Preview Newsletter
ACC AM May 5
-
(ACC Mentioned) House, Senate TSCA Reform Bills Share Ideas But Would Accomplish Updates Differently
May 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Senate and House lawmakers are soon expected to have two possible ways to accomplish the first major environmental legislative reform in 25 years, a senior American Chemistry Council official said May 4. A draft House bill that would modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act and S. 697, which the Senate Environment... -
(ACC Mentioned) Senate TSCA Reform Advocates Aim For June Floor Debate, But House Bill May Be Better Vehicle For Compromise
May 5, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sam Pearson
A bipartisan chemical safety bill could hit the Senate floor as soon as June, with weeks of debate expected on amendments to the proposal, Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) told business leaders late last week. Meanwhile, a competing reform proposal in the House is still taking shape, with sights set on a more targeted rewrite... -
(ACC Mentioned) Firefighters Decry 'Slow Death' Of Flame Retardant Bill
May 4, 2015 | Minneapolis Star Tribune
By Abby Simons
Firefighters from across the state gathered in the State Capitol hallways Monday to decry the “slow death” of their bill to phase out what they say are cancer-causing flame retardants from household furniture and other goods. Representatives from the Minnesota Professional Fire Fighters Union went so far as to light a couch aflame last... -
(ACC Mentioned) Vinyl Floors Often Contain Chemicals Banned In Kids Products
May 4, 2015 | KGW Portland
By Keely Chalmers
You walk, sit, and play on them every day, but your floors could be making you sick. At least that's what some environmental groups are now suggesting after a new study found toxic chemicals in some vinyl flooring. A recent "60 Minutes" report got a lot of attention after accusing Lumber Liquidators of selling contaminated laminate... -
(ACC Mentioned) Pizza Boxes And Other Items With Short-Chain PFASs Might Be Bad News For Your Health, Say Some Health And Environmental Experts
May 4, 2015 | Bustle
By Lucia Peters
Bad news for pizza lovers — and coat wearers, and rug owners, and a whole bunch of other folks out there: Pizza boxes may be hurting your health. To be fair, it’s not the boxes themselves; it’s the chemicals in which they’re coated in order to help them stand up to all that grease. The chemicals, called short-chain poly- and perfluroalkyl substances... -
(ACC Mentioned) Pizza Boxes, Microwavable Popcorn Bags and Other Household Items Have Harmful Chemicals, Say Scientists
May 4, 2015 | HNGN
By Rachel Cruz
A group of international scientists are warning the public about chemicals found in pizza boxes, microwave popcorn bags, cookware, carpet treatments and even outdoor wear because of their possible health hazards. In their "Madrid Statement," which has been published in the journal of Environmental health Perspectives, the scientists identified the... -
(ACC Mentioned) Environmental Scientists Warn of PFAS Chemicals In Pizza Boxes, Clothes, Carpet Treatments
May 5, 2015 | Yidaba
By Steve Pak
Some environmental scientists issued a warning on Friday about the chemicals known as PFAS that are contained in several objects such as pizza boxes, carpet treatments, and clothes. PFAS or Polyflourinated Aalcylated Substances are found in several types of everyday products. These chemicals prevent pizza boxes from getting soggy due to... -
EPA Endocrine Managers Prepare New Policy To Outline Shift To New Tests
May 4, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
Leaders of EPA's long-struggling Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) are drafting a policy document that will outline the agency's new, in vitro approach to the program, using these new methods to prioritize chemicals for screening in EDSP and eventually, replacing some of the animal-based assays with the newer cellular methods. -
Our Toxic Status Quo Doesn’t Protect Us
May 1, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Ruth Marcus
Today’s topic is toxic substances and the appalling gaps in the current law that is supposed to protect the public from dangerous chemicals. For example, before a new chemical enters the market, the manufacturer must demonstrate its safety and the substance must win approval from federal regulators, right? -
Booker Won Good Changes to a Chemical Safety Bill. It Still Needs More.
May 4, 2015 | The Star-Ledger
The bill to update our nation's chemical safety law has definitely improved, thanks in large part to U.S. Sen. Cory Booker, who sits on the Environment and Public Works committee. He's been accused of being a showboat, but this should give his skeptics pause. Here, the freshman senator rolled up his sleeves, delved into the policy weeds and... -
Respiratory Sensitizers Can Be Added To REACH Phaseout List, EU Court Says
May 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
A European Union General Court double ruling that chemicals that cause breathing difficulties can be considered “substances of very high concern” (SVHCs) under the EU's REACH law could make it more difficult to predict which substances could be restricted or banned in the bloc, according to experts familiar with the case. -
UN Chemicals Negotiators ‘Very Close’ To Compliance Mechanism Agreement
May 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bryce Baschuk
International chemical negotiators are “very close” to establishing a legal tool that ensures countries fulfill their promises to properly manage harmful substances, Rolph Payet, executive secretary of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm (BRS) conventions, said May 4. -
EU Wants Industrialized Countries to Include Hydrofluorocarbons Under Montreal Protocol
May 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
Industrialized countries should largely phase out the production and consumption of hydrofluorocarbon refrigerant gases (HFCs) by 2035 as part of international efforts to mitigate global warming, according to a European Union proposal to amend the Montreal Protocol. Under the EU plan, published April 30, developed countries would agree to... -
Texas Moves To Tighten State’s Ammonium Nitrate Storage Requirements
May 4, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Glenn Hess
The Texas Legislature appears to be headed toward passage of the first legislation to tighten the state’s regulation of ammonium nitrate since a massive and deadly explosion at a fertilizer storage facility near Waco two years ago. The Texas House of Representatives gave preliminary approval on May 1 to legislation (H.B. 942) that would... -
Fracking Chemicals Detected in Pennsylvania Drinking Water
May 4, 2015 | The New York Times
By Nicholas St. Fleur
An analysis of drinking water sampled from three homes in Bradford County, Pa., revealed traces of a compound commonly found in Marcellus Shale drilling fluids, according to a study published on Monday. The paper, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, addresses a longstanding question about potential risks to... -
Marcellus Shale Extraction Fluids Discovered in 3 Water Samples
May 4, 2015 | Bloomberg
By Justin Doom
Chemical compounds used to extract natural gas were found in three water samples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale region, according to a study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The contamination occurred at three Bradford County households whose owners settled a lawsuit with Chesapeake... -
Einhorn Hits Fracking Stocks
May 4, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Juliet Chung And David Benoit
Chemical compounds used to extract natural gas were found in three water samples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale region, according to a study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The contamination occurred at three Bradford County households whose owners settled a lawsuit with Chesapeake... -
Shale Oil Drillers Plunge After Einhorn Slams Fracking Costs
May 4, 2015 | Bloomberg
By Joe Carroll and Kelly Gilblom
Money manager David Einhorn slammed the shale drilling industry that ushered in a new era of U.S. oil production as wasteful, expensive and a terrible investment. Shale explorers including Pioneer Natural Resources Co. and EOG Resources Inc. plunged as investors heeded Einhorn’s remarks at the Sohn Investment Conference in New York on... -
Fracking: Jerry Brown's Environmental Blind Spot
May 4, 2015 | LA Times
By Bill McKibben
Gov. Jerry Brown may prove to be the greenest government official in American history — emphasis on "may." His announcement last week that California would up its target for reducing carbon emissions — to 40% by 2030 — puts him at the head of the pack among governors (admittedly, not a very high bar). His dramatic drive for climate... -
Colorado Governor Joins Voices Calling For Full Repeal of Crude Export Oil Ban
May 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) asked the Commerce Department to support a “full legislative repeal” of the crude oil export ban. In an April 30 letter to Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker, Hickenlooper said lifting the ban was among many “significant economic issues” facing the energy market. -
Washington: Mayor Blocks Drilling Fleet
May 4, 2015 | AP (in The New York Times)
The Port of Seattle cannot host Royal Dutch Shell’s offshore Arctic oil-drilling fleet unless it gets a new land-use permit, Mayor Ed Murray said Monday. Shell has been planning to base its fleet, including a drill rig and two tugboats, at the port’s Terminal 5 for six months each year, when it is not being used in the Arctic. Environmentalists have... -
Oil Trade Groups Urge EPA Not To Exceed Current 'Blend Wall'
May 4, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Peterka
Oil trade groups are asking U.S. EPA to recognize the "blend wall" in its forthcoming proposal setting renewable fuel requirements for 2014 and beyond. In a letter, the American Petroleum Institute and American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers asked EPA to hold strong to the approach the agency took in its controversial proposal in late 2013 to... -
Big Data Has Big Potential in Energy
May 4, 2015 | The Houston Chronicle
By Collin Eaton
Drilling offshore requires big equipment, so it only makes sense for companies to benefit from Big Data. Talk of new ways to harness data was among the key topics of discussion Monday as the Offshore Technology Conference kicked off. Smart sensors and Big Data analytics could help oil companies extract an additional 80 billion barrels ... -
3,500 Deaths Annually Could Be Prevented By EPA Clean Power Plan, Researchers Say
May 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Carbon dioxide emissions limits on power plants could prevent as many as 3,500 premature deaths annually by 2020, researchers said in a paper released May 4. But how the Environmental Protection Agency chooses to structure its proposed Clean Power Plan and how the rule would be implemented by state officials could have a great... -
Reg Reform Markup Highlights Potential Wider Involvement In Energy Bill
May 5, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Nick Juliano
A Senate committee tomorrow plans to mark up a bipartisan bill meant to streamline a federal permitting process that developers say can delay oil and gas pipelines, renewable energy installations and an array of other types of infrastructure. Addressing permitting and siting delays is one of Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski's .... -
E.P.A. Carbon Emissions Plan Could Save Thousands of Lives, Study Finds
May 4, 2015 | The New York Times
By Sabrina Tavernise and Coral Davenport
New carbon emissions standards that were proposed last year for coal-fired power plants in the United States would substantially improve human health and prevent more than 3,000 premature deaths per year, according to a new study. The study, led by researchers at Syracuse and Harvard Universities, used modeling to predict the effect on... -
D.C. Circuit Denies Final State Challenges To EPA's GHG Permitting FIPs
May 4, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dawn Reeves
A key appellate court is rejecting state and industry efforts to re-litigate their challenges to EPA takeovers of state greenhouse gas (GHG) permitting programs, rejecting without comment their claim that the program is unlawful until officials set new de minimis thresholds -- though the decision may be moot as the agency is setting such a threshold. -
EPA, FERC In 'Ongoing Discussions' On Grid Reliability Under CO2 Rule
May 4, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
While the electric industry awaits the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's contribution on how to ensure against power outages under the Clean Power Plan, a U.S. EPA spokeswoman said Friday that the two agencies have already been in "ongoing discussions" following a series of FERC technical conferences. -
Supreme Court Accepts Case on Electricity Regulation
May 4, 2015 | The New York Times
By Adam Liptak
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide whether federal regulators may encourage electricity users like schools, hospitals and shopping centers to reduce consumption at peak times in exchange for price breaks. The regulatory approach, known as “demand response,” lowers costs for consumers and lessens the risk of system... -
Supreme Court To Rule On Breaks For Cutting Peak-Demand Energy Use
May 4, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Robert Barnes and Chris Mooney
The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will review whether a federal agency may require electric market operators to compensate customers who lower their consumption of electricity during peak demand hours. The court said it would determine whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) exceeded its statutory... -
North Carolina Lawmakers Advance Measure To Require Clean Power Plan Implementation
May 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jeff Day
North Carolina legislation that would require the establishment of regulations to implement the federal Clean Power Plan is unexpectedly advancing in the Republican-dominated General Assembly. The bill (H.B. 571) passed the state House of Representatives 84-33 and awaits action in the state Senate. -
Academics Give Boost To Obama Climate Rule
May 4, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Obama administration’s proposed carbon limits for power plants could prevent 3,500 deaths per year, a new academic study says. The research from Syracuse University and Harvard University was published Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change, and is being billed as the first peer-reviewed scientific research into the... -
Court Denies Rehearing in Texas Lawsuit Challenging Greenhouse Gas Permitting
May 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Federal appellate judges denied Texas's request to rehear a lawsuit challenging an Environmental Protection Agency requirement that states update their air pollution plans to include greenhouse gas permitting (Texas v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 10-1425, rehearing denied 5/4/15). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied Texas's... -
Varied Stances on Climate Change Seen In Latest Republican Presidential Hopefuls
May 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Three Republicans, the latest to join the field of presidential hopefuls, are representative of their party's near-universal opposition to President Barack Obama's efforts to tackle climate change, but they hold more diverse stances on the existence and severity of the problem. The three Republicans—former Hewlett-Packard Co. Chief... -
Key Climate Change Goal May Be Missed
May 4, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Global carbon emission reduction strategies could fall short of a major climate change benchmark, according to a study published Monday. Even if major governments stick to their current carbon emissions goals, the report says it may not be possible to keep the average global surface temperature from rising more than 2 degrees celsius. -
New Parties Met With White House On Oil-by-Rail Rule a Month Before Release
May 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Some new voices were heard in White House meetings on a flammable liquids rail safety rule in the month or so leading up to the final rule's release, according to public records released in May. Transportation labor union SMART Transportation Division and a Maryland state representative were among the interested parties that met for the first... -
Schumer Legislation to Expedite Phaseout Of Outdated Tank Cars Expected Mid-May
May 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) announced May 4 legislation that would implement more stringent crude oil and other flammable liquids rail service requirements than a recently introduced Transportation Department rule. Schumer's bill would require a faster phaseout of tank cars used for crude oil and other flammable liquids rail service, add more... -
Schumer Wants Faster Oil Train Changes Than Obama
May 4, 2015 | The Hill - Transportation
By Keith Laing
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is introducing legislation to require faster implementation of a series of regulations regarding the transportation of crude oil that were unveiled last week by the Obama administration. Schumer's legislation would require freight rail companies to phase out older rail cars that have been blamed for ... -
Study Justifying Brakes in Crude-by-Rail Rule Posted
May 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Transportation Department posted May 1 an updated study used to help justify its decision in a recently announced rule to require certain industry-opposed brakes on specific flammable liquids rail shipments. The study, conducted by Sharma & Associates Inc., bolsters the view that electronically controlled pneumatic brakes make emergency braking...
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
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Mentioned) House, Senate TSCA Reform Bills Share Ideas But Would Accomplish Updates Differently
May 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Senate and House lawmakers are soon expected to have two possible ways to accomplish the first major environmental legislative reform in 25 years, a senior American Chemistry Council official said May 4.
A draft House bill that would modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act and S. 697, which the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee recently approved, share some core elements, said Michael Walls, vice president of regulatory and technical affairs at the American Chemistry Council.
Speaking at a forum called Removing Roadblocks to TSCA Reform Legislation, Walls said both bills would:
• give the Environmental Protection Agency more authority to obtain information on chemicals without requiring chemical manufacturers to provide a minimum set of data on every compound they make;
• separate EPA decisions about whether a chemical is safe from agency decisions on how to manage any identified risk;
• authorize the EPA to assess the safety of chemicals in commerce either by choosing chemicals or allowing chemical manufacturers to select chemicals for assessment;
• require chemical manufacturers—when they request the EPA to not publicly release certain confidential business information—to justify their reasons for doing so; and
• limit state regulatory authority over chemicals.
Federal Preemption Critical to Industry
“For the chemical industry, you can imagine, that the prospect of improving or strengthening the preemptive provisions of TSCA was our number one objective. It became the significant incentive for the chemical industry's participation in TSCA reform,” Walls said at the forum, which was sponsored by the American Bar Association's Pesticides, Chemical Regulation and Right-to-Know Committee.
In recent interviews, other trade associations also have stressed the need for federal preemption of state regulations (81 DEN A-3, 4/28/15).
The House draft bill and S. 697 would accomplish preemption and their other shared goals in different ways, Walls said, without voicing a preference for one or the other approach.
The momentum building to reform TSCA is what's key to the chemistry council he said.
“For the ACC and our members, reform of this act is our number one priority,” Walls said.
The House draft to which Walls referred is called the TSCA Modernization Act. During an April 14 hearing on the legislation, Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy, said a revised version of the draft would be introduced before it is marked up May 14 (72 DEN A-13, 4/15/15).
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S. 697) was approved by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on a 15-5 bipartisan vote April 28 .
The Senate bill represents a very carefully balanced document that has emerged from eight or nine years of discussions about TSCA, Richard Denison, a senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, said at the forum.
“That balance does not make anybody totally happy,” Denison said.
The Senate bill, however, “would be a dramatic improvement in every major respect to the status quo,” Denison said.
‘Major Problems’ in House Draft
On the other hand, Denison said, “We see major problems in the House draft.”
Problems Denison said the Environmental Defense Fund sees in the House draft off include:
• it would not provide a mandate to require the EPA to review the safety of chemicals in commerce;
• it would require the EPA to assess chemicals selected by chemical manufacturers;
• industry-requested—and paid for—chemical assessments would have to be completed within six months;
• ensuing regulations, if any, would have to be issued in six months and would preempt state regulations; and
• funds paid by chemical manufacturers would go to the general U.S. Treasury, not the EPA.
The House draft was developed with bipartisan participation, and both Republicans and Democrats have said they will continue to work on the draft, Denison said.
Changes may be made in the House that would address EDF concerns, but at present the draft fails to reform TSCA, Denison said.
-
May 5, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sam Pearson
A bipartisan chemical safety bill could hit the Senate floor as soon as June, with weeks of debate expected on amendments to the proposal, Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) told business leaders late last week.
Meanwhile, a competing reform proposal in the House is still taking shape, with sights set on a more targeted rewrite, though environmentalists and public health advocates who are disappointed in provisions of the Senate bill are angling to have language they support in the lower chamber's plan.
Udall -- speaking on a conference call organized by Business Forward, a small business advocacy group -- said he spoke with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) last week about scheduling floor time for S. 697, or the "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act," and that Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and James Inhofe (R-Okla.) intended to meet with the majority leader on the issue soon, as well.
The Toxic Substances Control Act reform bill will "have to get in line behind the things that the majority leader in the Senate is taking a look at," Udall said. "We think that this could be on the floor of the Senate in June, and it could be anywhere from a three-week to a six-week process, because it's a complex bill; other senators will want to offer amendments."
Udall added that he expected leadership to take note of the significance of a rewrite of the nation's chemical safety laws clearing the Environment and Public Works Committee on a broad, 15-5 bipartisan vote.
"I think a tremendous amount of respect will be given" because of that, Udall said.
Aides to McConnell said he has made no decision about when the bill will go to the floor, but if such an extended floor debate did occur, it would be a significant moment for advocacy groups that have worked on chemical safety issues for years. It also could provide a platform for Democratic lawmakers to seek to shame Republicans by forcing them to vote against public health protections -- such as expedited regulatory action on asbestos and programs to help identify cancer clusters, among other issues -- and then cast them as standing up for chemical industry interests if they vote down the proposals.
The bill's debate on the Senate floor could also provide unprecedented visibility for the issue of chemical safety regulation, which polls consistently show the public is largely unaware of (E&E Daily, April 24).
"The Senate floor, it is a bigger stage," said Andy Igrejas, the director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families. "It is an opportunity to shine a light on additional improvements that could or should be made and also on some of the remaining defects in the bill."
At the bill's committee markup last week, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said she had more than two dozen amendments, three of which she put forward that day. All but one received no GOP support, and none of them passed.
"Should this get to the floor, you will hear all of them," Boxer said. Shimkus aims for 'less complicated' bill
Some environment and public health organizations, dismayed that they did not win enough of the changes they sought to the Udall-Vitter plan before it was approved by the Environment and Public Works Committee, also may push House lawmakers in an attempt to shape that proposal into legislation they can support.
House negotiators would have an easier time doing this "because the underlying bill is massively less complicated," Igrejas wrote in a recent blog post of the House proposal.
For one thing, the proposal by Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) does not include a "regulatory void," or a point at which states would be precluded from banning chemicals, even as U.S. EPA was continuing to review a chemical for possible action. Boxer called the gap a "horrific death zone."
At the Senate markup, Vitter explained that although negotiators had agreed on a new waiver process meant to close the regulatory gap, the gap itself wasn't necessarily bad policy. Removing it "could create a rush for states to get to hasty decisions before a federal decision, and potentially do poor work," Vitter said, though others dispute whether this would be realistic.
Under the changes in the Senate bill, states cannot put in place new restrictions beginning when an EPA assessment defines the scope of uses of a chemical, and ending when EPA makes a safety determination. If EPA misses its deadline to make the safety determination, states automatically get a waiver to put their own processes in place. If EPA makes a determination that the chemical is unsafe, it would then propose appropriate federal restrictions on the chemical that would apply to all states.
The changes were enough to win over Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who had previously spoken out about the problem.
All of this is pretty complicated, Shimkus told E&E Daily.
Shimkus said he's a "big fan" of the proposal and wants to see how his own plan plays out. He said he still plans to hold a markup as soon as May 14.
Dismayed by his subcommittee's failure to pass a draft bill, the "Chemicals in Commerce Act," last year amid disagreements with committee Democrats, Shimkus said it made sense to pare down the scope of the bill.
"TSCA's so complicated that once you start tinkering, then you have people ask these questions. 'Well, why this, why that?'" Shimkus said. "Instead of saying, 'Let's help EPA move to identify the risks of chemicals and then let's incentivize them to, based on either their identification or industry.' The whole idea is to get these chemicals identified."
Some of those problems have affected the Senate bill, which has seen disagreements between Republicans, who don't want to burden the industry with too many new regulations, Democrats like Boxer who have rallied to oppose the bill with groups like the Environmental Working Group and the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, and other Democrats like Udall and groups like the Environmental Defense Fund who contend a compromise bill is better than no change to current law.
Shimkus seemed to be "trying to find a more genuinely conservative, small-state conservative approach to addressing a legitimate problem," Igrejas said, "and that has led them down this path of focusing in on what really are the needed fixes in TSCA."
It's not clear that the House bill can be a viable tool to reform TSCA because it does not address as many issues as the Senate proposal, said Richard Denison, a senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, which has advocated in favor of the Udall-Vitter plan.
"To say that that draft fixes even the core problems of TSCA, it doesn't," Denison said. "They pulled that together very quickly; they dealt with some of the issues that they could find some common ground on, but it certainly is not a TSCA reform bill yet."
The two bills are "a little like comparing apples and oranges," American Chemistry Council spokeswoman Ann Kolton said. "However, even in their more targeted approach, the House bill makes changes that address many areas of TSCA that are generally seen to be most in need of reform."
Kolton added that the trade group "will be ready to support efforts in any way we can be helpful to find the right balance between the two bills."
Shimkus said he's been in contact with EPA to gauge their support for legislative provisions, though he said it was sometimes frustrating when the agency didn't make its positions clear.
Ultimately, the fate of the two proposals may be decided at a conference committee, Shimkus added.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Firefighters Decry 'Slow Death' Of Flame Retardant Bill
May 4, 2015 | Minneapolis Star Tribune
By Abby Simons
Firefighters from across the state gathered in the State Capitol hallways Monday to decry the “slow death” of their bill to phase out what they say are cancer-causing flame retardants from household furniture and other goods.
Representatives from the Minnesota Professional Fire Fighters Union went so far as to light a couch aflame last week to demonstrate what they say are the harmful effects of flame retardant chemicals relative to their inefficacy. At a time when cancer accounts for more than half of line-of-duty firefighter deaths nationwide, the union wants Minnesota to follow the suit of three other states that have begun phasing out certain flame retardants by eventually banning their manufacture and sale in Minnesota.
The Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, the American Chemistry Council and the North American Flame Retardant Alliance, who say Minnesota’s proposed ban goes much further than those in other states, and is too broad. Despite sailing through the Senate, the bill has not received a hearing in the House Commerce Committee. Committee Chair Rep. Joe Hoppe, R-Chaska, urged the two sides to come together to strike a deal, but it appears it was unsuccessful, said MPFF President Chris Parsons, a St. Paul Fire captain.
“It didn’t go well,” Parsons said, adding that the firefighters offered up a few concessions, but wouldn’t elaborate. “We asked them to give us their bottom line, what it’ll take to reach a deal, and it was pretty clear to me that they’re content with running out the clock on this bill and not supporting it at all.”
Tony Kwilas, the chamber’s director of environmental policy, confirmed the meeting, but maintained that conversations are still ongoing.
If it doesn’t pass this year, Parsons said it’s unlikely it’ll have success next year, as long as the House remains under Republican leadership. A spokeswoman for House Speaker Kurt Daudt said last week that the bill "continues to work through the process." Parson disagreed.
"I think that the Republican House leadership right now are perfectly happy with just kind of letting this bill die a slow death like many of our colleagues are dying a slow death from cancer that is possibly caused by flame retardants," Parsons said.
Firefighters wore their helmets in the Capitol hallways as they awaited House members arriving for the afternoon session. A young firefighter with bagpipes approached Parsons and explained he was told by a Minnesota State Trooper that he was not allowed to play inside the building.
“We’re gonna play it anyway,” Parsons said.
With Parsons standing in front of him, the firefighter quickly a pair of tunes, the firefighter anthem “Going Home” and “Amazing Grace,” receiving a warning from the trooper before they stopped. It wasn’t worth getting anyone arrested, Parsons said.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Vinyl Floors Often Contain Chemicals Banned In Kids Products
May 4, 2015 | KGW Portland
By Keely Chalmers
You walk, sit, and play on them every day, but your floors could be making you sick. At least that's what some environmental groups are now suggesting after a new study found toxic chemicals in some vinyl flooring.
A recent "60 Minutes" report got a lot of attention after accusing Lumber Liquidators of selling contaminated laminate flooring from China.
But this latest study focuses on a class of chemicals called phthalates, chemicals that have been banned in children's products but could still be right under their feet.
Healthystuff.org recently tested 65 vinyl flooring tiles from several of the major home improvement stores. It found more than half contained phthalates.
Some studies have shown phthalates are linked to learning disabilities, reproductive problems and more.
"Children that grow up in households where there are high levels of phthalates in vinyl flooring can actually develop asthma and it can be an asthma trigger as well," said Jennifer Coleman with the Oregon Environmental Council.
The Environmental watchdog group says you can't see or smell the chemicals, so you don't know if they're in your flooring or if they're coming out of it.
"The particular problem with phthalates is that they don't bond with the material in the flooring, so they're actually released from the flooring all the time -- released both into the air, so they can be inhaled, and into our dust," said Coleman.
The American Chemistry Council maintains vinyl flooring, even with these chemicals, is not dangerous. The group says that "phthalates used in commercial products do not pose a risk to human health at typical exposure levels."
Still if you're in the market for vinyl flooring, The Oregon Environmental Council recommends you ask what's in it before you buy.
Some stores are working to phase out phthalates in their flooring. Home Depot has made a commitment to remove them by the end of this year.
-
May 4, 2015 | Bustle
By Lucia Peters
Bad news for pizza lovers — and coat wearers, and rug owners, and a whole bunch of other folks out there: Pizza boxes may be hurting your health. To be fair, it’s not the boxes themselves; it’s the chemicals in which they’re coated in order to help them stand up to all that grease. The chemicals, called short-chain poly- and perfluroalkyl substances (PFASs for short), are found in a huge variety of products, ranging from the aforementioned pizza boxes, coats, and rugs, to shoes, sleeping bags, electronics, and more. According to a statement recently signed by a whooooole bunch of international health and environmental experts, however, these chemicals have a tendency to stick around — and their effects once they get into your body could potentially be very bad, indeed: They’re associated with increased risk of cancer, obesity, liver malfunction, hyperthyroidism, and more. Uh… yikes.
The statement, officially titled the Madrid Statement, was released on Friday, May 1. It notes that although long-chain PFASs have been phased out or banned since it was determined that they correlate with a whole bunch of nasty health issues, the replacement chemicals — short-chain PFASs — might not be that much better. Reads the statement, “While some shorter-chain fluorinated alternatives seem to be less bioaccumlative, they are still as environmentally persistent as long-chain substances or have persistent degradation products. Thus, a switch to short-chain and other fluorinated alternatives may not reduce the amounts of PFASs in the environment.” Furthermore, it continues, “While many fluorinated alternatives are being marketed, little information is publicly available on their chemical structures, properties, uses, and toxicological profiles.” The fear is that increased use of these alternatives might result in more of them sticking around in the environment, as well as in our bodies, and wreaking havoc on both of them.
Linda S. Birnbaum of the Department of Health and Human noted, “Research is needed to find a safe alternative for all current uses of PFASs” — and, indeed, the statement specifies an approach that would involve scientists, governments, chemical manufacturers, product manufacturers, and consumers all working together together to solve the problem. The idea is for the currently used short-chain PFASs to be replaced by another, safer alternative, for products that contain PFASs to be labeled as such, and for consumers to avoid PFASs as much as possible. But, Birnbaum asked, “The question is, should these chemicals continue to be used in consumer products in the meantime, given their persistence in the environment?”
Not everyone is in agreement with the statement’s conclusions, however. According to Medical Daily, the American Chemistry Council said in response that the scientists “ignored the fact that such chemicals use ‘essential technology for many aspects of modern life,’ and that tests, reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency, concluded that these alternatives were safer than the chemicals they were replacing.” Added Thomas H. Samples, who heads up risk management for the division of DuPont that makes the PFASs in question, “We don’t dismiss the right of folks to debate this. But we just believe based on the 10-year history of extensive studies done on the alternatives, that the regulatory agencies have done their job of determining that these things are safe for their intended uses.”
I would argue that 10 years isn’t actually a heck of a lot of time; there might longer-term effects of short-chain PFASs we haven’t seen yet that further research might uncover. Furthermore, safer doesn’t necessarily mean that there’s still no risk involved. Either way, though, I think the juncture we’re at is this: We need more research to determine whether or not the danger is actually there, or whether we’re being overly cautious. As Cosmo points out, it might be a little difficult to avoid PFASs altogether right now — they’re found in so many things that we probably don’t even know how far-reaching they are. But hey, at least you’ve got a choice when it comes to your cookware; just avoid the non-stick variety and prepare to use a lot of olive oil. And why not start making your own pizza instead of ordering out while you’re at it?
-
May 4, 2015 | HNGN
By Rachel Cruz
A group of international scientists are warning the public about chemicals found in pizza boxes, microwave popcorn bags, cookware, carpet treatments and even outdoor wear because of their possible health hazards. In their "Madrid Statement," which has been published in the journal of Environmental health Perspectives, the scientists identified the chemicals as PFCs, or perfluorinated chemicals, and PFASs or polyfluoroalkyl and perfluoroalkyl.
The chemicals have been found to increase the risk of C8 exposure that is linked to various health problems like thyroid disease, high cholesterol, testicular cancer, pregnancy-induced hypertension, kidney cancer and ulcerative colitis.
"PFASs are found in the indoor and outdoor environments, wildlife, and human tissue and bodily fluids all over the globe," the scientists wrote in their study. "They are emitted via industrial processes and military and firefighting operations, and they migrate out of consumer products into air, household dust, food, soil, ground and surface water, and make their way into drinking water."
The study, which involved more than 200 scientists in 38 countries, was conducted from 2005 to 2013 in communities that were determined to have high exposure to C8. They are urging concerned organizations to set restrictions and convince manufacturers to start eliminating PFASs from their production line.
Previously, PFAS found in Teflon products from DuPont have been phased out because of concerns that the chemicals in its cookware raise cancer risks. However, the danger now lies in the possible replacement chemicals the companies are using.
"The concern really is that we are replacing old chemicals, with new chemicals that have similar structures. We don't want to repeat history again here," said Bill Walker, a co-author of the Madrid Statement. He suggests more research to finding safer alternatives.
There are, however, critics of study, who are calling it hype.
"Regulators around the world have reviewed the data and approved these compounds as being safe for their intended uses," said Janet E. Smith, a spokesperson for DuPont. The company insists it has done extensive studies for the alternatives.
In a separate report from Medical Daily, the American Chemistry Council said that the study "ignored the fact that such chemicals use 'essential technology for many aspects of modern life,' and that tests, reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency, concluded that these alternatives were safer than the chemicals they were replacing." -
May 5, 2015 | Yidaba
By Steve Pak
Some environmental scientists issued a warning on Friday about the chemicals known as PFAS that are contained in several objects such as pizza boxes, carpet treatments, and clothes.
PFAS or Polyflourinated Aalcylated Substances are found in several types of everyday products. These chemicals prevent pizza boxes from getting soggy due to grease.
PFAS are usually used in products because they are very resistant to high temperatures, according to Capital OTC. They also make products stronger and longer-lasting.
The environmental warning was published in the Journal Environmental Health Perspectives. A statement that 200 scientists working in 28 countries signed encouraged PFAS being limited.
DuPont once used a type of PFAS in its Teflon products several years ago, until the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fined the company $16.5 million. The PFAS variety is now banned due to the chemical increasing cancer risks.
In the warning letter, scientists argued that the new replacement PFAS should be researched more, according to USA Today. Linda Birnbaum, a Health and Human Services (HHS) official, said that "safe alternatives" for current PFAS are required. She asked if the consumer products that contain the chemicals should be used until that is achieved.
However, the American Chemistry Council claimed that the warning statement from scientists did not consider that PFAS chemicals use technologies that are critical for several aspects of life in the modern world. (Confusing. Please revise.) It also notes that the EPA's tests verified that new PFAS are safer than the old chemicals that they replaced.
-
EPA Endocrine Managers Prepare New Policy To Outline Shift To New Tests
May 4, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
Leaders of EPA's long-struggling Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) are drafting a policy document that will outline the agency's new, in vitro approach to the program, using these new methods to prioritize chemicals for screening in EDSP and eventually, replacing some of the animal-based assays with the newer cellular methods.
"We're going through a process we call the pivot. We're pivoting from traditional toxicology methods to" newer high-throughput cellular toxicity testing methods, Bill Wooge, with the EDSP program, told members of the agency's state pesticide and agriculture officials advisory committee at a recent meeting in Arlington, VA. "We're working on a policy document that will explain this pivot . . . and impacts it will have."
Wooge described the pivot in part as "a return to using exposure for prioritization." He outlined a process of moving from the universe of an estimated 10,000 chemicals that EDSP's implementing language requires the program to screen for endocrine disruption to using new toxicity tests and biomonitoring data to prioritize chemicals for screening and then running those flagged chemicals through the second tier of animal-based EDSP testing for "dose-response analysis and adversity testing."
EDSP is adopting an approach that the agency's National Center for Computational Toxicology (NCCT) calls Integrated Bioactivity Exposure Ranking (IBER), a combination of high-throughput, cellular bioactivity tests with existing biomonitoring and other exposure data. The short-term goal is to use this information to create a risk-based prioritization approach to determining when chemicals in the universe are screened. In the long term, the goal is to replace the existing first tier of 11 animal-based screening assays with high-throughput cellular assays, Wooge said.
To date, EDSP has screened one list of 52 pesticide ingredient chemicals through the traditional first tier of assays. The agency released a second list of water contaminants for comment in 2010, following congressional prodding, but has yet to finalize this list into test orders. All of the data for first list of chemicals has been submitted for some time, and EDSP staff is reviewing the submissions in weight of evidence evaluations, to determine which should go on to additional testing in any of the four assays included in EDSP Tier 2.
The agency had intended to release these decisions by the end of fiscal year 2014 but failed to meet that deadline, according to FY16 budget documents.
"We're working on consistency checks and will have them out by September," Wooge said at the April 14 meeting. "I do believe that we'll have them out sooner."
Wooge added that the IBER approach has been used to review the chemicals that are on the first and second EDSP lists of chemicals. "Looking at the IBER scores for List 1 and 2, there's not a lot that we would consider higher priority," he said. "Moving to IBER may help us get to chemicals we're actually concerned about."
High-Throughput Methods
Agency research and EDSP officials have touted the high-throughput methods for some time, describing the approach as one that makes it possible to review the thousands of chemicals in the EDSP universe in a finite amount of time by providing better priorities for testing while reducing animal testing and saving money.
An agency source says that staff has "been working really hard" on the pivot policy document since December, adding that the document is a "response to scientific progress presented at" the last Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) meeting Dec. 2-5 in Arlington, VA, where outside experts discussed the agency's proposed shift from screening chemicals on policy-based lists to using computation and in vitro methods to prioritize screening of chemicals based on risk.
The source explains that the new policy document will "incorporate the science into the program as well as extend [the existing] policy . . . I think we have laid out a pretty clear path for three of the 11 [tier 1] assays."
EPA scientists at the last SAP meeting proposed a white paper outlining three potential goals for using their IBER estrogen bioactivity model, including "prioritize chemicals for further EDSP screening and testing based on estimated bioactivity, ii) contribute to the weight of evidence evaluation of a chemical's potential bioactivity, and iii) substitute for specific endpoints in the EDSP Tier 1 battery."
The model uses some 18 estrogen receptor signaling pathway cellular assays. EPA asked SAP whether it could use the model to replace three of the 11 animal-based assays in the original first tier of EDSP. The assays screen for estrogen receptor activity. Modeling relating to the estrogen hormone is much more advanced than for the other two hormone systems that EDSP reviews, androgen and thyroid.
Advisors' Report
In their March 2 report to the agency, the scientific advisors responded, "Overall, the Panel believed that the . . . approach is a computationally time-efficient and intuitive approach to determine the estrogenic bioactivity of a chemical. Its strengths are the use of a combination of assays, its simple and parsimonious mathematical formulation, and its performance on reference chemicals (particularly agonist chemicals). Despite a slighter poorer performance on antagonist chemicals, in general, the . . . model provides good or better results than the three assays that it is intended to replace in the existing Tier 1 screening battery."
The panel does point out some limitations of the proposed modeling approach, which it grouped into computational and generalizability issues. "With respect to computational/inferential limitations, the Panel believed that: (i) efforts should be undertaken to account for uncertainty in the formulation of the statistical model relating receptor signal with assays; and (ii) sensitivity analyses should be conducted to assess how results change under different choices on the model parameters (e.g. the activation threshold or the penalty term in the . . . model)." Regarding the panel's generalizability concerns, the report states, "the Panel acknowledged the possibility that the reference chemicals examined to assess the performance of the . . . model may not cover all the structural classes that are present in the entire EDSP universe of chemicals."
-
Our Toxic Status Quo Doesn’t Protect Us
May 1, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Ruth Marcus
Today’s topic is toxic substances and the appalling gaps in the current law that is supposed to protect the public from dangerous chemicals.
For example, before a new chemical enters the market, the manufacturer must demonstrate its safety and the substance must win approval from federal regulators, right?
Not even close.
When it comes to new medications, the Food and Drug Administration conducts a rigorous review. Same for pesticides and the Environmental Protection Agency. But chemicals — even chemicals used in everyday household products — are presumed safe until proven otherwise. Companies don’t even have to test chemicals before using them in consumer products.
Not only that: The EPA, which is responsible for overseeing chemical safety, is all but toothless even when serious questions are raised about substances already in use. If you think this is hyperbole, consider the example of asbestos, classified as a “known human carcinogen.” It’s banned, right?
Nope.
In 1989, after studying the issue for 10 years and concluding that asbestos posed “an unreasonable risk to human health,” the EPA moved to prohibit most products that contain asbestos. Two years later, it was shot down by a federal appeals court, which concluded that the agency had overstepped its authority.
Since then, the EPA has not proposed regulating a single additional toxic substance. Not a single one, despite the emerging evidence that an alphabet soup of chemical substances — BPA in plastic baby bottles, PFCs in nonstick surfaces for pans, PBDEs in flame retardants for furniture — collect in the human body and are linked to health problems, particularly in children.
The fundamental difficulty, and the reason I’m writing about this topic today, is the ineffectiveness of a 1976 law, the Toxic Substances Control Act, that was supposed to regulate such materials. When the law was passed, some 60,000 chemicals were listed as being in use in household or industrial products. Since then, the EPA has only been able to require testing on just over 200; only five have been banned or even restricted.
When the toxic substances law was passed, the prevalent scientific thinking was that, unlike pharmaceuticals or pesticides that are at risk of being ingested, chemical compounds are not intended to be biologically active and therefore not likely to cause harm. That has turned out to be dangerously incorrect.
“We now know that hundreds of chemicals have properties of concern to human health. And, moreover, we have evidence that we are being exposed to them in ways that we were not decades ago,” said Richard Denison, lead senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund.
Here’s the good news: An astonishing bipartisan coalition of senators, assembled by David Vitter (R-La.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.), is pushing an overhaul of the law, the culmination of a decade-long effort launched by the late senator Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.).
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved it last week by a vote of 15 to 5. When Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) agree on something beyond what to name a post office, that’s an achievement.
The confluence of interests that produced this progress stems from the ramped-up activity of state regulators in the absence of federal oversight, and the chemical industry’s preference for a federal rule rather than patchwork, and potentially more burdensome, state edicts.
But this impetus for action also reflects the biggest disagreement over the proposal — over the degree to which the federal law would preempt state regulation. This dispute has split the environmental movement and spurred the environment panel’s ranking Democrat, Sen. Barbara Boxer (Calif.), not only to vote against the measure in committee but to threaten a filibuster on the floor.
The chemical industry would prefer to have a federal law that entirely preempts state regulation. The compromise worked out by Vitter and Udall would allow existing state protections against hazardous chemicals to remain in place; states would remain free to impose additional regulations unless and until the EPA decided to launch a review.
Not perfect but about as good as it is going to get with a Republican Congress that isn’t disappearing anytime soon. Meanwhile, as with the blowup of climate change legislation in 2009, congressional failure now could mean no action for years.
“The risks are substantial that we will likely lose the best opportunity we’ve had in a generation,” said the defense fund’s Denison. Then, he said, “we go back to a status quo that everybody agrees is a failure.”
And that would be truly appalling.
-
Booker Won Good Changes to a Chemical Safety Bill. It Still Needs More.
May 4, 2015 | The Star-Ledger
The bill to update our nation's chemical safety law has definitely improved, thanks in large part to U.S. Sen. Cory Booker, who sits on the Environment and Public Works committee.
He's been accused of being a showboat, but this should give his skeptics pause. Here, the freshman senator rolled up his sleeves, delved into the policy weeds and won significant changes to an important bill named for the late U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), aimed at better protecting the public from dangerous chemicals.
The current state of law presents a real health threat, leaving untested chemicals in household products like carpets and baby toys that could cause cancer or birth defects. This has been a political stalemate for a generation, and finally, Congress is moving to clean it up with a bipartisan effort.
Yes, the Senate bill still needs improvement -- Booker acknowledges it's far from perfect. The House version, which has its own serious drawbacks, remains better in several key areas that he worked on.
But we hope it can be further amended on the floor. And in the meantime, Booker, along with Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), deserves real credit for fighting to pass a much stronger version through committee than the one pushed by Senators David Vitter (R-LA) and Tom Udall (D-NM), which was far too beholden to the chemical industry.
The recent changes help mitigate the bill's most serious flaws. One concern was a provision that strips states like New Jersey of their authority to act on their own to regulate chemicals, when the federal government has not yet done so. That creates a limbo in which the public is protected by no one.
Booker and his colleagues won good concessions here: A five-year cap on the period of time during which states are frozen, and a waiver that they can apply for, if they want to impose their own regulations.
It would be better if the Senate eliminated this loophole entirely, since no one knows for sure how easy it will actually be to win a waiver. The House version does not have this flaw. But at least for now, the Democratic senators have put safeguards in place to better protect the public.
They also made an important change that allows public health groups to challenge the EPA in court when it decides chemicals are relatively safe without doing a full analysis. That's crucial. We hope the Senate now goes one step further, and prevents the EPA from giving this kind of "hall pass" in the first place. It could be seen as a green light, deterring a state from taking its own action against a chemical that raises concern -- another problem the House draft doesn't have.
The Senate should also fix a provision that could make it harder for EPA to require companies to report new uses of chemicals in products like fabrics or carpets. Yet on the plus side, a change made by Booker and other Democrats allows both EPA and state governments to enforce identical bans on dangerous chemicals, which in effect puts more cops on the beat to lay down the law. The previous version of the Senate bill would have left enforcement entirely up to the under-resourced EPA.
No doubt about it, this is a flawed bill. But Booker was up against tough politics, and deserves kudos for his wins at the negotiation table.
-
Respiratory Sensitizers Can Be Added To REACH Phaseout List, EU Court Says
May 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
A European Union General Court double ruling that chemicals that cause breathing difficulties can be considered “substances of very high concern” (SVHCs) under the EU's REACH law could make it more difficult to predict which substances could be restricted or banned in the bloc, according to experts familiar with the case.
In two judgments April 30, the General Court, the lower court of the EU Court of Justice, ruled that the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) had been correct to add two groups of acid anhydride substances, known collectively as HHPA and MHHPA, to the so-called REACH candidate list, which contains substances considered to be SVHCs.
Hitachi Chemical Europe and two Italian companies, Polynt and Sitre, challenged the ECHA decisions on the basis that the definition of SVHC in REACH (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals) does not cover respiratory sensitizers such as HHPA and MHHPA.
According to REACH, hazardous substances that are carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic (CMR), persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) and very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB) can be listed as SVHCs, a designation that can ultimately lead to the phaseout of the substance in the EU.
REACH also allows substances considered to be of an “equivalent level of concern” to CMR, PBT and vPvB substances to be listed as SVHCs, and it was on this basis that ECHA listed HHPA and MHHPA.
The General Court found that although REACH does not expressly mention respiratory sensitizers as possible substances of equivalent concern, it does not rule them out, and ECHA had been correct to add HHPA and MHHPA to the REACH candidate list.
Ruling ‘Frustrating.'
Claudio Mereu, a partner with Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP in Brussels who acted for the plaintiffs, told Bloomberg BNA May 4 that the “main driver” behind the General Court judgment was “the need to achieve a high level of protection of public health, which justifies wide discretionary powers” for regulators.
This was “obviously frustrating” because it would not lead to “clear and predictable guidelines for those who are subject to the rules,” Mereu said.
The judgments were “a missed opportunity for the court to assist both regulators and companies,” he added.
Hunton & Williams LLP in a briefing on the ruling circulated April 30 said the “concept of SVHCs is loosely defined under REACH,” and the judgments would “open the door for the listing of other classes of hazardous substances in addition to those classified as CMR, PBT and vPvB.”
In the wake of the ruling, “national and European authorities may well seek to increase the number of substances on the candidate list by expanding the categories of substances of equivalent concern,” which “is likely to increase the uncertainty for industry,” Hunton & Williams added.
ECHA Welcomes Judgments
In a statement to Bloomberg BNA May 4, ECHA said it welcomed the rulings.
The rulings “clarify the applicable rules governing the possibility to identify respiratory sensitizers as substances of very high concern,” the agency said.
“The judgments will contribute to clarity and legal certainty of all affected in the future,” ECHA added.
The REACH SVHC list currently contains 161 substances, of which three have been listed because they are respiratory sensitizers.
Decisions have so far been taken to prohibit the use in the EU of 31 of the 161 SVHCs, without specific continued-use authorizations. The three respiratory sensitizers have so far not been made subject to authorization.
Listing of a substance as an SVHC also triggers obligations for companies, such as a requirement to notify ECHA of any imported product that contains an SVHC above 0.1 percent by weight.
-
UN Chemicals Negotiators ‘Very Close’ To Compliance Mechanism Agreement
May 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bryce Baschuk
International chemical negotiators are “very close” to establishing a legal tool that ensures countries fulfill their promises to properly manage harmful substances, Rolph Payet, executive secretary of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm (BRS) conventions, said May 4.
Payet encouraged delegates from more than 180 countries to find consensus on a compliance mechanism to identify when countries fail to meet their obligations of the Stockholm and Rotterdam Conventions.
“You have the opportunity to establish a facilitative mechanism that will serve that common interest,” Payet told attendees at the start of two weeks of meetings at the BRS conference in Geneva. “It will allow the review of general issues of implementation and compliance so these may be addressed, and it will allow individual parties to be provided with the assistance needed to resolve their own compliance issues.”
Payet said it was high time members adopted a compliance mechanism for all three of the conventions, rather than just the Basel convention. “A stool with two legs cannot work,” he said. “We need a stool with all three legs.”
The Stockholm Convention bans the production, use and trade of certain persistent organic pollutants; the Rotterdam Convention requires countries to verify their trading partners' consent to receive restricted chemical exports; The Basel Convention governs the transboundary movement and disposal of hazardous waste.
“You are very close to an agreement, perhaps closer than you may think,” Payet told BRS members. “I think that the remaining brackets can be lifted and a decision can be reached in the coming two weeks.”
Three Hurdles Remain
There are three specific challenges to deciding on an agreement on a compliance mechanism for the Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions, Payet said during a May 4 press conference.
The first is the so-called trigger, which would indicate when a country was not in compliance with the terms of the Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions. Following recent meetings with stakeholders, Payet said members are “flexible and willing to discuss and achieve consensus” on establishing a trigger.
The second hurdle is the question of how a compliance mechanism should be funded and implemented. Payet said he has seen “clear progress” on this issue and expects member countries and nongovernmental organizations to commit financial and technical support for compliance.
Finally, members are willing to consider consequences for their noncompliance with the Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions, according to Payet. “No country wants to be singled out,” he said. “They will sit down and agree on what constitutes, not a penalty, but a consequence of admitting noncompliance.”
E-Waste Guidelines
The joint conference of parties also presents members with a prime opportunity to adopt guidelines to stem the growth of electronic waste, Payet said.
Members of the Basel Convention are considering new rules to distinguish between hazardous and non-hazardous e-waste, provide guidance on the transboundary movements of e-waste, and offer e-waste inspection guidelines for enforcement officials.
Their goal is to curb the proliferation of the fastest growing waste stream on the planet and prevent e-waste from being dumped in landfills, where their toxic components leak into the environment.
In 2014, people worldwide discarded 41.8 million metric tons of electrical and electronic products, according to Payet. “This is comparable to 1.15 million 40-ton, 18-wheel trucks. Enough to form a line of trucks 23,000 kilometers long, and that's more than the distance between Geneva and the South Pole,” he said.
“Against these statistics is the sobering reality that less than one-sixth of last year's e-waste is thought to have been diverted to proper recycling and reuse,” Payet added.
BRS parties will continue their discussions in a range of meeting formats from May 4–15.
-
EU Wants Industrialized Countries to Include Hydrofluorocarbons Under Montreal Protocol
May 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
Industrialized countries should largely phase out the production and consumption of hydrofluorocarbon refrigerant gases (HFCs) by 2035 as part of international efforts to mitigate global warming, according to a European Union proposal to amend the Montreal Protocol.
Under the EU plan, published April 30, developed countries would agree to cut their average HFC production/consumption by 2035 to 15 percent of a baseline calculated as average HFC production and consumption from 2009 to 2012, plus 45 percent of their average hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) production/consumption during those years.
The 1987 Montreal Protocol sets out to protect the ozone layer by phasing out chlorofluorocarbons, which deplete the ozone layer. Chlorofluorocarbons have to a great extent been replaced as refrigerants by HFCs which, while not ozone-depleting, have global warming potential between 140 and 11,700 times that of carbon dioxide.
EU Commissioner for Climate Action and Energy Miguel Arias Cañete said in a statement April 30 that “we owe it to future generations to agree on a global HFC phase-down without delay.”
Doing so would “send an important signal ahead of the international climate negotiations in Paris later this year,” Cañete said.
Developing Country Goals
Alongside the goal for developed countries, the EU proposal said developing and emerging countries should work against a baseline of their average HFC production and consumption from 2009 to 2012, plus 70 percent of their average hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) production/consumption during those years.
Developing countries would limit their production and consumption of HFCs to 100 percent of this level in 2019 and reduce production/consumption to 15 percent of the baseline by 2040, according to the EU proposal.
The EU proposed interim targets for developed countries of 60 percent by 2023 and 30 percent by 2028, but no interim targets for developing countries.
The baseline calculation would be based on the “combined climate impacts of HCFC and HFC consumption,” the EU proposal said.
HCFCs also are subject to phase-down requirements under the Montreal Protocol.
Clare Perry of advocacy group the Environmental Investigation Agency told Bloomberg BNA May 4 that the “EU proposal adds a new voice to the groundswell of support for action on HFCs under the Montreal Protocol.”
The EU's proposal is the fourth to suggest amending the Montreal Protocol to cover HFCs, following a joint proposal from Canada, Mexico and the U.S., and proposals from India and Pacific island nations, Perry said.
For developing countries, the EU proposal “allows more flexibility and more time to negotiate mandatory HFC consumption cuts, so it could be that this will help bring more developing countries to the table,” which could help overcome obstacles to the inclusion of HFCs in the Montreal Protocol, Perry said.
She added that the four HFC proposals “cover a wide range of views, which should allow for rich discussions” at the 36th meeting of the Montreal Protocol Open-Ended Working Group in Paris July 20–24.
-
Texas Moves To Tighten State’s Ammonium Nitrate Storage Requirements
May 4, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Glenn Hess
The Texas Legislature appears to be headed toward passage of the first legislation to tighten the state’s regulation of ammonium nitrate since a massive and deadly explosion at a fertilizer storage facility near Waco two years ago.
The Texas House of Representatives gave preliminary approval on May 1 to legislation (H.B. 942) that would strengthen rules for storing ammonium nitrate, a compound that farmers use as fertilizer. It is considered safe when stored properly but can explode at high temperatures or when it reacts with other substances.
The bill is sponsored by Rep. Kyle Kacal, a Republican whose district includes the town of West, where the blast on April 17, 2013, killed 15 and injured more than 200. Investigators determined that ammonium nitrate detonated after a fire at the West Fertilizer Co. engulfed a warehouse that stored approximately 30 tons of the chemical in wooden bins.
The legislation would give local fire marshals the authority to inspect facilities and order owners to make changes if any dangerous conditions are found that could cause a fire or explosion. The proposal would require that ammonium nitrate be stored at least 30 feet away from combustible materials.
In addition, the bill would require that facilities report the storage of hazardous chemicals to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, which would make this information available to the public.
Before it becomes law, the measure must get a final vote in the House, go to the state Senate for consideration, and be sent to Gov. Greg Abbott (R) for his signature. The Texas Legislature, which meets for only 140 days every two years, is scheduled to adjourn on June 1.
“With a month still left in session, there’s plenty of time to make it to final passage,” says Luke Metzger, director of Environment Texas, an advocacy organization. “As long as there isn’t some new industry opposition, I’m optimistic that it will ultimately become law in Texas.”
Kacal’s bill is mirrored in Senate legislation authored by state Sen. Brian Birdwell, a Republican who also represents the town of West.
Several other state legislative proposals—including one that would require companies storing ammonium nitrate to carry liability insurance—have stalled because of concerns raised by agribusiness.
-
Fracking Chemicals Detected in Pennsylvania Drinking Water
May 4, 2015 | The New York Times
By Nicholas St. Fleur
An analysis of drinking water sampled from three homes in Bradford County, Pa., revealed traces of a compound commonly found in Marcellus Shale drilling fluids, according to a study published on Monday.
The paper, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, addresses a longstanding question about potential risks to underground drinking water from the drilling technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. The authors suggested a chain of events by which the drilling chemical ended up in a homeowner’s water supply.
“This is the first case published with a complete story showing organic compounds attributed to shale gas development found in a homeowner’s well,” said Susan Brantley, one of the study’s authors and a geoscientist from Pennsylvania State University. Continue reading the main story Related Coverage Pennsylvania’s Auditor General Faults Oversight of Natural Gas IndustryJULY 23, 2014 Well Leaks, Not Fracking, Are Linked to Fouled WaterSEPT. 15, 2014 The Fracturing of PennsylvaniaNOV. 17, 2011
The industry has long maintained that because fracking occurs thousands of feet below drinking-water aquifers, the drilling chemicals that are injected to break up rocks and release the gas trapped there pose no risk. In this study, the researchers note that the contamination may have stemmed from a lack of integrity in the drill wells and not from the actual fracking process far below. The industry criticized the new study, saying that it provided no proof that the chemical came from a nearby well.
In 2012, a team of environmental scientists collected drinking water samples from the households’ outdoor spigots. An analysis showed that the water in one household contained 2-Butoxyethanol or 2BE, a common drilling chemical. The chemical, which is also commonly used in paint and cosmetics, is known to have caused tumors in rodents, though scientists have not determined if those carcinogenic properties translate to humans. The authors said the amount found, which was measured in parts per trillion, was within safety regulations and did not pose a health risk.
Dr. Brantley said her team believed that the well contaminants came from either a documented surface tank leak in 2009 or, more likely, as a result of poor drilling well integrity.
The nearby gas wells, which were established in 2009, were constructed with a protective intermediate casing of steel and cement from the surface down to almost 1,000 feet. But the wells below that depth lacked the protective casing, and were potentially at greater risk of leaking their contents into the surrounding rock layers, according to Dr. Brantley.
In April 2011 the three homeowners in Bradford County sued the drilling company, Chesapeake Energy Corporation, over reports of finding natural gas and sediment in their drinking well water. In May of that year, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection cited the oil and gas company for violating the Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Act and Clean Streams Law by letting natural gas enter the drinking wells, though the company admitted no fault. In 2012, the homeowners settled the lawsuit and the company bought the three households.
As a result of that suit, the state environmental protection agency recommended that the drilling company require that their wells extend what are known as intermediate casings beyond 1,000 feet.Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story
Dr. Brantley described the geology in northern Pennsylvania as being similar to a layer cake with numerous layers that extend down thousands of feet to the Marcellus Shale. The vertical fractures are like knife cuts through the layers. They can extend deep underground, and can act like superhighways for escaped gas and liquids from drill wells to travel along, for distances greater than a mile away, she said.
Katie Brown, an energy consultant with Energy in Depth, an advocacy group for the Independent Petroleum Association of America, said the authors had no evidence that the small traces they found of 2BE, which is also used in many household items, came from a drilling site.
“The entire case is based around the detection of an exceedingly small amount of a compound that’s commonly used in hundreds of household products,” Ms. Brown wrote in an email. “The researchers suggest the compound is also found in a specific drilling fluid, but then tell us they have no evidence that this fluid was used at the well site.”
Garth T. Llewellyn, a hydrogeologist with Appalachia Hydrogeologic and Environmental Consulting and the lead author of the report, said that when his team sampled water wells that were farther away from the drilling sites, they did not find any of the compounds found in the three households. “When you include all of the lines of evidence, it concludes that that’s the most probable source,” he said.
Victor Heilweil, a hydrogeologist from the University of Utah who was not involved with the study but reviewed its details, said it was noteworthy for showing “the detailed geologic fabric explaining how these contaminants can move relatively long distances from the depth to the drinking well.”
An environmental scientist from Stanford University, Rob Jackson, who also reviewed the paper, said it “clearly shows an impact of oil and gas drilling on water quality.” But he emphasized that this instance was an exception.
The dates of the incident were not surprising to Scott Anderson, a senior policy analyst with the environmental advocacy group Environmental Defense Fund, who said that well integrity was generally poor around 2008 and 2009. He said that using casings of steel and cement at depths below 1,000 feet was a good idea in this region. But he also noted that the industry has strengthened its practices since then, including increased use of intermediate casings.
“Industry knows how to construct wells properly, but the fact is that they don’t always do so,” Mr. Anderson said. “My hope would be that papers like this will encourage industry and its regulators to do a better job of doing what they already know they are supposed to do.”
-
Marcellus Shale Extraction Fluids Discovered in 3 Water Samples
May 4, 2015 | Bloomberg
By Justin Doom
Chemical compounds used to extract natural gas were found in three water samples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale region, according to a study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The contamination occurred at three Bradford County households whose owners settled a lawsuit with Chesapeake Energy Corp. in 2012 after natural gas polluted their well water. The additional chemicals may have mixed with groundwater after a pit leak from a conventional well or when nearby drilling drove them toward the aquifer, according to the study.
“We’re not claiming that it’s from hydraulic fracturing,” Garth Llewellyn, a hydrogeologist at Appalachia Hydrogeologic & Environmental Consulting LLC, and the study’s lead author, said in a telephone interview Monday. “We’re not trying to make assertions where we shouldn’t be. We’re looking at all the possibilities.”
In hydraulic fracturing, water and chemicals are blasted into rock formations to extract oil and gas. Drillers, which last month decried the first U.S. regulations for fracking on federal land, have argued the practice is safe and, along with conventional gas extraction, doesn’t jeopardize groundwater supplies.
The contaminants in the water samples, including the chemical compound 2-Butoxyethanol, or 2-BE, were found in quantities that didn’t pose immediate health risks, Llewellyn said. Additional research is needed to determine exactly which chemicals were present and in what quantities they’re harmful.
“I really don’t care if it’s fracking or if it’s just drilling fluid -- if it’s hazardous, it’s hazardous to your health,” Llewellyn said. “That’s really what we’re trying to emphasize and make sure the general public understands -- to stop thinking just about hydraulic fracturing and more about the overall process of oil and gas development.”
-
May 4, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Juliet Chung And David Benoit
Chemical compounds used to extract natural gas were found in three water samples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale region, according to a study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The contamination occurred at three Bradford County households whose owners settled a lawsuit with Chesapeake Energy Corp. in 2012 after natural gas polluted their well water. The additional chemicals may have mixed with groundwater after a pit leak from a conventional well or when nearby drilling drove them toward the aquifer, according to the study.
“We’re not claiming that it’s from hydraulic fracturing,” Garth Llewellyn, a hydrogeologist at Appalachia Hydrogeologic & Environmental Consulting LLC, and the study’s lead author, said in a telephone interview Monday. “We’re not trying to make assertions where we shouldn’t be. We’re looking at all the possibilities.”
In hydraulic fracturing, water and chemicals are blasted into rock formations to extract oil and gas. Drillers, which last month decried the first U.S. regulations for fracking on federal land, have argued the practice is safe and, along with conventional gas extraction, doesn’t jeopardize groundwater supplies.
The contaminants in the water samples, including the chemical compound 2-Butoxyethanol, or 2-BE, were found in quantities that didn’t pose immediate health risks, Llewellyn said. Additional research is needed to determine exactly which chemicals were present and in what quantities they’re harmful.
“I really don’t care if it’s fracking or if it’s just drilling fluid -- if it’s hazardous, it’s hazardous to your health,” Llewellyn said. “That’s really what we’re trying to emphasize and make sure the general public understands -- to stop thinking just about hydraulic fracturing and more about the overall process of oil and gas development.”
-
Shale Oil Drillers Plunge After Einhorn Slams Fracking Costs
May 4, 2015 | Bloomberg
By Joe Carroll and Kelly Gilblom
Money manager David Einhorn slammed the shale drilling industry that ushered in a new era of U.S. oil production as wasteful, expensive and a terrible investment.
Shale explorers including Pioneer Natural Resources Co. and EOG Resources Inc. plunged as investors heeded Einhorn’s remarks at the Sohn Investment Conference in New York on Monday.
Einhorn, who manages $12 billion as president of Greenlight Capital, said investors who are bullish on oil prices should avoid buying stock in producers and instead invest in the commodity itself. He singled out Irving, Texas-based Pioneer for special attention.
“Pioneer burns cash and isn’t growing,” said the 46-year-old Einhorn. “Why is the market paying $27 billion for this company?”
Pioneer fell as much as 5.3 percent for the biggest intraday decline since Feb. 11. EOG had been up as much as 2.5 percent before Einhorn’s comments triggered a sell-off that wiped out most of Monday’s gains. Both companies recovered some of those declines later: Pioneer closed 1.9 percent lower at $168.33, and EOG was up 0.5 percent.
Tadd Owens, a spokesman for Pioneer, didn’t immediately respond to a voicemail seeking comment. EOG spokeswoman K. Leonard also didn’t immediately respond.
On Monday, Einhorn also singled out Concho Resources Inc., Whiting Petroleum Corp. and Continental Resources Inc. as examples of shale explorers that spend too much and generate too little cash. A Concho spokeswoman said she wasn’t immediately able to comment; spokespersons for Whiting and Continental didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment. Mixed Record
Shale explorers revolutionized North American oil and natural gas production with sideways drilling and hydraulic fracturing techniques honed in Texas, Oklahoma and North Dakota. As a result, U.S. crude output almost doubled in the past eight years to more than 9.3 million barrels a day, more than every member of OPEC except Saudi Arabia.
Einhorn has a long history of betting against companies within his New York-based hedge fund firm. He’s also a frequent speaker at the annual Sohn conference where he explains his rationale. The strategy has had mixed success.
In May 2008, he told investors they should bet against Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. because it needed more capital to recover from credit-market losses. Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy that September.
At the Sohn conference last year, Einhorn said he was betting software company Athenahealth Inc. could fall as much as 80 percent. The prediction has yet to come true: the Watertown, Massachusetts-based company has fallen 7.6 percent since Einhorn’s pronouncement and was never down more than 16 percent during the intervening 12 months.
In 2014, he also criticized “cool kid” companies in the technology sector that he faulted for using buzz words in their financial documents to lure venture capital.
-
Fracking: Jerry Brown's Environmental Blind Spot
May 4, 2015 | LA Times
By Bill McKibben
Gov. Jerry Brown may prove to be the greenest government official in American history — emphasis on "may."
His announcement last week that California would up its target for reducing carbon emissions — to 40% by 2030 — puts him at the head of the pack among governors (admittedly, not a very high bar). His dramatic drive for climate progress has helped catalyze the state's economy, which in turn will make the reductions easier. Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk's announcement that he's now in the home battery business shows how well this symbiosis is working to grow the state's economy even as it shrinks its carbon footprint.
But Brown continues to support fracking in the state's oil patch, and oil production increases. And that's a problem. It doesn't matter if everyone in California someday drives a Tesla. That oil will get shipped somewhere, and when it's burned, it will push global warming yet higher. It's as if the governor banned smoking in California but turned the Central Valley over to growing tobacco. And given the physics of climate change, secondhand carbon smoke is as damaging as burning it yourself.
That means Brown's legacy is double-edged: visionary on one side but status quo on the other.
And even worse, fracking in a time of drought is a remarkable obscenity. The process uses a tremendous amount of water. Trucks line up on rural roads in Kern County, not to deliver water to those communities where wells have run dry but to deliver it to drillers who inject it underground. What they bring back up is polluted wastewater.
Apologists for the oil industry argue that it uses less water to frack than agriculture uses to grow food. That may be true, but when you eat an almond, you are not making the drought worse. And the water used in fracking is bringing up more of the oil that is raising the Earth's temperature. In a state where many people are limiting their toilet flushes and some are doing without showers, it's disgusting to waste millions of gallons of water this way.
It's not as if the oil is creating prosperity for most of the people in Kern County, either. As activist and former state Sen. Tom Hayden recently cited, it's among the poorest parts of the state, with 22% of the population living below the poverty line, 69% of them within a mile of an oil well. The region has one of the highest cancer rates in the country, according to one community hospital.
Across the nation, other governors have stood up to the oil and gas industry and decided their states were better off without fracking. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has never been accused of being visionary, but he stood up to the fossil fuel companies and banned fracking last year, heeding scientists' warnings about air and water pollution. Gov. Jerry Brown's fracking problem
Jerry Brown was for solar power before most people in the country knew what it was. He can cite chapter and verse about carbon and its effect on the planet. He has been noble in his efforts to help alert the world, long before Al Gore or any of the rest of us.
But his willingness to let oil companies have their way on fracking is a serious blind spot. Given the severity of the drought, Brown has all the room he needs to say no more fracking. Let's hope he does — for the sake of the atmosphere, the people of Kern County and what should be an unblemished legacy.
-
Colorado Governor Joins Voices Calling For Full Repeal of Crude Export Oil Ban
May 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) asked the Commerce Department to support a “full legislative repeal” of the crude oil export ban.
In an April 30 letter to Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker, Hickenlooper said lifting the ban was among many “significant economic issues” facing the energy market. He said many states are facing a downturn in oil and gas drilling, “which is leading to job losses, slower economic growth and a decline in tax revenue.”
Ending the ban would increase U.S. gross domestic product by as much as $800 billion to $1.8 trillion through 2039, supporting between 359,000 and 964,000 jobs annually between 2016 and 2018, he said, citing Brookings Institute projections.
Hickenlooper said he was grateful for Pritzker's decision earlier in the year under the Bureau of Industry and Security with regard to classification of oil condensate as a petroleum product (01 DEN A-4, 1/2/15).
Ending the ban on crude oil exports “is the next logical step to ensuring that domestic producers continue to invest and that energy consumers benefit,” he said.
Hickenlooper is believed to be the first Democratic governor to call for lifting the ban. It shows this “is not a partisan issue but a business issue,” Stan Dempsey, president of the Colorado Petroleum Association, told Bloomberg BNA May 4.
“This issue has become a priority for CEOs of majors and independents,” he said.
-
Washington: Mayor Blocks Drilling Fleet
May 4, 2015 | AP (in The New York Times)
The Port of Seattle cannot host Royal Dutch Shell’s offshore Arctic oil-drilling fleet unless it gets a new land-use permit, Mayor Ed Murray said Monday. Shell has been planning to base its fleet, including a drill rig and two tugboats, at the port’s Terminal 5 for six months each year, when it is not being used in the Arctic. Environmentalists have already sued over the plan, saying the port broke state law in February when it signed a two-year lease with Foss Maritime, of which Shell is a client. Mr. Murray said city planners had found that a drilling fleet would violate the port’s land-use permit. A Shell spokesman said it was reviewing the city’s interpretation. -
Oil Trade Groups Urge EPA Not To Exceed Current 'Blend Wall'
May 4, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Peterka
Oil trade groups are asking U.S. EPA to recognize the "blend wall" in its forthcoming proposal setting renewable fuel requirements for 2014 and beyond.
In a letter, the American Petroleum Institute and American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers asked EPA to hold strong to the approach the agency took in its controversial proposal in late 2013 to roll back renewable fuel requirements for refiners.
"EPA must recognize that exceeding the ethanol blend wall could restrict the availability of domestic transportation fuels," the oil trade groups wrote.
The 2007 renewable fuel standard mandated that refiners use increasing amounts of renewable fuels, including advanced biofuels, each year in petroleum gasoline and diesel. Congress, however, gave EPA certain authorities to waive the annual mandates.
In its proposal in 2013, which would have set the mandates for 2014, EPA proposed to ratchet down the requirements for conventional ethanol for the first time based on "inadequate domestic supply," arguing that expansion of more ethanol was not possible due to the infrastructure and market limitations known as the blend wall.
It also proposed to lower the targets for advanced biofuels on the grounds that the domestic advanced biofuels industry had developed more slowly than expected.
EPA ultimately withdrew the rule after receiving thousands of comments, many from the biofuels industry that questioned the legality of its approach. The legal questions centered on whether the agency could use its authority to waive the mandates based on inadequate supply because of distribution issues with ethanol.
In their letter, API and AFPM reiterated their support for EPA's approach in the withdrawn rule.
"It is appropriate and necessary for EPA to utilize the waiver authority to protect consumers and the U.S. economy," the groups wrote.
They added that the market has reached the 10 percent blend wall, "the maximum amount of ethanol that can safely be blended without posing risks to the vehicle fleet, refueling infrastructure and vehicle warranties."
The oil groups also argued that E15 -- gasoline containing 15 percent ethanol -- and flex-fuel vehicle technology would not significantly expand the amount of ethanol in the marketplace.
API and AFPM also called on EPA to hold refiners' biodiesel requirement steady at 2013 levels and to waive the RFS requirements for cellulosic biofuel, an advanced biofuel made from non-food plants.
"There is little risk in erring on the low side when setting the renewable fuel volumes, but substantial risk in setting them too high," the groups wrote to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy.
Friday's letter comes after API and AFPM settled with EPA over the timing of the release of the RFS proposal. Under the court agreement, EPA would be required to issue a proposed rule setting both the 2014 and 2015 renewable fuel requirements by June 1 and finalize the rule by Nov. 30; the agency has said it would follow the same timeline for the 2016 mandates.
API and AFPM also sent the letter to all members of the Senate. In late April, 37 senators wrote a letter to EPA insisting that the agency set higher biofuel mandates that reflect the levels Congress intended when it wrote the renewable fuel standard into law in 2007 (E&E Daily, April 24).
Biofuel groups have argued that the 10 percent blend wall is fictional and have pushed back against oil industry concerns about adding more ethanol to gasoline.
They've also called on EPA to issue robust targets for both conventional ethanol and advanced biofuels, and to abandon the methodology that the agency used in its scrapped proposal. Biofuel groups had hinted they would have sued the agency if the 2014 proposal had been finalized.
A rollback would have especially hurt advanced biofuel producers, which are counting on the investment dollars that a stable RFS would bring, according to biofuel groups.
The "proposal changes how the RFS works at a fundamental level," advanced biofuel producers last year wrote to President Obama, and would "effectively undercut advanced biofuel projects under development."
EPA has already said that it would base its 2014 mandates on the amount of renewable fuel that was actually produced in the market.
At a recent ethanol industry conference, a top EPA official said that the agency was still wrestling with how to address the blend wall in the forthcoming rule (Greenwire, Feb. 20).
-
Big Data Has Big Potential in Energy
May 4, 2015 | The Houston Chronicle
By Collin Eaton
Drilling offshore requires big equipment, so it only makes sense for companies to benefit from Big Data.
Talk of new ways to harness data was among the key topics of discussion Monday as the Offshore Technology Conference kicked off.
Smart sensors and Big Data analytics could help oil companies extract an additional 80 billion barrels of oil around the world, about three years' worth of global crude supplies, GE executives said.
"The size of the prize is really big," Ashley Haynes-Gaspar, general manager in the software arm at GE Measurement & Control, said during a luncheon.
Over the past three years alone, GE has invested $1 billion in a software center in California dedicated to advancing the "industrial Internet," which is the combination of GE's capabilities in data analytics and its understanding of how equipment is used, which can be translated into physical models.
Many in the energy industry have far to go in adopting Big Data. For example, one independent producer had 40 computer systems collecting data from 4 million streams before GE pared it down to one system.
Still, the nine-month slide in crude prices has spurred more conversations between GE and its customers about how to use analytics to pare energy costs and boost production. Oil companies have "been at the table telling us what we need to build, and we've been running those in 60- to 90-day spreads."
The industrial Internet mirrors a broader effort at GE to bring in technologies from different parts of its industrial conglomerate - aviation, health care - to the oil and gas business and other divisions.
For example, GE's new 20K blowout preventers, capable of surviving higher pressures and temperatures than most oil field equipment are a cross-section of modified parts from other GE units.
The blowout preventer has control systems originally designed for power plants and wind energy technology; sensors from an acquired firm that allows GE to listen for leaks in the emergency valve; and even X-ray technology from GE's health division, said Eric Gebhardt, chief technology officer for GE Oil & Gas.
If industry really wants to learn how to wrangle terabytes of oil field data surging through fiber optic cables from the Eagle Ford Shale to Azerbaijan, it will have to harness the powers of Silicon Valley and academia, a BP executive said during an OTC talk.
"We're going to have to be a lot more collaborative," said James Dupree, BP's chief operating officer of resource development and technology. "We can continue to build things better, stronger and that pump harder, but eventually we're going to have to get smarter."
Thirty percent of the British oil giant's research and development spending has chased "big leap" technological advances in seismic imaging, enhanced oil recovery, blowout preventers and subsea equipment that can withstand high pressures and temperatures, and what it calls "digital rocks."
Dupree said BP's supercomputing facility in Houston can calculate the permeability of a rock-core structure with just chips of rocks, not core samples. That information can tell BP what kinds of materials it needs to buy for subsea equipment in that region. Data like that is increasing dramatically.
At the same time, he said, that data is becoming more burdensome, as oil producers are deploying more and more autonomous nodes to the bottom of the ocean to collect and transmit oil field data to drilling rig operators.
"We've seen a new rig design where the driller has 11 screens in front of him," he said. "A human can't take on that much data. We've been experimenting with how potentially to get some analytics on that data through physics-based models and then get that data to the human being so they can make better decisions."
Still, the industry can't afford to wait through decade-long cycles to develop new technologies as it has in the past. The advent of U.S. shale plays, for instance, has forced the industry to learn faster. But developing the next generation of oil field technology is going to take much more collaboration with outsiders in Silicon Valley like Amazon and Google and cloud-computing companies, Dupree said.
He said he and his colleagues spend a lot more time now talking to academics and people in other industries, but he has found "they don't understand our business very well at all."
"It's very painful to sit through days and days of potential proposals to try and find one or two that actually match up," he said. "There's a massive amount of high-quality information and technology out there that's going to be very difficult but worthwhile to pull into our industry."
-
3,500 Deaths Annually Could Be Prevented By EPA Clean Power Plan, Researchers Say
May 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Carbon dioxide emissions limits on power plants could prevent as many as 3,500 premature deaths annually by 2020, researchers said in a paper released May 4.
But how the Environmental Protection Agency chooses to structure its proposed Clean Power Plan and how the rule would be implemented by state officials could have a great impact on the health benefits achieved, researchers said in the paper Clean Air and Health Co-benefits of U.S. Power Plant Carbon Standards, published in the journal Nature Climate Change.
Researchers from Syracuse University, Harvard University, Boston University, Resources for the Future and Sonoma technology modeled three scenarios for reducing carbon dioxide emissions at the 2,417 power plants in the U.S. with the one most analogous to the EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan producing the greatest public health benefits from reductions in nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide, which can contribute to the formation of ozone and fine particulate matter.
The proposed Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33), expected to become final this summer, would set carbon dioxide emissions rates for existing power plants in each state. State regulators would develop their own plans to achieve that emissions rate. The proposed rule would provide state regulators with four “building blocks” to achieve those emissions reductions—heat rate improvements at the existing power plants, greater use of natural gas-fired capacity, investment in new renewable energy sources and energy efficiency programs.
The scenario modeled by researchers that most resembled the EPA's proposed rule would reduce nitrogen oxides by 22 percent by 2020 and sulfur dioxide by 27 percent, which is slightly more than the 25 percent drop in each pollutant predicted by the EPA.
Researchers said the greatest health gains would be experienced in Eastern states as well as in the Ohio River Valley.
Fewer Benefits in Other Scenarios
Researchers modeled two other scenarios for reducing carbon dioxide emissions as well.
“However, if the final proposal is scaled back to include improvements only in the operation of existing coal plants, important reductions in soot and smog will not occur, and the United States will not experience air quality and health benefits. In fact, soot and smog could increase in some regions under a weak carbon standard,” Dallas Burtraw, a senior fellow at Resources for the Future who participated in the study, said in a May 4 blog post on the analysis.
One modeled scenario focused entirely on heat rate improvements at the power plants themselves while the second would require power plants to make all carbon dioxide emissions reductions that would be economically feasible at a social cost of carbon of $43 per ton. While applying the social cost of carbon would prevent 3,200 deaths annually by 2020, applying only heat-rate improvements to the existing power plants would actually increase concentrations of fine particulate matter and ozone, causing an additional 10 premature deaths annually. Total emissions from those plants would actually increase as the improved emissions controls would allow them to operate longer.
-
Reg Reform Markup Highlights Potential Wider Involvement In Energy Bill
May 5, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Nick Juliano
A Senate committee tomorrow plans to mark up a bipartisan bill meant to streamline a federal permitting process that developers say can delay oil and gas pipelines, renewable energy installations and an array of other types of infrastructure.
Addressing permitting and siting delays is one of Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski's top priorities as she begins to piece together a comprehensive, bipartisan energy bill. However, tomorrow's markup will not be held by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which Murkowski chairs, but by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which has jurisdiction over governmental operations and regulatory reform issues.
The Governmental Affairs markup agenda includes S. 280, the "Federal Permitting Improvement Act," sponsored by Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.). The bill would create an interagency council to serve as a one-stop shop for major infrastructure projects that require federal permits, setting deadlines and establishing best practices for permitting reviews. An earlier markup was delayed to allow sponsors to work with the Obama administration to tweak the bill, a move expected to pick up at least one more Democratic backer in Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee's ranking member (E&E Daily, March 5).
Murkowski has repeatedly said that addressing permitting and siting delays to energy development would be a top priority for her bill, and she has asked Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz for suggestions on how to speed infrastructure development.
The energy bill process is relatively young, and it is still too early to say whether Murkowski and ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) would be able to deliver a bipartisan bill out of their own committee, let alone whether such a package could make it through both chambers of Congress and win the president's signature. But other committees likely would play a role in vetting proposals that could become part of an eventual package if an energy bill gets floor time in either chamber later this year.
"We defend our jurisdiction and try to pay same respect to other committees," ENR Committee spokesman Robert Dillon said yesterday.
While staffers on various committees often coordinate on matters that touch areas of bordering or overlapping jurisdiction, it is too soon to say how extensively other panels may be involved as an energy bill takes shape over the next month or so, aides on both sides of the aisle said yesterday. The most likely venue would be on the Senate floor, where legislation from other committees -- such as the Portman-McCaskill bill -- could be offered as an amendment or incorporated in a managers' package of changes to an energy bill.
Assembling an energy bill will force Murkowski and Cantwell to seek common ground at the expense of some ideas most cherished by each party's base. That means the final package likely will not allow for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or seek to eliminate the Clean Power Plan, as some Republicans would like, nor would it likely implement a nationwide renewable energy standard or carbon tax that some Democrats would prefer.
With bipartisan buy-in a likely prerequisite for inclusion in the energy bill, ideas like the Portman-McCaskill bill are getting more attention. In addition to McCaskill, the permitting bill is co-sponsored by Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Joe Donnelly of Indiana, along with Maine independent Sen. Angus King, who caucuses with the minority party. Assuming Carper backs the bill, it would need just one more Democrat to clear the 60-vote procedural hurdle necessary to get virtually anything through the Senate.
"We might just have a miracle here," McCaskill told Bloomberg-BNA last week. "We might have Republicans, Democrats, and the White House agree on something, and that would be extraordinary."
A Portman aide said the sponsors "are interested in any vehicle that would get permitting through the Senate and to the president's desk."
Other panels that could be brought into the process include the committees on Banking, which has jurisdiction over exports of commodities, including potentially oil and natural gas; Commerce, Science and Transportation, which has jurisdiction over crude oil shipments by rail among other issues; Finance, which oversees dozens of incentives for various sources of energy inserted into the tax code; and Environment and Public Works, whose portfolio includes the suite of U.S. EPA climate change, air and water rules that are reshaping the energy industry.
Murkowski has a strong interest in lifting the 40-year-old ban on crude oil exports and recently said she would be introducing legislation soon, although she would likely draft such a bill to ensure it was referred to her committee. Chances for the export ban to be addressed in a broad energy bill remain slim, given skepticism among most Democrats and some Republicans, but Murkowski will continue to push the issue separately. Liquefied natural gas exports enjoy more bipartisan support, and calls to expedite application approvals could become part of an energy bill.
Cantwell, meanwhile, has focused on efforts to make it safer to transport crude oil by rail, an issue of growing concern in light of the domestic production boom. Cantwell has introduced a bill to improve safety standards that has been referred to the Commerce Committee but has generated little interest from Republicans who generally worry that the administration's rules could be too burdensome. The issue is not in the ENR Committee's jurisdiction.
Aside from writing the energy bill, Murkowski also chairs the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over EPA and the Bureau of Land Management, among several others. Policy riders on appropriations bills also are expected to be used to target various Obama administration policies Republicans do not like, providing an alternate arena for more partisan fights to play out without potentially sinking an energy bill.
-
E.P.A. Carbon Emissions Plan Could Save Thousands of Lives, Study Finds
May 4, 2015 | The New York Times
By Sabrina Tavernise and Coral Davenport
New carbon emissions standards that were proposed last year for coal-fired power plants in the United States would substantially improve human health and prevent more than 3,000 premature deaths per year, according to a new study.
The study, led by researchers at Syracuse and Harvard Universities, used modeling to predict the effect on human health of changes to national carbon standards for power plants. The researchers calculated three different outcomes using data from the Census Bureau and detailed maps of the more than 2,400 fossil-fuel power plants across the country.
The model with the biggest health benefit was the one that most closely resembled the changes that the Environmental Protection Agency proposed in a rule in June. Under that plan, reductions in carbon emissions for the plants would be set by states and would include improvements to the energy efficiency of, for example, air-conditioners, refrigerators and power grids.
The health benefits of the rule would be indirect. While carbon emissions trap heat in the atmosphere, which contributes to a warming planet, they are not directly linked to health threats. Emissions from coal-fired power plants, however, also include a number of other pollutants, such as soot and ozone, that are directly linked to illnesses like asthma and lung disease.
Researchers calculated that the changes in the E.P.A. rule could prevent 3,500 premature deaths a year and more than 1,000 heart attacks and hospitalizations from air-pollution-related illness.
The study was published Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change. The largest declines in pollution — and consequent benefits to health — would happen in states in the Ohio River Valley, including Pennsylvania and Ohio, which have some of the highest levels of emissions, researchers said.
Charles T. Driscoll, a professor of environmental systems engineering at Syracuse who was the lead author of the paper, said research began about a year before the E.P.A. proposed the carbon reduction plan. It was a coincidence that one of the researchers’ models so closely resembled the federal proposal.
The model with the deepest cuts in emissions was based on the use of a carbon tax, but because energy efficiency was not part of that version, it prevented fewer premature deaths, researchers found. The third version, which assumed that plants would be revamped and modernized, an effort that some industry representatives favor, produced almost no change in air quality or health benefits.
“The idea is to inform the federal and state governments that your state and federal policy matters,” Dr. Driscoll said.
This summer, President Obama plans to unveil a final set of climate change regulations to curb planet-warming emissions from power plants in the United States. The climate rule, as proposed in draft form last year by the E.P.A., would cut carbon emissions from power plants 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030.
The rule will chiefly target coal-fired power plants, the nation’s largest source of carbon emissions. They would require every state to submit a plan to shift their energy systems from heavily carbon polluting sources of power, such as coal plants, to cleaner power sources.
In making the case for the rule, the Obama administration has highlighted its indirect health benefits. Mr. Obama’s political advisers have made the bet that a policy presented as a move to reduce childhood asthma and other diseases will gain more public traction than a complex new energy policy designed to reduce global warming in the long term.
Critics say the rule would increase the cost of energy, an outcome that would harm lower-income Americans.
Scott Segal, director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, an energy industry association, said it was an overstatement to claim that the rule would prevent so many premature deaths, because the reductions would bring emissions levels well below what the E.P.A. has previously said could harm health. He said the administration had already claimed the same benefits justify other rules, which amounted to double counting.
“It’s like Enron-style accounting,” he said, referring to the energy company that collapsed after revelations about flawed accounting standards.
Dr. Leonard Bielory, a researcher at Rutgers University who was not involved in the study, said that it did manage to show that the rule would bring positive health effects, but that the extent was far from clear. “Are these the real numbers you’ll save?” he said. “That’s really a gray zone.”
Dr. Driscoll acknowledged the hazards of precision in a modeling exercise, but said the paper tried to quantify the uncertainty. For example, the projection of 3,500 deaths prevented was an average of a much broader range of 780 deaths to 6,100 deaths.
-
D.C. Circuit Denies Final State Challenges To EPA's GHG Permitting FIPs
May 4, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dawn Reeves
A key appellate court is rejecting state and industry efforts to re-litigate their challenges to EPA takeovers of state greenhouse gas (GHG) permitting programs, rejecting without comment their claim that the program is unlawful until officials set new de minimis thresholds -- though the decision may be moot as the agency is setting such a threshold.
In a May 4 per curiam order in State of Texas, et al. v. EPA, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied a petition for rehearing filed by Texas, Wyoming and industry groups that charge that EPA's federal implementation plan (FIP), that temporarily preempted the states' GHG permitting programs, was unlawful.
In a separate May 4 per curiam order the full court also denied the petitioners' request for en banc review. The order noted that none of the 11 judges requested a panel vote on the petition.
All of the states that initially resisted permitting GHGs have since implemented their own EPA-approved state implementation plans (SIPs) for permitting GHGs since the case was first filed in 2010.
In the instant suit, the state and industry groups had challenged EPA's decision to preempt state authorities to permit GHGs after the states had refused to create their own permit programs. They argued that EPA should have allowed the states three years to begin GHG permitting before imposing a FIP.
But a three-judge panel voted 2-1 in July 2013 to reject the suit, finding that states and industry groups lacked standing to challenge the rules because by providing valid permits, the agency helped prevent a ban on major construction projects.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh, one of the panelists, agreed with the petitioners, issuing a dissenting opinion that noted EPA rules “plainly” give states three years to revise their plans when new pollutants like GHGs are regulated, and that the rules allow states to continue to issue prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permits during that time. EPA did not wait three years before taking over the permitting programs with FIPs.
In a footnote in the May 4 order, Kavanaugh indicated he would grant the petition for panel rehearing, an indication that could prompt the litigants to continue to pursue the case with the Supreme Court.
GHG Permitting
After the 2013 ruling, the litigation was stayed while the high court considered GHG permitting issues, but in 2014, Texas, Wyoming and the industry groups petitioned the D.C. Circuit to reverse its ruling to uphold EPA's takeover of their state GHG permitting programs.
They claimed the agency was barred from permitting GHGs under its PSD permitting program until it finalized a rule setting a de minimis threshold following a Supreme Court ruling in a different case.
“Until EPA has amended those rules and states have submitted [SIPs] consistent with those rules, GHGs are not subject to regulation in any form under the [permit] program,” the groups wrote in a Sept. 22 petition for rehearing.
The petition cited the 5-4 high court ruling from last June, Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, which held GHGs alone could not trigger PSD permits on their own but facilities that triggered the permitting program due to their conventional pollutants, known as “anyway” sources, would also need to include GHG limits in their permits when they exceeded a certain threshold.
As part of the that ruling, the high court had suggested that EPA craft a rule setting such limits. The case then went back to the D.C. Circuit, which last month held EPA has discretion to set that threshold.
EPA late last month announced it is beginning to develop an emissions rate threshold to exclude facilities that emit at levels below the threshold from permit requirements.
EPA and environmental groups had filed November briefs in the Texas case urging the court to reject the petitions for rehearing and en banc review. EPA said in its brief, “Petitioners misconstrue a single sentence in the Supreme Court decision that merely recognizes, based on D.C. Circuit precedent, EPA's authority to avoid applying the [permit] requirement to de minimis levels of greenhouse gas emissions.”
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), one of the environmental groups that supported EPA, said in a statement that the decision will ensure states continue to implement their GHG permit programs. “States have been effectively applying these clean air safeguards and taking steps to secure vital pollution reductions through common sense and highly cost-effective measures,” Peter Zalzal, an attorney with the group, said in a statement. “Today’s decision will ensure that these foundational programs remain in full effect in all states across the nation,” he added.
-
EPA, FERC In 'Ongoing Discussions' On Grid Reliability Under CO2 Rule
May 4, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
While the electric industry awaits the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's contribution on how to ensure against power outages under the Clean Power Plan, a U.S. EPA spokeswoman said Friday that the two agencies have already been in "ongoing discussions" following a series of FERC technical conferences.
"We are reviewing comments on reliability and there have been ongoing discussions with FERC following up on a rich set of comments received from (regional transmission organizations), utilities and others on reliability," said EPA's Liz Purchia.
It's been six weeks since FERC Commissioner Philip Moeller said the clock is ticking for the agency to provide suggestions in time for EPA's final rule, which is expected in the coming months.
FERC spokeswoman Mary O'Driscoll said only that "when the commission has an announcement to make on this matter, we will make that announcement."
On Friday, FERC Commissioner Colette Honorable will headline a Bipartisan Policy Center workshop at the National Press Club on two of the reliability mechanisms that featured prominently in FERC's regional technical conferences. The event will explore the reliability assurance mechanism (RAM), a proposal for reviewing state carbon-cutting plans for reliability concerns and the reliability safety valve (RSV), a backstop tool for real-time problems.
Also this week, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association will have 2,000 representatives in Washington, D.C., meeting with senators and staff as part of the group's annual legislative conference. The House is not in session.
CEOs, federal affairs directors and board members of the co-ops will urge lawmakers to support legislation to stall the rule until the courts determine whether it is legal, which could take several years.
Go to E&E's Power Plan Hub to read more and to see news and documents related to the latest Clean Power Plan developments. resize text Resize Text Email  Email Print  Print
Advertisement
-
Supreme Court Accepts Case on Electricity Regulation
May 4, 2015 | The New York Times
By Adam Liptak
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide whether federal regulators may encourage electricity users like schools, hospitals and shopping centers to reduce consumption at peak times in exchange for price breaks.
The regulatory approach, known as “demand response,” lowers costs for consumers and lessens the risk of system failures that can cause blackouts. But it also cuts into the profits of companies that own power plants, which lose money when price spikes are avoided.
Trade groups representing utilities and power suppliers challenged the regulation, saying that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission had overstepped its authority. The commission oversees wholesale transactions under the Federal Power Act, but the states regulate retail transactions. Continue reading the main story Related Coverage video Utility vs. Homeowners Over Solar PowerAPRIL 18, 2015
The challengers argued that the demand-response regulation operated at the retail level and so was beyond the reach of federal power. Last May, a divided three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia agreed.
“Because FERC’s rule entails direct regulation of the retail market — a matter exclusively within state control — it exceeds the commission’s authority,” Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote for the majority.
In dissent, Judge Harry T. Edwards said that the governing statute was ambiguous and that the commission’s understanding of the scope of its authority deserved deference.
“The unfortunate consequence” of the majority’s decision, he wrote, “is that a promising rule of national significance — promulgated by the agency that has been authorized by Congress to address the matters in issue — is laid aside on grounds that I think are inconsistent with the statute, at odds with applicable precedent and impossible to square with our limited scope of review.”
The commission and companies that make demand-response arrangements filed petitions urging the Supreme Court to grant review.
Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., representing the commission, told the justices that the decision “threatens significant damage to the nation’s wholesale-electricity markets.”
He added that the appeals court had gone astray in finding that the challenged regulation worked at the retail level.
“The demand-response providers,” he wrote, “are actual and integral participants in wholesale markets themselves, and the effect of their participation on the wholesale rate is far more immediate and direct than the effect exerted by retail consumption generally.”
The second petition, from the demand-service providers, said the appeals court’s decision “will directly undermine Congress’s energy policies: Prices will rise as the result of the need to dispatch unnecessary and higher-cost generation — costs that consumers will ultimately have to pay.”
In response to the two petitions, the Electric Power Supply Association and other trade groups rejected what they called the petitioners’ “sky is falling assertions.” The appeals court’s decision, the response said, “does not preclude the development or continuation of demand-response programs; it merely respects federalism,” under which “regulation of the retail markets was properly left to the states.”
Environmental groups expressed satisfaction with the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the two consolidated cases, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Electric Power Supply Association, No. 14-840, and EnerNOC Inc. v. Electric Power Supply Association, No. 14-841.
“Today’s Supreme Court action is welcome news in the effort to secure a cleaner, more reliable and affordable electric grid,” said Jill Tauber, a lawyer with Earthjustice, an environmental advocacy group. “Demand response plays a central role in our nation’s electric power system, providing tremendous environmental, consumer and reliability benefits.”
As is the custom, the Supreme Court’s brief order agreeing to hear the case gave no reasons. It did note that Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. had recused himself from the case, but it did not say why.
-
Supreme Court To Rule On Breaks For Cutting Peak-Demand Energy Use
May 4, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Robert Barnes and Chris Mooney
The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will review whether a federal agency may require electric market operators to compensate customers who lower their consumption of electricity during peak demand hours.
The court said it would determine whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) exceeded its statutory authority when in 2011 it adopted the approach, which is called “demand response.”
Environmentalists, the Obama administration and some large consumers say demand response is a key mechanism for getting people to use less energy overall and, therefore, producing fewer emissions of carbon dioxide or other harmful pollutants.
Total electricity demand varies greatly, and when it peaks — usually in the afternoon or evening each day, but also seasonally, such as on very hot days — power companies have to bring additional power plants online to service that peak load.
In doing so, the companies address the need for more electricity by adding more supply. But demand response also can reduce how much power people or companies use during these peak times.
FERC’s rule would have ensured that companies or individuals get compensated for voluntarily reducing their power usage at peak demand. “A market functions effectively only when both supply and demand can meaningfully participate,” FERC noted in promulgating the rule.
The agency also said in its brief to the Supreme Court, “Demand response, by decreasing the amount of power necessary to balance supply and demand, reduces the risk of system failures like blackouts and curbs the market power of generators.”
Electricity generators say that FERC’s proposed compensation is too generous and, more importantly, is a power grab that exceeds the authority Congress has given it.
“The Federal Power Act draws a ‘bright line’ distinction between state and federal jurisdiction over the regulation of sales of electric power,” said a brief filed by the Electric Power Supply Association, of which NRG Energy and Exelon Corp. are members.
Wholesale sales of electricity are subject to FERC’s jurisdiction, the association asserts, while retail sales are the exclusive province of the states.
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed with the electricity producers on a 2-to-1 vote.
“Demand response — simply put — is part of the retail market,” wrote Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown. “It involves retail customers, their decision whether to purchase at retail, and the levels of retail electricity consumption.”
The Obama administration, supported by environmentalists and some large consumers, asked the Supreme Court to reconsider.
“To the extent demand response reduces prices, which we believe it does, all consumers benefit,” says Steven Nadel, executive director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
A supporting brief filed by a group of large power consumers, including Alcoa and the University of Maryland at College Park, said that the benefits extend beyond those who take advantage of the program.
“Demand response benefits all end-use consumers by eventually reducing their electricity prices by billions of dollars per year,” the brief said. “It also provides a reliable and effective mechanism for balancing the grid when demand spikes.”
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. recused himself from the case, presumably because of a financial conflict. That means the case will be heard by an eight-member court in the term that begins in October, and a tie vote would keep the lower court’s ruling in place.
-
North Carolina Lawmakers Advance Measure To Require Clean Power Plan Implementation
May 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jeff Day
North Carolina legislation that would require the establishment of regulations to implement the federal Clean Power Plan is unexpectedly advancing in the Republican-dominated General Assembly.
The bill (H.B. 571) passed the state House of Representatives 84-33 and awaits action in the state Senate.
While member companies of the North Carolina Manufacturers Alliance unanimously oppose the Clean Power Plan to address carbon emissions from existing power plants, they support the bill, Alliance president Preston Howard said.
If the plan withstands legal challenges and goes into effect, North Carolina businesses would much prefer that the state Environmental Review Commission establish the state implementation plan detailing how North Carolina will meet the plan's requirements, rather than having the EPA impose a federal plan, Howard said.
Seat at Table Wanted
“We want to be at the table and have some voice” on the state implementation plan, Howard said.
The bill would not require General Assembly review or approval of the state implementation plan.
A spokesman for Duke Energy, the state's biggest electrical utility, declined to comment on the bill, saying the company does not comment on pending legislation.
State Rep. George S. Robinson (R) introduced the measure. The co-sponsors of H.B. 571 include the House Majority Leader Mike Hager (R) and nine Democrats.
-
Academics Give Boost To Obama Climate Rule
May 4, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Obama administration’s proposed carbon limits for power plants could prevent 3,500 deaths per year, a new academic study says.
The research from Syracuse University and Harvard University was published Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change, and is being billed as the first peer-reviewed scientific research into the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) landmark climate rule.
“If EPA sets strong carbon standards, we can expect large public health benefits from cleaner air almost immediately after the standards are implemented,” Jonathan Buonocore, a research fellow at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and a co-author of the paper, said in a statement.
The findings lend new support to the Obama administration, Democrats, environmentalists and other backers of the rule, who have argued that it would improve public health in addition to helping combat climate change.
While researchers say there would be public health benefits from the rules, there is uncertainty about how much.
The regulation would yield the biggest benefits if states choose to implement the regulation in ways that promote cleaner fuels and reduce demand for power through energy efficiency. Under that scenario, anywhere from 780 to 6,100 deaths could be avoided each year, along with more than 1,000 heart attacks and hospitalizations.
But if states focused instead on upgrading coal-fired power plants, they would not get similar health benefits, and might actually see detrimental health effects, since the improved plants would run more, the study found.
The most likely outcome, researchers said, is a mixture of state strategies that results in around 3,500 prevented deaths per year.
The carbon rule, which will be made final this summer, aims to cut the power sector’s carbon output nationally by 30 percent. Each state has been assigned a specific goal for cutting emissions.
Republicans and industry groups have challenged the claims about projected benefits of the regulation. Some conservative states are fighting the rule in court, and critics such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) have urged states to avoid compliance.
The coal industry said the Harvard and Syracuse researchers did not adequately consider the health-related harms the climate rule would bring through reduced electric reliability and higher energy costs.
“We know that taking coal power offline will lead to electricity disruptions including blackouts, brownouts and rationing,” Laura Sheehan, spokeswoman for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, said in a statement.
“These disruptions are not just nuisances; they jeopardize hospital and emergency care, city sanitation systems and regular commerce.”
-
Court Denies Rehearing in Texas Lawsuit Challenging Greenhouse Gas Permitting
May 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Federal appellate judges denied Texas's request to rehear a lawsuit challenging an Environmental Protection Agency requirement that states update their air pollution plans to include greenhouse gas permitting (Texas v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 10-1425, rehearing denied 5/4/15).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied Texas's petition that the argument be reheard en banc before the full court or be reheard before the same three-judge panel that had previously upheld the EPA's rule.
Texas had challenged a 2010 EPA rule that required it and 12 other states to update their state implementation plans to include greenhouse gases among the pollutants requiring prevention of significant deterioration permits. States began issuing the greenhouse gas permits Jan. 2, 2011.
The EPA had issued a federal plan to cover greenhouse gas permitting in Texas prior to permitting taking effect. The state had argued that the Clean Air Act allows states three years to update their plans before the EPA can issue a federal implementation plan.
The D.C. Circuit had been holding the request for rehearing in abeyance pending resolution of lawsuits challenging aspects of the EPA's greenhouse gas permitting program. That lawsuit was resolved April 10 when the D.C. Circuit vacated provisions of the EPA's tailoring rule to the extent they require industrial sources to obtain prevention of significant deterioration or Title V permits solely due to their greenhouse gas emissions, implementing a U.S. Supreme Court decision from 2014 (Coal. for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 09-01322, amended per curiam judgment filed, 4/10/15; (71 DEN A-1, 4/14/15).
The D.C. Circuit had originally dismissed the Texas lawsuit in a 2-1 decision in June 2013, finding that the petitioners had failed to demonstrate that the EPA's regulation caused them any injury (Texas v. EPA, 726 F.3d 180, 2013 BL 198472 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ).
The opinion was issued by Judges Judith W. Rogers, David S. Tatel and Brett M. Kavanaugh with Kavanaugh dissenting.
-
Varied Stances on Climate Change Seen In Latest Republican Presidential Hopefuls
May 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Three Republicans, the latest to join the field of presidential hopefuls, are representative of their party's near-universal opposition to President Barack Obama's efforts to tackle climate change, but they hold more diverse stances on the existence and severity of the problem.
The three Republicans—former Hewlett-Packard Co. Chief Executive Officer Carly Fiorina, retired John Hopkins Hospital neurosurgeon Ben Carson and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee—all agree that Obama's approach to addressing climate change through regulation is wrong but their positions range from completely denying there is a problem to urging technological innovation as the primary mechanism for addressing it.
Carson has spoken of the need to protect the environment but disputes the scientific consensus that human activity significantly contributes to climate change. Fiorina hasn't disputed that scientific consensus, but she has said federal and state regulations hurt the economy while not making “a bit of difference in climate change.”
Huckabee, governor of Arkansas from 1996 through 2007, once supported a cap-and-trade systems for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in 2007, but he reversed himself several years later and denied making those remarks. Most recently he mocked Obama's comments that climate change is a national security threat by saying there are far greater risks to the nation than a “sunburn.”
Carson and Fiorina, considered long-shots for the Republican presidential nomination, announced their bids May 4, while Huckabee is expected to jump in May 5, according to Bloomberg News.
Still-Expanding Field
They join a still-expanding field of Republican presidential hopefuls, including Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.), Ted Cruz (Texas) and Marco Rubio (Fla.). Others, including former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and current Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, are also expected to seek the Republican nomination (76 DEN A-1, 4/21/15).
“I just wouldn't rule any of them out at this point,” Tom Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, told Bloomberg BNA May 4. “Money is going to be a big divider, but you might have someone who surges up without the money and it might change the whole race.”
Republican contenders are likely to avoid discussing climate change whenever possible during their primary campaigns and instead will look to discuss domestic energy production and development issues, several political lobbyists and aides told Bloomberg BNA.
“The right answer in the Republican primary with respect to energy is not who is the most [correct] with respect to global warming,” Michael McKenna, a Republican lobbyist and strategist, told Bloomberg BNA. “The right answer will be the candidate who grasps the [energy] abundance narrative and its implications.”
Carly Fiorina
Fiorina, who served as HP CEO from 1999 through 2005 and launched an unsuccessful run in 2010 for the seat held by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), has not denied that human activity significantly contributes to climate change, but she has said technological research and development should be the solution.
“I believe, as with many problems, the answer to this problem is not regulation, it is innovation,” Fiorina said in February 2015. “And, frankly speaking, the [Environmental Protection Agency] is shutting down every ounce of innovation in this area, and I don't think that we're paying attention to all the science. I think too many politicians are paying attention only to the part of the science that confirms their ideology.”
Global efforts at reducing greenhouse gas emissions—even through an international agreement that countries hope to reach later this year in Paris—would be ineffective because many nations will simply refuse to follow the U.S. lead, Fiorina said at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast in April.
“Only a global program over many decades costing trillions of dollars is going to have an impact at all,” Fiorina said. “Because we will never have a harmonized regulatory regime throughout the whole globe—particularly if China needs to grow their economy, which they do—the only answer to this is innovation. At that, America should be the best in the world.”
Fiorina also called California's multi-year drought a “man-made disaster” fueled by the burdensome regulatory requirements pushed by “liberal environmentalists.”
“California is a classic case of liberals being willing to sacrifice other people's lives and livelihoods at the altar of their ideology,” Fiorina said. “It is a tragedy.”
During her 2010 Senate bid in California, Fiorina attacked Boxer for placing such importance on climate change with the line: “Terrorism kills and Barbara Boxer is worried about the weather.”
Ben Carson
Carson, who has never held elected office, has rarely spoken about the environment but did author an op-ed piece in 2014 expressing support for conservation while expressing skepticism at the causes of climate change.
“Whether we are experiencing global warming or a coming ice age, which was predicted in the 1970s, we as responsible human beings must be concerned about our surroundings and what we will pass on to future generations,” Carson wrote in the March 2014 op-ed. “However, to use climate change as an excuse not to develop our God-given resources makes little sense.”
Rather than “stifle” energy production and development through regulations, the EPA should work “in conjunction with business, industry and universities to find the most eco-friendly ways of developing our energy resources,” Carson told Bloomberg News in November 2014.
Carson, who rose to prominence in 2013 after criticizing Obama during the National Prayer Breakfast, frequently cites his medical background and support for science in his speeches but nevertheless rejects the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists.
“We may be warming,” Carson told Bloomberg News. “We may be cooling.”
A 2013 survey of scientific literature published in the journal Environmental Research Letters found that 97.2 percent of climate scientists believe human activity plays a major role in climate change.
The retired neurosurgeon also has voiced support for building the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline, calling the infrastructure project “perfectly safe.”
Mike Huckabee
Huckabee most recently criticized comments from Obama that “no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations” than climate change, saying the risks of climate change pale in comparison to those of terrorism (17 DEN A-12, 1/27/15).
“Not to diminish anything about the climate at all, but Mr. President, I believe that most of us would think that a beheading is a far greater threat to an American than a sunburn,” Huckabee told the Iowa Freedom Summit in January, referring to recent beheadings in eastern Syria by the Islamic State group.
Back in 2007, Huckabee voiced support for a cap-and-trade system and spoke of the “responsibility” humans have for protecting the Earth from the impacts of climate change.
“One thing that all of us have a responsibility to do is recognize that climate change is here, it's real,” Huckabee told the Clean Air Cool Planet conference in November 2007. “What we have to do is quit pointing fingers as to who's at fault and recognize that it's all our fault and it's all our responsibility to fix it.”
Three years later, the former Arkansas governor denied ever backing any form of cap-and-trade and warned that such an approach would have been a “job killer.”
“This kind of mandatory energy policy would have a horrible impact on this nation's job market,” Huckabee said. “I never did support and never would support it—period.”
Though Huckabee's brand of conservatism boosted his candidacy in 2008—he won the Iowa's Republican caucuses—observers said the challenge for the former governor will be building momentum for a second run.
-
Key Climate Change Goal May Be Missed
May 4, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Global carbon emission reduction strategies could fall short of a major climate change benchmark, according to a study published Monday.
Even if major governments stick to their current carbon emissions goals, the report says it may not be possible to keep the average global surface temperature from rising more than 2 degrees celsius.
Governments have already begun announcing their emission reduction targets ahead of a major United Nations climate conference in Paris later this year. The Obama administration hopes to cut U.S. carbon emissions by 26 to 28 percent of 2005 levels by 2030; European Union governments want to cut their collective emissions by 40 percent over 1990 levels and China has said its emissions will peak by 2025.
Those three targets, taken together with other nations' reduction goals, would lead to at least 57 gigatons (each gigaton being one billion metric tons) of carbon dioxide emissions in 2030, according to the researchers. But United Nations reports have previously estimated that emissions should be much lower than that for even a 50 percent chance of keeping the temperature increase below the 2-degree mark.
“It seems likely that there will still be a significant gap between aggregate national intentions and a pathway that is consistent with avoiding global warming of more than 2 degrees celsius,” the researchers, from the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, wrote.
The report said the goals represent “measurable progress” over current trends, but that to meet the 2-degree goal, countries should work to increase their reduction targets both before and after this year's climate talks.
“The magnitude of the gap between current intentions and the international target of limiting global warming to no more than 2 degrees celsius clearly shows that an international agreement in Paris will have to include dynamic mechanisms for the assessment of progress and the raising of ambitions,” the researchers wrote.
-
New Parties Met With White House On Oil-by-Rail Rule a Month Before Release
May 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Some new voices were heard in White House meetings on a flammable liquids rail safety rule in the month or so leading up to the final rule's release, according to public records released in May.
Transportation labor union SMART Transportation Division and a Maryland state representative were among the interested parties that met for the first time between March 30 and April 29 with the Office of Management and Budget on the final rule. Representatives of Exxon Mobil Corp., CSX Corp. and others, who also met in the rule's final stretch of promulgation, had spoken with the administration several times during the rule's development.
It isn't clear how much of an effect the seven meetings that occurred during this time frame had on the final rule—Enhanced Tank Car Standards and Operational Controls for High-Hazard Flammable Trains—which was released May 1. A former White House official told Bloomberg BNA it is possible these groups' input had an impact but that it was likely that their views had already been discussed in comments submitted on the rule.
The final Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration rule (RIN 2137-AE91) will largely phase out older industry tank cars from Bakken crude oil transportation by April 2020, with these cars entirely out of flammable liquids rail service by May 2025. It will require these to be retrofitted or replaced with cars built to the new more stringent DOT-117 standard that, for certain larger shipments, necessitates use of industry-opposed brakes.
SMART Transportation Division highlighted numbers on human factors in train derailments, as well as news or opinion articles. The union also gave the White House a copy of the 2006 waiver petition from BNSF Railway Co. and Norfolk Southern Railway to allow the railroads to begin pilot programs for electronic controlled pneumatic brakes.
The transportation union didn't respond to a message from Bloomberg BNA requesting clarification on what they discussed at the meeting.
State, Local Input
Many state and local representatives, including Maryland state Rep. Clarence Lam (D), met with OMB April 15 on the rule alongside environmental groups Earthjustice and Sierra Club. A spokesman for the Sierra Club declined to comment on what was discussed at the meeting and Lam's office didn't respond to a message from Bloomberg BNA requesting comment.
Other states and localities represented at the meeting included Sandpoint, Idaho, San Jose, Calif., Albany, N.Y., and Auburn, Wash.
Exxon Mobil said during its meeting it supported certain tank car requirements such as a half-inch shell for new cars and cautioned regarding the lack of substantive safety benefits associated with electronic brakes, according to a handout posted on the White House's website.
PHMSA ultimately chose to require a 9/16-inch shell for its DOT-117 car and, for trains that are carrying at least 70 cars of a Class 3 flammable liquid and are traveling faster than 30 miles per hour, the electronic brakes (85 DEN A-14, 5/4/15).
Hess Corp., Phillips 66 Co., the American Petroleum Institute, the Railway Supply Institute, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Hogan Lovells US LLP, GATX Corp. and General Electric Corp. also met with OMB on the final rule since March 30.
Comments Still Useful
Sally Katzen, who served as the OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs administrator from 1993 to 1998, told Bloomberg BNA input from these interested parties could still have been useful in the administration's review.
Most groups that set up meetings with OMB on a given rule have also submitted comments to the agency, but these meetings provide an opportunity to emphasize or clarify the most important comments, Katzen said.
Groups that meet with OMB, but haven't commented may have been represented by trade associations or public interest groups during the comment phase and choose to meet with OMB to put a face on the issue or to stress the importance of an individual point, she said.
There are a few instances where meetings have drawn White House or agency attention to an issue that may have been missed or gotten buried during the agency's review of the comments, Katzen, now a senior adviser at the Podesta Group, said. If so, then the meetings might lead to the agency's focusing on those issues.
Review Listed as Ongoing
The final rule was still listed as under review at the White House as of May 4. But a PHMSA spokesman told Bloomberg BNA the final rule was signed by Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx and sent to the Federal Register on May 1. It isn't clear when the final rule will be published in the register, the spokesman said.
The White House received the rule for review Feb. 5. Under Executive Order No. 12,866, the review is allowed to last up to 90 days (26 DEN A-3, 2/9/15).
Katzen said it was likely that the White House records indicating that the rule is still under review is merely a “clerical error.”
The OMB didn't respond to Bloomberg BNA's message requesting comment.
-
Schumer Legislation to Expedite Phaseout Of Outdated Tank Cars Expected Mid-May
May 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) announced May 4 legislation that would implement more stringent crude oil and other flammable liquids rail service requirements than a recently introduced Transportation Department rule.
Schumer's bill would require a faster phaseout of tank cars used for crude oil and other flammable liquids rail service, add more stringent speed requirements and require development of a federal volatility standard for oil, according to a news release. It would also require implementation of a close-call reporting system, installation of positive train control systems on crude oil routes and expand the definition of a high hazard flammable train.
“For far too long, the rail and oil industries have taken advantage of the lack of rules by making excuse after excuse to delay phasing-out the dangerous and outdated tanker cars,” Schumer said in a statement. “While the DOT's announcement has finally forced the industry's hands to update these rules, there is no question that the new rules don't go far enough.”
Schumer announced his bill days after Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx signed a final rule governing flammable liquids movement via rail, which would by April 2020 largely bar transport of Bakken crude oil via older tank cars. The bill and rule aim to address safety concerns following several high-profile derailments of trains carrying crude that caused damages from threatening drinking water to deaths (85 DEN A-14, 5/4/15).
DOT-111 Crude Oil
Notably, Schumer's bill would phaseout DOT-111 tank cars for trains carrying crude oil in the two highest hazard group of flammable liquids by 2017, among other quicker car phaseouts for this service, according to the release. This contrasts with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's rule, which would phase out DOT-111 cars by March 2018 for moving crude oil in the highest hazard group of flammable liquids.
Additionally, speed restrictions and the definition of high hazard flammable trains, currently applied to a block of 20 cars or more carrying a Class 3 flammable liquids or 35 cars or with a flammable liquid, would be expanded to slow more trains in more areas and apply these rules to even smaller trains carrying crude oil.
Angelo Roefaro, a spokesman for Schumer, said the bill would be formally introduced sometime during the week of May 11.
-
Schumer Wants Faster Oil Train Changes Than Obama
May 4, 2015 | The Hill - Transportation
By Keith Laing
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is introducing legislation to require faster implementation of a series of regulations regarding the transportation of crude oil that were unveiled last week by the Obama administration.
Schumer's legislation would require freight rail companies to phase out older rail cars that have been blamed for numerous high-profile disasters within two years, instead of the eight-year deadline that was set by the Obama administration.
Schumer said he is offering the legislation because it is too unsafe to keep the older rail cars that carry explosive materials like oil on the nation's rails until the 2023 deadline that has been set by the Obama administration.
“Allowing these outdated oil cars to continue rolling through our communities for another eight years is a reckless gamble that we can't afford to make," he said in a statement.
"For far too long, the rail and oil industries have taken advantage of the lack of rules by making excuse after excuse to delay phasing-out the dangerous and outdated tanker cars," he continued. "While the DOT's announcement has finally forced the industry’s hands to update these rules, there is no question that the new rules don't go far enough."
The regulations announced by the Department of Transportation (DOT) last Friday are a comprehensive set of standards regarding rail car design, braking ability, speed limits and other provisions that were developed over months, amid pressure from lawmakers hungry for a crack down on the freight rail and oil industries.
Under the rules, all railcars currently carrying ethanol and crude oil will have to be phased out within seven years or retrofitted, and the new standards will start later this year for newly constructed railcars.
The new standards include thicker steel shells, enhanced braking systems and guards to protect the ends of tank cars and their valves.
The DOT is also mandating new standards for routing oil trains, speed limits and efforts to better prepare emergency responders and communities where oil trains travel.
Schumer said Monday that the new rules take too long to address the central problem with oil train shipments: the quality of the cars that are carrying the flammable material.
“Letting these unsafe DOT-111s move the same extremely explosive oil we saw in the Lac Mègantic disaster for another eight years, is both careless and indefensible; and allowing the similarly dangerous unjacketed CPC-1232 cars to remain in service for another five to eight years is simply put, unfathomable,” he said.
The Obama administration has defended the proposed oil train regulations as a sensible approach to a large problem.
“Our goal and what we accomplished is to create a comprehensive approach to safety that will prevent accidents from happening, that will mitigate damage if they do and support emergency response,” Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx told reporters in a news conference last week.
Foxx said then that the new set of rules “significantly improves current regulations and requirements.
"It will make transporting flammable materials by rail safer than it is today,” he said.
-
Study Justifying Brakes in Crude-by-Rail Rule Posted
May 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Transportation Department posted May 1 an updated study used to help justify its decision in a recently announced rule to require certain industry-opposed brakes on specific flammable liquids rail shipments. The study, conducted by Sharma & Associates Inc., bolsters the view that electronically controlled pneumatic brakes make emergency braking situations significantly safer compared to other brake options. The Sharma study, dated March 2015, also provided evidence of the benefits of speed reduction, which was cited by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration in its final rule announced May 1 (85 DEN A-14, 5/4/15). It was also cited by the Federal Railroad Administration in its emergency order announced April 17 (84 DEN A-11, 5/1/15). The study, “Objective Evaluation of Risk Reduction From Tank Car Design & Operations Improvements,” is available at http://op.bna.com/env.nsf/r?Open=rlen-9w7jxf.
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
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested