated those emission factors using advanced methodologies to directly measure emissions from leaks. The study determined the amount of methane emitted by natural gas delivery systems is between 36 to 70 percent lower than current estimates. It also found the average national emission rate for delivery systems should be revised down from 0.33 percent of all natural gas delivered to as low as 0.10 percent. The estimate of SoCalGas’ emission rate, for instance, fell from 0.31 percent to 0.12 percent.
WSU researchers credit the dramatic reductions to replacements of leak-prone cast iron and bare steel pipelines, improvements to equipment and advancements in technologies for detecting and repairing leaks. Those objectives have been the focus of SoCalGas’ infrastructure strategy for the past 20 years, so today, SoCalGas’ system contains modernized equipment and no cast iron pipe.
Work still remains on lessening the gas system’s impact, but the industry is delivering results, and state regulators are working with the industry to ensure we do. Thirty-nine states incent their local distribution companies to conduct more aggressive modernization programs than would have been otherwise possible. In California, our state is even implementing a new law, one SoCalGas supported, regarding enhanced efforts to repair leaks.
With all this progress in mind, imagine if a percentage of the time, energy and resources that are being spent encouraging the industry to reduce its 0.1 percent emission rate – which we have already demonstrated we are doing – were directed toward reducing the emissions from the biggest sources of methane.
Agriculture and waste management account for about half the U.S. methane emissions and 87 percent of the methane inventory in California. Multiple projects across the country are already converting emissions from human and agricultural waste into renewable methane used to generate power. By encouraging research into increasing the feasibility of renewable methane, we could capture even more of this bio-methane, refine it and deliver it through gas pipelines to be consumed by existing end-use applications.
Even now, natural gas is reducing emissions of carbon dioxide by replacing coal in the production of electricity, and natural gas-powered cars and buses are diminishing auto emissions. Very soon, natural gas-powered, heavy-duty trucks will curtail diesel exhaust, and gas-fired power plants that kick in when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing will advance the spread of solar and wind power even further.
However, in the near future, the big opportunity is to prevent bio-methane from rising into the atmosphere by capturing it and putting it into the pipeline for delivery to consumers as a renewable and clean energy resource.
The more we develop accurate data about the sources of methane and conduct research into their potential solutions, the better we can make informed, scientifically-based decisions about how we should direct our resources to combat methane. The natural gas industry is already playing a major role in providing good jobs, stimulating our economy and generating cleaner energy. Its potential to help other industries capture and convert their methane emissions into a renewable fuel, however, provides greater promise for an even greener future.
Arriola is president and CEO of SoCalGas, the largest natural gas distribution company in the United States.
-
BNSF Goes Its Own Way on Crude-by-Rail Safety
Apr 8, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
BNSF Railway Co. isn't shy with its influence.
The Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary has had one-on-one meetings with White House officials on pending crude-by-rail regulations, donated more than a million dollars to candidates in last year's congressional elections and spent $5 million lobbying on everything from labor issues to agriculture.
Now BNSF is caught in a delicate balancing act in a small but lucrative segment of its business: moving crude oil from North Dakota's Bakken Shale play.
A spate of recent high-profile oil train derailments and explosions -- two of which involved BNSF -- has brought heightened scrutiny on crude-by-rail safety.
In response, BNSF has led a public campaign to boost inspections along oil routes and pump billions of dollars into its 32,500-mile track network. At the same time, the company has pressed hard against some of the most sought-after but costly safety improvements now being considered by federal transportation regulators, including requirements for advanced braking systems on trains hauling 20 or more cars of crude.
Last week, the company curbed oil trains' speed limits to 35 mph through highly populated areas -- a surprising step given that BNSF had railed against strict speed limits in a meeting just months earlier.
So far, other freight railroads have yet to follow suit with their own voluntary speed caps for oil trains in cities of more than 100,000 people. A spokesman for the Association of American Railroads, which represents BNSF as well as other major railroads such as CSX Corp. and Union Pacific Corp., said the group stands by an earlier agreement with Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx limiting oil trains to 40 mph through high-threat urban areas.
"In addition to the industry-wide voluntary actions, each railroad continues to assess its own network and its own route to identify any further measures that may be appropriate," noted AAR spokesman Ed Greenberg. "Both individually and as an entire freight rail industry, railroads continue to support ways to enhance the safe transportation of crude."
But BNSF's role as gatekeeper for North Dakota's oil-rich Bakken shale play puts it in a "unique" position among its peers as it ferries hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude toward East Coast refineries, according to spokesman Michael Trevino.
"Certainly recent incidents involving crude by rail -- including our own -- have further highlighted communities' concerns and led us to believe that we must take further action," Trevino said.
The speed restriction, which took effect March 25, was one part of that action. Trevino noted that the company is also ramping up its safety inspections and adding trackside technology to monitor passing tank cars and locomotives for defects.
"BN is the largest carrier by far for crude by rail," said Anthony Hatch, principal of New York-based freight transportation and research firm ABH Consulting. "What they're saying is important just by that factor alone."
Hatch said BNSF's speed limits are "potentially disruptive" due to capacity constraints but added that the company could "build some velocity back in" once new federal safety rules take effect later this year.
A "comprehensive" Department of Transportation crude-by-rail rule is being readied for final publication at the White House's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, where companies such as BNSF get a chance to weigh in on costs and benefits of various proposal.
BNSF met regulators and OIRA officials to warn about the economic consequences of mandatory speed limits in 2014. In BNSF's presentation last June, the company warned of "severe" operating impacts due to a 30 mph systemwide speed limit for oil trains.
"Increased cycle times will require BNSF's crude oil customers to add 11,280 tank cars to their fleets (approx. $1.5 billion dollars in replacement equipment)," the company noted, according to a PowerPoint presented at the meeting.
Since then, a BNSF oil train derailed and exploded near Galena, Ill., hurting no one but bringing the rail giant back into the safety spotlight (EnergyWire, March 6).
The 35 mph restriction BNSF unveiled last week can be seen as a reaction to Galena and an earlier, more devastating train derailment and explosion in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, that killed 47 people, Hatch suggested. (BSNF was not connected to the Lac-Mégantic disaster, although the train there had been carrying Bakken crude.)
Hatch noted that BNSF "wouldn't do anything drastic, voluntarily, that would hurt themselves or the other 95 percent of their business customers" outside of crude shippers.
BNSF's Trevino said that the new speed restriction would "have an impact on capacity," but added that the change would likely be a "temporary" stopgap until federal rules take effect.
"It doesn't change the fact that we need a safer, stronger tank car, and so while we wait for a new standard, we can take these actions now," he said.Challenging the crude status quo
BNSF hasn't hesitated to upset its crude customers when seeking to burnish its reputation for safety.
In January, BNSF began charging $1,000 more for moving certain older-model tank cars to encourage a switch to newer models, such as the type CPC-1232 car added to oil and ethanol fleets since 2011.
The company also took the unusual step of soliciting bids for 5,000 tank cars. Railroads don't normally own the tank cars they haul. BNSF's Executive Chairman Matt Rose said recently that the planned car purchase had been put on hold pending conversations with the railroad's customers, and the soon-to-be-released new federal tank car standard.
BNSF's playing favorites with tank car rates didn't sit well with the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, a major refining trade group that sued the company last month for violating its common carrier obligations.
Despite safety concerns, DOT-111 tank cars -- even old ones -- are still the government-recognized standard and can't be pushed out of crude service, the argument goes.
BNSF said in a statement responding to the suit that "we believe that our rate structure appropriately supports customers who are working to move to a safer car, which is in the interest of rail shippers, BNSF employees and the communities we serve."
Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd. and Canadian National Railway Co. have added similar taxes on those using outdated DOT-111 tank cars for crude. "[CP] will continue to charge a surcharge to any shipper that's moving or makes us transport cars that are not the most up-to-date with regards to safety standards," noted CP spokesman Martin Cej.
Unlike CP, BNSF has stopped short of endorsing the thickest steel tank car option floated in the ongoing DOT rulemaking -- 9/16th of an inch. BNSF has also opposed installation of electronically controlled pneumatic braking systems for all oil and ethanol trains.
On Monday, the National Transportation Safety Board recommended a five-year phase-out or retrofit schedule for all tank cars that fall short of new federal specifications. The safety watchdog also called for technical improvements to tank cars’ thermal protection systems and pressure relief valves in a letter to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s acting administrator, Timothy Butters.
BNSF hopes to push its customers to retire or improve the oldest DOT-111 tank cars by the end of the year.
It remains to be seen how many of the company's decisions will wind up enshrined in federal rules or future industry standards. But they have been welcomed by North Dakota's Gov. Jack Dalrymple (R), who said last month that he was "pleased" with the railroad's additional actions.
In December 2013, a BNSF train derailed and exploded near Casselton, N.D. -- catching the attention of Dalrymple and other political leaders in the region.
"Railroad operations, equipment and maintenance are critical elements in our overall goal to improve rail safety, and I commend BNSF for taking these significant steps," Dalrymple said. "At the same time, we must move forward on other important aspects of rail safety, including the need for new federal tank car standards and greater pipeline capacity."
-
Market, Safety Issues Dog Oil by Rail's Growth
Apr 8, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
Safety problems and low crude oil prices have stalled growth in oil-train shipments in the United States. The number of trains hauling crude oil and other petroleum products peaked last fall, according to data from the Association of American Railroads.
In March, train shipments for crude oil by train fell 7 percent on a year-over-year basis. Trains transporting crude oil has grown from 20 million barrels in 2010 to just under 374 million barrels last year, according to the Energy Information Administration, as shale oil and gas exploration boomed in North Dakota's Bakken Shale formation.
The downturn in growth for trains carrying crude oil coincided with federal safety experts demanding stronger tank cars after a slew of accidents over the past few years involving trains carrying crude oil.
"We can't wait a decade for safer rail cars," said Christopher Hart, chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, in a letter to federal transportation regulators.
Yet opponents have claimed that introducing tougher standards too quickly could cause a shortfall in rail cars and hamstring some oil train operations (Alison Sider, Wall Street Journal, April 6). -- KS
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Add recipients
Suggested