Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Blog) CPI’s Polyurethane Innovation Award is Back!
May 7, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
It’s time to submit your entries for the annual competition for best new innovation in the polyurethane industry! http://blog.americanchemistry.com/2015/05/cpis-polyurethane-innovation-award-is-back/ -
(ACC Mentioned) STB Nominee Reflects a Shipper Tilt
May 7, 2015 | Railway Age
By Frank N. Wilner
Paint former Surface Transportation Board (STB) Chairman Dan Elliott a darling of the National Industrial Transportation League (NITL), a shipper organization asking the STB to require—through so-called open access—that two Class I railroads be available to compete for freight carloads even if the tracks of only one railroad serve a shipper’s facility. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Presses EPA to Dump 'Fragrance-Free' Product Label
May 7, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
Industry groups are asking U.S. EPA to scrap a planned "fragrance-free" label for its voluntary Safer Choice product-labeling program, arguing there isn't enough evidence that fragrances damage health. -
Chemical Safety Bill Picks Up Support in Senate
May 7, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A bipartisan bill to reform the federal government’s chemical safety oversight now has 36 co-sponsors, split equally between the two political parties. -
Senators Push for Quick Action on TSCA Bill
May 7, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode
An eclectic groups of senators today called for quick action on a bill from Sens. Tom Udall and David Vitter to update the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act. -
More Bipartisan Senators Co-Sponsor Udall-Vitter TSCA Bill
May 7, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
More than a third of the Senate is now co-sponsoring a bipartisan bill to change how the federal government regulates toxic chemicals, making it likely that the issue will be debated on the Senate floor this year, lawmakers said today. -
EDF Welcomes 14 Additional Cosponsors of the Lautenberg Act
May 7, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Environmental Defense Fund welcomes today’s announcement that 14 additional Senators – 7 Democrats and 7 Republicans – have cosponsored the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S. 697). -
Bipartisan Chemical Reform Doesn't Go Far Enough For Environmental Extremists
May 7, 2015 | Forbes
By Michael Estève
Barbara Boxer and environmental activist groups are at it again. -
Ten Years after Toxic Chemical Settlement, DuPont Failing to Keep Its Promises
May 7, 2015 | Center for Effective Government
By Amanda Frank
In 1938, a DuPont chemist accidently created a chemical compound that would make thousands of products water- and stain-resistant. -
Alternative Flame Retardants May Act Like PBDEs
May 7, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
Many alternative flame retardants, including some halogenated organophosphorus compounds, behave similarly in the environment to the polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) they were brought in to replace, according to computer modelling by a Swedish team. -
US Institute Surveys Occupational Carbon Banotube Exposures
May 7, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Responding to concerns about carbon nanotube (CNT) exposure, the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (Niosh) has conducted a survey of workplace exposures at manufacturer and user sites. -
Dozens of Energy Proposals Floated
May 7, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Nick Juliano and Hannah Northey
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski introduced 18 bills she is considering including in a broad energy package as several other members from both sides of the aisle floated their own ideas for inclusion. -
Federal Forecast Hints at Who Would Benefit from Crude Policy Change
May 7, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
Federal oil export policies will dictate whether the refining sector builds new capacity to maximize profit from domestically produced crude or steps aside as more oil flows to overseas buyers, federal forecasters say. -
W.Va. AG Morrisey Talks Possible Run for Governor, EPA 'Power Grab' on Clean Power Plan
May 7, 2015 | E&E - TV
Could last month's hearing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan and weekly congressional hearings on the proposal slow the agency's pace on rolling out a final rule? -
Legal Debate Trails McConnell's Latest Assault on EPA Rule
May 7, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's new offensive against U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan targets the draft rule for encouraging states to enter regional agreements to curb emissions of greenhouse gases. -
Will Greens' Support of the Clean Power Plan Ever Match Their Fervor Against Keystone XL?
May 7, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Scott Detrow
This week, Environment America launched a canvassing campaign aimed at engaging "at least 100,000 people" in conversations about U.S. EPA's unprecedented attempt to reduce the power sector's carbon footprint 30 percent below 2005 levels over the next 15 years. -
EPA Extends Deadline For Refinery Air Toxics Rules
May 7, 2015 | InsideEPA
EPA and environmentalists have agreed to extend from June to September the agency's consent decree deadline to finalize revised standards to reduce air toxics and other emissions from oil refineries, with the Department of Justice (DOJ) citing EPA's need to take additional time to respond to a high volume of public comments. -
Senator: Take Congress Out of Pipeline Approval Process
May 7, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A Republican senator is looking to take Congress out of a key natural gas pipeline approval process. -
Preventing Derailments is the Key to Crude Oil Shipment Safety
May 7, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Chet Thompson
Not since the 1970s’ oil embargoes has there been such a loud public discussion about how fuel gets to local gas stations. -
Another Derailment and Another 'Gamble' for Oil Train Industry
May 7, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
A train hauling crude through rural North Dakota jumped the tracks and caught fire early yesterday morning, less than a week after the Department of Transportation issued a rule aimed at preventing crude-by-rail disasters.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
-
(ACC Blog) CPI’s Polyurethane Innovation Award is Back!
May 7, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
It’s time to submit your entries for the annual competition for best new innovation in the polyurethane industry!
The Center for the Polyurethanes Industry (CPI) is seeking entries for its exciting Polyurethanes Innovation Award at the Polyurethanes Technical Conference. The award recognizes some of the most inventive, unique, and impactful commercial technologies in the global polyurethanes industry.
Past entries have represented the full depth and breadth of the industry, from developments in automobiles and building materials, to footwear, industrial processes and beyond. Dow Chemical Company and Preferred Sands received the 2014 Polyurethane Innovation Award for their pioneering polyurethane applications that improve both the productivity and sustainability of the hydraulic fracturing process.
This year, CPI is in search of the latest, most distinguished innovations in the polyurethane industry. The entries of the finalists will be highlighted to leaders of the polyurethane industry during CPI’s annual Polyurethanes Technical Conference, which will take place October 5-7 at the Gaylord Palms Resort in Orlando, Fla.
Information on how to submit an application before the June 19 deadline can be found on the CPI website. Award entries in polyurethane chemistry may include finished products, initiatives, training or education programs, or processes or processing equipment. To view all the Terms and Conditions, please click here.
Click here for more information on early registration specials and discounted room rates for the 2015 Polyurethanes Conference.
- See more at: http://blog.americanchemistry.com/2015/05/cpis-polyurethane-innovation-award-is-back/#sthash.A1aALNTn.dpuf
-
(ACC Mentioned) STB Nominee Reflects a Shipper Tilt
May 7, 2015 | Railway Age
By Frank N. Wilner
Paint former Surface Transportation Board (STB) Chairman Dan Elliott a darling of the National Industrial Transportation League (NITL), a shipper organization asking the STB to require—through so-called open access—that two Class I railroads be available to compete for freight carloads even if the tracks of only one railroad serve a shipper’s facility.
Seeking Senate confirmation to a second term on the three-member STB, and his second term as chairman, Elliott promised expedited consideration of the NITL request, saying its consideration will be “one of the top things for me to do” if he returns to his former post.
Elliott departed the STB Dec. 31 upon expiration of his first term, which included a 12-month holdover period permitted by statute. Democrat Deb Miller has since been acting chairman. The lone Republican is Ann Begeman. Neither has expressed themselves on this issue—fiercely opposed by railroads and investors—as did Elliott at his May 6 confirmation hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee. There is no requirement that the STB consider the NITL request, but the STB’s regulatory agenda is controlled by its chairman.
Few issues before the STB are as controversial as open access—also known as mandated reciprocal switching. If the agency considers and then approves the NITL request for open access—Elliott stopped short of indicating his preference, saying only he favors consideration by the STB of the request—the STB would dictate terms by which railroads deal with each other without shippers having to demonstrate that there is any competitive need for such interference in railroad business dealings. The intent of the NITL request is to lower freight rates through regulatory fiat absent a showing of anti-competitive conduct by railroads.
An ally of the NITL, the American Chemistry Council, estimates that STB approval of open access will reduce railroad revenue by $1.2 billion annually—a result investors warn will threaten long-term railroad revenue adequacy and choke off future investment in railroad infrastructure as investors flee to other, non-railroad opportunities.
Although President Obama nominated Democrat Elliott in 2014 for a second term, the then-Democratic controlled Commerce Committee failed to give him a hearing. President Obama renominated Elliott upon seating of the Republican controlled Senate in January, but his confirmation hearing was not scheduled until May 6. Even if the Commerce Committee acts favorably—and that decision may not occur until June—the entire Senate then must vote on Elliott’s confirmation.
Elliott additionally told the Commerce Committee that he views the job of chairman as “a regulatory backstop” when market forces “are not necessarily working while, at the same time, allowing railroads the ability to make adequate revenues” that encourage new capital investment.
Observing that a “rail renaissance” has occurred since Congress in 1980 partially deregulated a then financially moribund industry, with numerous bankrupt railroads, Elliott said that now is the “right time” for a “thorough examination of rail regulatory policy” including consideration of a competitive access mandate. Yet by the STB’s own determinations, the “renaissance” cited by Elliott still has not produced, through an entire business cycle, a revenue adequate railroad industry.
Although now-retired Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) advocated aggressive reregulation of railroads, his successor, John Thune (R-S.D.), has taken a less strident approach. Elliott appeared to have prepped for a Rockefeller hearing rather than one before Thune.
Rather than advocate restoration of assertive railroad regulation, Thune is sponsoring—along with the committee’s senior Democrat, Bill Nelson of Florida—legislation (S. 808, the Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization Act of 2015) to correct what they term “wasteful and unnecessary delays” in adjudicating shipper grievances. S. 808 would establish deadlines for STB decision-making, increase the agency’s size from three to five members, and strengthen the STB’s independence by allowing it to deal directly with Congress rather than through the Department of Transportation. Nelson told Elliott he wants an STB whose policies do not choke off private sector investment.
Thune’s first question to Elliott was why Elliott’s fiscal year 2016 budget request to Congress—formulated by Elliott before he departed the agency, and which drew a dissent from Begeman—seeks to double the STB’s travel budget at the expense of resources that could instead be devoted to simplifying and speeding agency handling and deciding of shipper complaints. Thune said “a significant portion” of the STB’s resources already is consumed by complex rate cases that are expected to increase in number, and that Elliott’s budget request failed to dedicate enough attention and resources to improve the STB adjudication process.
Although Elliott engaged in significant travel while chairman—to hold hearings and/or visit shipper and railroad facilities—he termed the travel budget “not a big number,” and stressed his intent to spend budget dollars on outside consultants who would assist the board in finding “new ways” for the STB to become more efficient and decide cases more speedily. Among them are Federal Energy Regulatory Commission procedures affecting electric utilities that many would like to see adopted by the STB. Elliott promised “a careful look at how rate cases are handled at other agencies and around the world.” It has been noted that a lower travel budget could translate into additional hiring, allowing internal studies rather than the use of outside consultants.
Elliott also took credit for imposing new reporting requirements on railroads that he said, without explanation, would allow the board to “better understand” shipper and railroad service delays.
For additional information on Elliott and his quest to be confirmed to a second term, click on the following link:
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/blogs/frank-n-wilner/dan-elliotts-stb-renomination-hearing-may-6.html?channel=
As a side note, a wide gulf remains between Democrats and Republicans on the Senate floor—and that could delay or scuttle an Elliott confirmation vote on the Senate floor as well as passage of S. 808, notwithstanding its bipartisan support within the Commerce Committee.
Sen. Thune fired back earlier this week at Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), after Reid asserted on the Senate floor that the Thune-led Commerce Committee had “held not a single hearing” on reauthorization of surface transportation legislation.
Said Reid: “Transportation would be the first easy place to find agreement in Congress. But, Mr. President, it’s hard to comprehend, but the Republican majority has not held a single hearing on this most important piece of legislation. Not a single hearing. Nothing.”
Thune’s staff advised that the Commerce Committee “has in fact held seven hearings [including the Elliott confirmation hearing] directly on, or related to, reauthorization. Five of these hearings were chaired by Sen. Deb Fisher (R-Neb.) at the subcommittee level and two by Sen. Thune at the full committee.”
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Presses EPA to Dump 'Fragrance-Free' Product Label
May 7, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
Industry groups are asking U.S. EPA to scrap a planned "fragrance-free" label for its voluntary Safer Choice product-labeling program, arguing there isn't enough evidence that fragrances damage health.
The program -- promoted by U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy last month in a videowith her dog -- is meant to encourage a shift to safer chemicals by offering more information to consumers (E&ENews PM, March 4).
But industry groups warned EPA in comments sent this week the "fragrance-free" category sets a "disturbing precedent." The public comment period ended Tuesday.
The International Fragrance Association said the label "was inappropriately developed with no input from the fragrance industry." EPA's definition of "fragrance" differs, the groupwrote, from that of industry.
In addition, EPA "failed to provide any scientific basis for its apparent determination that 'fragrance-free' products are 'safer' than those with fragrance," the American Chemistry Council (ACC) wrote.
Though EPA has said that some consumers have expressed a preference for a "fragrance-free" option, the ACC said there was insufficient reason to burden companies. Instead, the label must be "based on clear science, and it should tie the certification claim directly to the human health endpoint," the group wrote.
The American Cleaning Institute also argued EPA should allow chemicals that can be used for both fragrance and other purposes to be used in "fragrance-free" products.
Companies are allowed to use the Safer Choice label on cleaning products that qualify under EPA's Safer Choice Standard, which was formerly known as Design for the Environment. Under that program, manufacturers voluntarily submit products for verification by EPA that the products do not contain chemicals on a list of compounds considered more likely to be unsafe.
There are three versions of the Safer Choice labels -- for consumer products, institutional and industrial supplies, and fragrance-free items.
Products with a "fragrance-free" label have been verified by EPA to not contain chemicals listed on the International Fragrance Association's list of compounds that can be used to mask a scent.
Health and safety advocates say fragrance disclosure is critical because companies often use questionable substances like phthalates in fragrance formulas and others that may cause hormone disruption, reproductive harm or allergies.
In 2013, the advocacy group Women's Voices for the Earth said in a report, "Secret Scents," that between 2 and 11 percent of consumers are affected by fragrance allergies. However, many companies do not disclose the presence of fragrance ingredients because they consider it proprietary product information.
The new fragrance-free label "is particularly helpful for consumers who want to totally avoid all fragrances," Jamie McConnell, the director of policy and programs at Women's Voices, wrote in a blog post.
However, she wrote that the group is concerned that fragrance ingredients are evaluated separately from other chemicals under the Safer Choice program. Instead, EPA should not allow the use of fragrances in products containing the Safer Choice label, McConnell wrote.
The inclusion of fragrances means "the Safer Choice label is misleading, because if the product contains fragrance, it contains chemicals of concern," McConnell wrote.
"Consumers who want to buy a product with the Safer Choice label because they are concerned about harmful chemicals," she said, "should look for the fragrance-free label."
-
Chemical Safety Bill Picks Up Support in Senate
May 7, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A bipartisan bill to reform the federal government’s chemical safety oversight now has 36 co-sponsors, split equally between the two political parties.
Six of the bill’s backers celebrated the addition of 14 new co-sponsors from across the political spectrum and the country at a Thursday news conference.
They said the bill, dubbed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, is a rare example of senators working together and compromising on legislation toward a common goal.
“This is a big deal, this isn’t just another news conference,” said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee and one of the original co-sponsors.
“This is the first major environmental law that is being drafted and will be passed since the amendments to the Clean Air Act in 1990,” he said.
“You don’t see this group gathered together very often,” said Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), the main Democratic sponsor, pointing to strange bedfellows like Inhofe, Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and David Vitter (R-La.) and himself.
“But I think it speaks to the incredible progress we’ve made on the legislation we’re working on together,” Udall said.
Udall and Vitter have been the main forces behind the effort in recent years to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, which dictates how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tests, regulates and bans toxic chemicals.
The main feature of the new legislation is that the EPA must only consider health and safety in how it regulates chemicals, and may not consider the costs to industry.
The bill’s Republican backers conceded on a number of fronts recently to gain more Democratic support, including giving states the opportunity to regulate chemicals on their own if the EPA misses deadlines and to enforce the law itself in some cases.
“As a former attorney general," Whitehouse said, "it was really, really important to me that the attorneys general be allowed to co-enforce this act on behalf of their states, and we achieved that.”
“It was also really important to me that a regulatory death zone not emerge in which no one anywhere in government was capable of regulating a toxic chemical. And that has been cured,” he continued.
Vitter said he and Inhofe met Thursday morning with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), and while McConnell did not set a date for the bill’s floor vote, they felt he understood the importance of the measure.
“I certainly can’t speak for Mitch, but it was a very productive discussion, and he recognizes how significant this is and what a positive, bipartisan accomplishment this will be,” Vitter said.
Vitter is running this year to be governor of Louisiana, which he admitted adds to the urgency of getting the bill passed this year.
He believes the bill would easily obtain a filibuster-proof 60 votes if it gets a floor vote.
The Environment and Public Works Committee passed the bill last week. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the panel, voted against it, as did most of the Democrats.
The House is also working on chemical reform, although leaders there have allowed the Senate to take the lead on it.
-
Senators Push for Quick Action on TSCA Bill
May 7, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode
An eclectic groups of senators today called for quick action on a bill from Sens. Tom Udall and David Vitter to update the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act.
“You don’t see this group gathered together very often,” Udall said at a press conference that included Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe and liberal Democrats Sheldon Whitehouse and Jeff Merkley. “I believe we not only have a bill that can pass the Senate, but can be signed into law.”
“This is a big deal, this isn’t just another news conference,” Inhofe said.
Vitter said there was no date set for floor action following a meeting he and Inhofe had with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell this morning.
Inhofe acknowledged there will be a lot of amendments — including many promised by EPW ranking member Barbara Boxer. But noting the broad backing already for the bill, he said, “I don’t think unfriendly amendments are going to get very far on this.”
They announced 14 additional official cosponsors — seven from each party — bringing the total Senate backing to 36, including Udall and Vitter. The new cosponsors are Democrats Whitehouse, Merkley, Cory Booker, Tim Kaine, Jeanne Shaheen, Claire McCaskill and Chris Murphy and Republicans John Barrasso, Johnny Isakson, Marco Rubio, John Cornyn, Tim Scott, Tom Cotton and Lisa Murkowski. -
More Bipartisan Senators Co-Sponsor Udall-Vitter TSCA Bill
May 7, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
More than a third of the Senate is now co-sponsoring a bipartisan bill to change how the federal government regulates toxic chemicals, making it likely that the issue will be debated on the Senate floor this year, lawmakers said today.
Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) said he and Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) met with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) earlier today about the bill. While no date for floor action was determined, McConnell is interested in moving the bill, Vitter said.
"It was a very productive discussion," Vitter said, "and he recognized how significant this is and what a positive, bipartisan accomplishment this will be."
A group of bipartisan senators said today the work done in negotiations among Senate Environment and Public Works Committee members in recent days had paved the way for additional co-sponsors. Joining earlier co-sponsors are Republican Sens. John Barrasso of Wyoming, John Cornyn of Texas, Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Marco Rubio of Florida and Tim Scott of South Carolina, and Democratic Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Tim Kaine of Virginia, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Chris Murphy of Connecticut, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.
"I'm going to tell you something that even in the infinite wisdom of you folks in the press, you're probably not aware," Inhofe said. "Senator Whitehouse and I don't always agree on everything."
Whitehouse said that while the lawmakers may disagree on other environmental priorities, if he could find common ground with ideological opposites like Inhofe, that shows that the bill deserved consideration.
"This is not a perfect bill," Whitehouse said. "Where we will disagree is as to its imperfections. But I think what we have agreed to do is to get started -- that action is better than a logjam, and you don't get anywhere if you don't get started."
While the bill is expected to be open for amendments on the Senate floor, lawmakers who support the bill, sponsored by Vitter and Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), will work to prevent "poison pill" amendments that would disrupt the agreement, Whitehouse said. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), a leading opponent of the plan, has vowed to introduce dozens of such proposals to attempt to make the bill more protective of the public health (E&E Daily, May 5).
Just as the Clean Air Act was amended in 1990, lawmakers will need to monitor how U.S. EPA regulates chemicals if the bill becomes law and consider legislative fixes if there are implementation problems, Whitehouse said.
Whitehouse, Booker and Merkley worked with Vitter and Udall on a set of changes in advance of a markup of the bill, S. 697 -- or the "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act" -- last month, and House lawmakers are preparing their own legislation.
The list of Senate co-sponsors could still grow. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said on the Senate floor today he's considering co-sponsoring the legislation, but has "three or four issues" he needs to talk about with Udall.
-
EDF Welcomes 14 Additional Cosponsors of the Lautenberg Act
May 7, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Environmental Defense Fund welcomes today’s announcement that 14 additional Senators – 7 Democrats and 7 Republicans – have cosponsored the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S. 697). This brings the total number of Senators cosponsoring the legislation to 36, more than a third of the full Senate.
The Lautenberg Act would reform our nation’s badly broken 40-year-old chemical safety law, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans lending their names to this legislation not only affirms strong bipartisan support, but demonstrates Congress’ growing recognition that reform of TSCA is urgent, and that this bill is a solid compromise that represents our best chance in a generation to significantly improve public health protections from toxic or untested chemicals.
Today’s announcement was made possible by a breakthrough in negotiations immediately preceding the April 28 markup of the legislation in the Environment and Public Works Committee, which led the Committee to approve the revised bill on a strong 15-5 bipartisan vote.
Today’s announcement in turn signifies that it is now time to move the legislation to the Senate floor.
Adding their names today to the 22 earlier cosponsors of the Lautenberg Act are:Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY)Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR)Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ)Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT)Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR)Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)Sen. John Isakson (R-GA)Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC)Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA)Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
-
Bipartisan Chemical Reform Doesn't Go Far Enough For Environmental Extremists
May 7, 2015 | Forbes
By Michael Estève
Barbara Boxer and environmental activist groups are at it again. It’s been almost 40 years since Congress passed legislation to regulate chemical safety and everyone agrees that the status quo isn’t working. But now that a bipartisan group of Senators has drafted a strong reform that actually has a chance of passing, Boxer and her allies are doing whatever they can to kill it.
Most people probably haven’t heard of the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, known as TSCA. It’s the federal law that gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to make sure that the chemicals used in everything from food packaging to paint are safe for consumers. So while it’s obscure, it’s a law that touches every single business and consumer in some way.
It’s also a law that causes Republicans like me to support two things we often oppose: Federal regulation and the authority of the EPA.
Senators Tom Udall (D-NM) and David Vitter (R-LA) and 20 bipartisan co-sponsors are championing legislation, the “Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act,” that would give the EPA greater authority and a hard timeline to start reviewing and regulating the more than 80,000 chemicals currently on the market.
In the highly partisan Washington D.C. climate, it’s rare to see Republicans and Democrats reaching across the aisle on an important issue. It’s even rarer to find a compromise that members of industry and environmental groups can support. Yet this bill doesn’t go far enough for extremists.
Senator Boxer and Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) have introduced their own, competing chemical reform bill that doesn’t have bipartisan support, just the support of radical environmental groups like the Environmental Working Group and Natural Resources Defense Council.
They claim their bill is better because it requires the EPA to take action right away to regulate asbestos and allows states to continue enacting chemical laws that compete with federal regulations.
However, it’s unnecessary for Congress to require the EPA to ban asbestos. The bipartisan legislation from Senators Udall and Vitter gives the EPA the authority to do so quickly. It’s also a terrible idea to allow the states to continue taking a piece by piece approach to chemical regulation.
In the absence of federal regulatory action, states have taken chemical regulation upon themselves. It’s creating a mess in which businesses are forced to reformulate or repackage products depending on the laws in state they’re being sold.
These state actions are often going well beyond the accepted science on chemical safety. For instance, a California law, Proposition 65, requires foods and beverages containing the chemicals acrylamide and 4-methylimidazole (4-MEI) to come with labels warnings that they “contain chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer.”
Yet even though those chemicals may be hard to pronounce, neither chemical has been shown to cause cancer in humans. Scientists at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and at other regulatory agencies around the globe have repeatedly stated that neither pose a threat to consumer safety at the levels we currently consume them.
However, if manufacturers of coffee, soda, potato chips, etc. want to sell to Californians, they were forced to reformulate or repackage their products.
Sen. Boxer and her environmentalist friends are huge fans of Proposition 65, and their bill would allow other states to enact similar laws—regardless of whether state chemical bans are supported by scientific findings.
The bipartisan bill they loathe, however, won’t negate California’s ability to require warning labels on everything sold on supermarket shelves. In a nod to environmentalists, it allows state laws already passed to remain in effect. What it will do is create a system, going forward, in which businesses can work with a single federal agency to ensure their products are safe and discontinue the use of products that are not.
It’s rare that I agree with the policy positions of my neighboring Senators Christopher Coons (D-DE) and Mark Warner (D-VA), but it’s time for Maryland Senators Barbara Mikulski and Ben Cardin to sign onto this strong bipartisan effort to ensure chemical safety.
-
Ten Years after Toxic Chemical Settlement, DuPont Failing to Keep Its Promises
May 7, 2015 | Center for Effective Government
By Amanda Frank
In 1938, a DuPont chemist accidently created a chemical compound that would make thousands of products water- and stain-resistant. The compound belongs to a family of chemicals known as perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs). PFCs soon made their way into nonstick cookware, carpeting, food packaging, and a host of other products.
But one of these chemicals (C8) turned out to be anything but the “miracle” chemical that DuPont claimed. A new report by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) reveals how DuPont covered up the health risks from C8 for decades – and how the company is reneging on promises it made to victims of C8 exposure.
DuPont has known about the negative health effects of C8 for more than 50 years.
Internal research conducted by DuPont revealed that C8 has no safe level of exposure in animals. Subsequent studies demonstrated that PFCs accumulate in the body and are passed from mothers to their babies. Scientists also found cancer clusters among workers at C8 manufacturing plants and birth defects in children born to female employees
DuPont also monitored drinking water sources near its West Virginia manufacturing plant. In 1984, the company detected C8 contamination resulting from decades of waste disposal in landfills, unlined pits, and waterways.
But rather than warning workers and the public about these risks – and alerting federal regulators, as required by law – DuPont hid these damning findings and continued to manufacture C8.
It took the mysterious die-off of cattle near the West Virginia plant for local residents to become suspicious. In 1998, local ranchers sued DuPont, and their lawyer Robert Bilott uncovered DuPont’s secret water tests through a court order; this provided the evidence of the C8 water contamination the victims needed. Bilott helped the ranchers settle out of court and then went on to lead a class-action lawsuit on behalf of 50,000 local residents.
DuPont settled the class-action lawsuit in 2005, paying $70 million dollars in damages up front and agreeing to fund the clean-up of water supplies. DuPont also agreed to fund an independent panel of researchers to examine the health effects of C8 exposure. Victims are able to seek damages for any diseases linked to this exposure, and DuPont will pay up to $235 million to medically monitor nearby residents. (To date, the panel has linked C8 to at least six diseases, including pregnancy-induced hypertension, testicular and kidney cancers, and thyroid disease.)
In 2006, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fined DuPont $16.5 million dollars for failing to notify the agency about health and environmental risks associated with C8 – the largest civil penalty EPA has obtained to date.
That same year, bowing to agency and public pressure, DuPont announced it would “voluntarily” phase-out production of C8 by 2015.
Ten Years Later, Are We Any Safer?
While DuPont and other companies producing C8 are phasing out production this year, they are replacing C8 with other compounds from the same chemical family. And these alternatives also tend to accumulate in our bodies and in the environment. Many are untested and may be as harmful as C8.
Virtually everyone in the U.S. has detectable levels of PFCs in their bodies.
Exposure is not limited to pollution from manufacturing plants; we come into contact with PFCs througheveryday products. Most exposure comes from carpeting and carpet cleaning products. Waterproof clothing and food packaging (like microwave popcorn bags) also contain significant levels of PFCs. Nonstick cookware (like pans coated with Teflon) can expose consumers to PFCs, though at comparably smaller amounts than other products.
Over 200 scientists from across the world signed the Madrid Statement, warning of the dangers of PFCs and urging governments and manufacturers to severely limit their use.
In the meantime, DuPont continues to produce harmful PFCs – while fighting to evade its liabilities to victims.
The 2005 settlement requires DuPont to fund clean-ups of public water supplies with more than 0.05 parts per billion of C8 (equal to a drop of water in 20 Olympic-sized swimming pools). EWG reports that one community’s water supply originally tested at a slightly lower amount. Although it later tested above the threshold, DuPont refused to fund the clean-up. A court ruled in DuPont’s favor.
DuPont may have an even slyer move planned: in July of this year, the company will spin off the unit that created C8 and now creates its replacement chemicals. “Chemours” will assume all of DuPont’s C8 liabilities. Chemours could sink under these liabilities (the original unit’s sales are in decline) and go bankrupt. This could potentially deplete clean-up funds, medical monitoring, and future damage payments made to victims of C8 exposure. EWG notes that other companies have made similar moves to avoid liabilities.
DuPont must be held accountable for the health of the people it poisoned for decades.
DuPont is a very profitable company. It can afford to pay the terms of the 2005 settlement and provide clean-up funds for all affected communities. The company should not be allowed to shed its liabilities to its planned spinoff. It is unacceptable that DuPont and other chemical companies knowingly continue to market products with chemicals that their own research shows are severely harmful to workers and consumers.
DuPont’s cover-up of C8 risks, and its continued use of other PFCs, demonstrates that companies cannot be allowed to self-regulate.
Unfortunately, our federal government does a poor job of keeping toxins out of our products. The 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act gives EPA the authority to regulate the over 84,000 chemicals registered for commercial use. But in almost 40 years, EPA has tested only about 250 chemicals and restricted the use of only nine – largely because of extreme industry opposition when EPA tries to regulate chemicals.
Congress is working to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act. But current bills offer only moderate process improvements and will prevent states from taking actions to protect their residents against toxic chemicals.
If you want chemical safety laws that will improve EPA’s ability to identify harmful chemicals and remove them from the market, sign our action alert. Urge your senators to oppose reform that caters to the chemical industry.
You can learn more about C8 contamination from Keep Your Promises, an advocacy organization based in the communities affected by DuPont’s poisonous chemicals.
-
Alternative Flame Retardants May Act Like PBDEs
May 7, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
Many alternative flame retardants, including some halogenated organophosphorus compounds, behave similarly in the environment to the polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) they were brought in to replace, according to computer modelling by a Swedish team.
Since the phase-out of PBDEs and hexabromocyclododecanes (HBCDs), several classes of flame retardants have emerged, including “alternative” brominated flame retardants (BFRs) and organophosphorus flame retardants (OPFRs). However, little is known about their physical-chemical properties or their transport and fate in the environment, says the Swedish team, led by Ioannis Liagkouridis from Stockholm University (CW, 28 November 2013).
The team's screening for relevant physical chemistry data revealed a “serious scarcity” in high quality experimental values. The researchers, therefore, used modelling to assess the indoor and outdoor fate of 35 “novel and emerging” BFRs, including tribromoneopentyl alcohol (TBNPA) and dibromophenol (DBP).
They also studied 22 OPFRs, including triethyl phosphate (TEP) and triphenyl phosphate (TPP), comparing the results with those from PBDEs.
The researchers suggest that there are “worrying indications” that most of the alternative BFRs and halogenated OPFRs behave similarly to PBDEs, exhibiting characteristics of persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity, as well having the potential for long-range transport in the environment.
“The models have their limitations, but it is clear that many of the halogenated replacement substances are very similar to the PBDEs,” says co-author Ian Cousins from Stockholm University.
The limitations stem largely from the lacking experimental data. “We know little about the replacements and, probably, it will take five to ten years to fill important data gaps,” adds Dr Cousins.
“There is an urgent need to confront and overcome the ignorance, concerning the increasing risks associated with these alternative flame retardants, so that necessary risk reduction measures can be taken early enough,” write the researchers in Science of the Total Environment. One “obvious” risk reduction measure would be to use the principles of green chemistry when designing replacements, says Dr Cousins.
The good news is that a group of low molecular weight, alternative BFRs and halogen-free OPFRs appear to give better environmental performance, based on the modelling. The results suggest that the chemicals are less persistent in both indoor and outdoor environments and “could possibly constitute promising alternatives to the PBDEs”, say the researchers.
-
US Institute Surveys Occupational Carbon Banotube Exposures
May 7, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Responding to concerns about carbon nanotube (CNT) exposure, the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (Niosh) has conducted a survey of workplace exposures at manufacturer and user sites.
The institute visited 13 CNT sites and one producing carbon nanofibers (CNF). Samples were collected for both the inhalable (>100 µm) and respirable (>10 µm) mass concentrations of elemental carbon in the working area and in the personal breathing zone (PBZ) – defined as within a 0.3m radius of a worker’s nose and mouth.
Inhalable PBZ samples were collected at nine sites, while at the remaining five both respirable and inhalable PBZ samples were collected side-by-side. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) PBZ and area samples were also collected and analysed to quantify and size CNT and CNF agglomerate and fibrous exposures.
The survey found, in most cases, that the institute's recommended exposure limit for CNT and CNF was not exceeded. This limit is set at 1 µg/m3 as an 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) of elemental carbon for the respirable-size fraction. Exposures were also generally higher at user, rather than manufacturer, sites.
Average respirable carbon concentration within the breathing zone, measured over 8 hours, amounted to 0.16 µg/m3, while the average concentration of the inhalable fraction was 0.38 µg/m3. TEM analysis showed an 8-hour average concentration of 0.003 CNT or CNF structures/cm3. The most common CNT structures were found to be larger agglomerates in the 2–5 µm range as well as agglomerates >5 µm.
Overall, 96 % of the samples showed a carbon concentration, within the personal breathing zone, below the limit recommended by the NIOSH.
The authors note it was not surprising to find the inhalable mass concentration to be higher than the respirable concentration, as most CNTs and CNFs appear as larger agglomerates. Occupational exposure, therefore, seems to be mainly linked to larger structures of the inhalable fraction, but a small proportion of samples had respirable concentrations above the limit.
The study concludes that until more information is known about the health effects associated with larger agglomerate particles, it seems prudent to assess worker exposure to airborne CNT materials by monitoring elemental carbon at both respirable and inhalable size fractions.
The survey is published in the Annals of Occupational Hygiene and an account also appears on the Innovation Society website.
-
Dozens of Energy Proposals Floated
May 7, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Nick Juliano and Hannah Northey
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski introduced 18 bills she is considering including in a broad energy package as several other members from both sides of the aisle floated their own ideas for inclusion.
The Alaska Republican will brief reporters on her proposals later this afternoon to outline her committee's schedule for organizing the four-prong energy legislation she's been working on all year. The package is expected to address energy infrastructure, supply, efficiency and accountability.
The goal: to address the massive changes underway in the energy industry since the last time a comprehensive bill was enacted in 2007 -- such as the domestic oil and gas boom spurred by hydraulic fracturing and the transition to lower-carbon sources of energy driven by climate change regulations.
In addition to Murkowski, several other lawmakers have introduced energy bills in recent days, including Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Angus King (I-Maine), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Shelly Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.). Energy and Natural Resources ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) also introduced grid legislation today, and bills likely will continue coming in from other members.
The committee held its first energy bill hearing last week to consider a set of proposals that could become part of an efficiency title, and the House Energy and Commerce Committee is continuing to assemble its own parallel bill (E&E Daily, May 1).
Text of Murkowski's bills were not available in time for publication, but their overall focus points to her desire to foster infrastructure and modernize the grid, as well as her concern with electric reliability issues. The senator last month took U.S. EPA to task for calling a high-profile review of the Clean Power Plan "premature" and downplaying the findings (E&ENews PM, April 21).
The North American Electric Reliability Corp.. the grid's federally appointed overseer, released an assessment of EPA's landmark proposal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and called for a delay to provide utilities and states with breathing room to coordinate and adjust to an accelerated shift to natural gas and renewables and account for long lead times needed to build new generation, pipes and wires.
NERC didn't find the Clean Power Plan would trigger blackouts but noted the report reflects a growing need for new infrastructure, given a raft of expected power plant retirements. NERC officials also expressed hope EPA would include state relief or extensions for those regions facing tight construction and permitting timelines.
Clean energy and environmental groups have taken issue with NERC's findings, criticizing NERC for not putting more focus on energy efficiency and the building momentum for wind and solar.
Cantwell is introducing legislation aimed at expanding the use of "smart grid" technologies by establishing a program at DOE focused on grid-scale storage and establishing demonstration programs focused on advanced distribution systems and "microgrid" technology, according to a summary.
A Wyden measure would establish a grant program at DOE focused on six key areas, according to a summary: "fine-tuning energy use based on real-time energy prices; innovating power markets to value new energy technologies; determining new retail electricity structures to account for shifts in energy production and the time-value of energy; energy storage; and smart electric vehicle charging."
Another Wyden bill would transfer certain authority from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to states, on a voluntary basis, to set rates for small renewable energy projects less than 2 megawatts, according to a summary.
Shaheen's bill would direct DOE to find ways to better integrate distributed generation into the electric bill.
Cassidy's bill, introduced earlier this week, would allow the Interior Department to authorize rights of way to build natural gas pipelines through national parks.
Yesterday, Hoeven, Capito and Markey touted various bills related to gas pipelines (E&E Daily, May 7). And King is touting legislation aimed at ensuring utilities pay sufficient rates to homeowners with rooftop solar panels, among other goals (E&E Daily, May 6).
A list of pending energy bills follows. Links to bill text and summaries are provided where available.
Murkowski introduced the following bills, all but one are headed to her committee:S. 1215, to amend the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000 to provide for the development of methane hydrate as a commercially viable source of energy.S. 1216, to amend the Natural Gas Act to modify a provision relating to civil penalties.S. 1217, to establish an Interagency Rapid Response Team for Transmission, to establish an Office of Transmission Ombudsperson, and for other purposes.S. 1218, to establish an interagency coordination committee or subcommittee with the leadership of the Department of Energy and the Department of the Interior, focused on the nexus between energy and water production, use, and efficiency, and for other purposes.S. 1219, to amend the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 to provide for the safe and reliable interconnection of distributed resources and to provide for the examination of the effects of net metering.S. 1220, to improve the distribution of energy in the United States.S. 1221, to amend the Federal Power Act to require periodic reports on electricity reliability and reliability impact statements for rules affecting the reliable operation of the bulk-power system.S. 1222, to amend the Federal Power Act to provide for reports relating to electric capacity resources of transmission organizations and the amendment of certain tariffs to address the procurement of electric capacity resources, and for other purposes.S. 1223, to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to improve the loan guarantee program for innovative technologies, and for other purposes.S. 1224, to reconcile differing federal approaches to condensate.S. 1225, to improve federal land management, resource conservation, environmental protection, and use of federal real property, by requiring the secretary of the Interior to develop a multipurpose register of federal real property and identifying inaccurate, duplicate, and out-of-date federal land inventories, and for other purposes.S. 1226, to amend the Mineral Leasing Act and the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands to promote a greater domestic helium supply, to establish a federal helium leasing program for public land, and to secure a helium supply for national defense and federal researchers, and for other purposes.S. 1227, to require the secretary of Energy to develop an implementation strategy to promote the development of hybrid micro-grid systems for isolated communities.S. 1229, to require the secretary of Energy to submit a plan to implement recommendations to improve interactions between the Department of Energy and National Laboratories.S. 1230, to direct the secretary of the Interior to establish a program under which the director of the Bureau of Land Management shall enter into memoranda of understanding with states providing for state oversight of oil and gas productions activities.S. 1231, to require congressional notification for certain Strategic Petroleum Reserve operations and to determine options available for the continued operation of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.S. 1235, to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to authorize regional corporations and billage corporations to establish energy assistance programs.S. 1236, to amend the Federal Power Act to modify certain requirements relating to trial-type hearings with respect to certain license applications before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and for other purposes.
Other Republicans introduced the following bills this week:S. 1196, sponsored by Cassidy. To amend the Mineral Leasing Act to authorize the secretary of the Interior to grant rights of ways in national parks. Click here for the summary. (See related story.)
Democrats have put forward several proposals as well:A bill from Cantwell to facilitate modernizing the electric grid. Click here for the summary.S. 1201, from Shaheen, to advance the integration of clean distributed energy into electric grids and for other purposes.S. 1207, from Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), to direct the secretary of Energy to establish a grant program under which the secretary shall make grants to eligible partnerships to provide for the transformation of the electric grid by the year 2030, and for other purposes.S. 1232, from Wyden, to amend the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 to modify provisions relating to smart grid modernization, and for other purposes. Click here for the summary.S. 1233, also from Wyden, to amend the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 to expand the electric rate-setting authority of states. Click here for the summary.S. 1237, from King, to amend the Natural Gas Act to limit the authority of the secretary of Energy to approve certain proposals relating to export activities of liquefied natural gas terminals.
-
Federal Forecast Hints at Who Would Benefit from Crude Policy Change
May 7, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
Federal oil export policies will dictate whether the refining sector builds new capacity to maximize profit from domestically produced crude or steps aside as more oil flows to overseas buyers, federal forecasters say.
In a study published Tuesday, the Energy Information Administration looked at how U.S. refiners would be likely to respond to the growing volumes of light, sweet oil streaming from tight oil plays.
If Washington, D.C., policymakers decide to reverse a decades-old ban on exporting U.S. crude, they found, much of that oil will be shipped to other countries where existing refining capacity is a better match for the oil's characteristics. That would raise prices paid to domestic producers, who currently see a discount for their product relative to the world market.
The study is among a series of analyses of oil export-related issues requested by Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R), chairwoman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and a key leader in industry-backed efforts to repeal the 1970s-era crude export ban.
In April, EIA published a report showing that the refining industry has some flexibility to process growing volumes of light, tight oil but that the big investments needed to dramatically increase refining capacity could be difficult to finance with the possibility of a policy change on the horizon (EnergyWire, April 7).
The latest EIA assessment, carried out by consulting firm Turner, Mason & Co. based on agency-specified price, volume and policy assumptions, suggests that the question boils down to two main scenarios: either export restrictions stay in place, the refining sector grows in response to greater crude feedstocks, and increasing volumes of finished fuels are exported for foreign sales; or export restrictions are lifted and additional oil supplies are directly sold overseas for refining.
A major drawback of the study is that it relies on EIA forecasts from before the crude price crash with projected per-barrel values in the $90 to $120 range between 2014 and 2025. The agency defended the overall conclusions of the study, though, claiming the results "are still meaningful" because refiners make investment decisions based on the relative values of crude and refined products, rather than absolute prices.
The report finds that in all cases, growing domestic oil production leads to falling imports, more refinery activity and greater energy exports.
Financial advisory firm ClearView Energy Partners summed up the agency's data-heavy predictions as reflecting a choice between allocating profits from about 1.6 million barrels per day of exports to either the oil production industry or the refining industry.
"We (and others) have framed the crude oil exports issue as a question of allocating rents between upstream producers and refiners. [EIA's] study may point to the scale of the allocation decision ... but it doesn't answer the question as to which scenario offers greater economy-wide benefits," the firm said.
Crunching numbers around the study's predicted exports and investments, ClearView concluded that if the oil ban stays in place, refinery investments of about $8.7 billion over a 10-year interval are forecast to bring in some $14.6 billion of additional revenues.
The firm noted another takeaway that could prove challenging on Capitol Hill, though: a finding that allowing exports would lead to some growth in imports.
"Lifting the export ban doesn't just reduce refinery crude throughput relative to the base case; it also modestly increases net crude imports [because] refiners that do not make investments to process domestic light crudes would need to import more of the heavy crudes for which their facilities are configured," the firm notes. "Some political leaders, however, could be uncomfortable with the prospect that optimizing the U.S. crude slate for existing refineries might run counter to the much-ballyhooed [and misplaced, if you ask us] goal of 'energy independence.'"
-
W.Va. AG Morrisey Talks Possible Run for Governor, EPA 'Power Grab' on Clean Power Plan
May 7, 2015 | E&E - TV
Could last month's hearing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan and weekly congressional hearings on the proposal slow the agency's pace on rolling out a final rule? During today's OnPoint, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R) discusses his strategy for challenging the agency prior to a final rulemaking and weighs in on recent research citing public health benefits of the Clean Power Plan. He also says he is keeping his "options open" on a possible 2016 gubernatorial bid.Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello, and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey. Attorney General Morrisey, thank you for joining me.
Patrick Morrisey: Hey, it's great to be here, Monica. Thank you.
Monica Trauzzi: So you testified this week before a Senate EPW subpanel and last month argued before the D.C. Circuit Court in the first case against EPA's Clean Power Plan. This all comes as new research is released by Syracuse University and Harvard University citing the public health benefits of the Clean Power Plan. What weight do you give public health, West Virginians' health, as you make your calculations on the Clean Power Plan?
Patrick Morrisey: Well, of course, public health is very important to the citizens of West Virginia. We care passionately about clean air and clean water, but my concern has been that this administration has been advancing a radical, illegal proposal, which is going to have a lot of negative effects from a job perspective. It will cause electricity prices to rise, and also put the reliability of the power grid at risk, all under the guise of this very tenuous legal authority. They're trying to do something that's never been done before because they're regulating literally so many different types of energy sources in order to try to advance their goals.
Monica Trauzzi: Do you believe that coal-fired power emissions are contributing to climate change?
Patrick Morrisey: Well, I think that coal-fired power plants and that debate is a very important one. I'm the chief legal officer for the state of West Virginia, so I try to focus on when the administration violates the rule of law. And I think that's an important debate that Congress needs to have, but what's happened here is that the EPA has stepped forward, and they've issued this sweeping rule, I think without specific legislative authority. That's a real problem.
Monica Trauzzi: But they have the authority to regulate emissions if there's a negative public health impact, which is what is happening here.
Patrick Morrisey: So I think what many people point to, they look at Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court case that talked about the ability to regulate carbon dioxide. So we're not going to quarrel with the specifics of that case. What we actually say is that, even if you have the general authority to regulate in a particular area, you have to cite very specific statutory authority, and what they've done here is that they've tried to bootstrap this little typo, a technical error, in order to move forward with the sweeping regulation. There are ways, legally, that they might be able to regulate in this space. They're just not doing it.
Monica Trauzzi: You have called this an unlawful power grab. EPA is giving a great deal of authority and flexibility to the states by allowing picking and choosing and various building blocks. There are strong indications that in the final rule, the agency will even allow further flexibility for the states. So where's that power grab happening?
Patrick Morrisey: Well, a couple things. First, whenever you issue a proposal has to be done so in a lawful manner, and for the first time ever, the EPA is now trying to not only regulate the specifics of coal-fired power plants, they have these four building blocks and they're trying to move away from coal and move toward oil and natural gas. They're also trying to increase the amount of renewables and put particulars on consumers' energy demand. I think that's not in the Clean Air Act. That's why we think that this proposal is unlawful and it's really sweeping. That's why we've stepped out to oppose it.
Monica Trauzzi: How much of your work as AG is focused on blocking the Clean Power Plan?
Patrick Morrisey: It's a very important issue for the state of West Virginia, and I actually think it's really critical for the country as a whole. When you start to look at what's going to happen under this Clean Power Plan, I don't think it's -- you can really make an argument that ratepayers ultimately won't pay as you're forced to construct broad new power plants across the country. The issue here is that you have a lot of coal plants that will be retiring over the course of the next 20 to 30 years. This is going to dramatically accelerate the retiring of those plants. That has to be absorbed somewhere, so when people talk about the economic benefits of this, I don't think they're clearly focusing on what happens, at least in a lot of the states that are going to get forced to migrate over long before they would have to. And West Virginia has invested a great deal in scrubbers and in coal-fired power plants that are environmentally sensitive.
Monica Trauzzi: But there is this debate happening between states on whether this is economically viable, whether it will have reliability challenges. In terms of emission rate reduction, the proposed rate for West Virginia is just under 20 percent in the draft proposal, and that's lower than the reductions proposed in many states where we hear state leaders say that they can comply and that they don't think that there will be reliability challenges. So how can you -- how do you account for that disconnect?
Patrick Morrisey: A couple different things. As many people know who watch your show, West Virginia's the second-largest producer of coal. So we're much more heavily dependent on coal than most other states in the country. And so we're starting at a much higher base. So if you suggest that we have to cut 21 percent, that's going to be exceedingly difficult when you have over 90 percent of your electricity needs derived from coal. So that's one starting point, but the broader point that I'd like to make is that, if you look nationally, 40 percent of the nation's energy is still powered through coal. So to the extent that this proposal would -- were to go forward and you would see dramatic decreases in the production and the use of coal, that could have a very significant effect on reliability because the coal of West Virginia not only powers our state, it helps power the rest of the country as well.
Monica Trauzzi: I want to rewind to last month's D.C. Circuit Court arguments on the power plan. The judges questioned the precedent for halting a rulemaking while the agency is still working on the rule. And the court seemed to indicate that the challenge was premature. So is your goal to attempt to slow the pace of the rollout of the power plan?
Patrick Morrisey: Well, our goal is to stop the plan because we think it's illegal, and we think that if you look at the way this proposal is designed, it's causing harm right now. That's why we took the admittedly unusual step of filing a lawsuit while the proposal was in a proposed stage as opposed to a final rule. We talked to a lot of the states that are part of our coalition. We had experienced environmental regulators say that the harm is happening now. States have to actually prepare their plans now, and we know that the market is moving. If you look at Wall Street and if you look at what's happening to the coal industry, people are very deeply concerned. So that's why we thought it was appropriate for the court to step in in this particular circumstance, even though we know it's unusual. We would also note that the legal gymnastics that the EPA is using are incredibly unusual, and that's yet another reason why we think it's warranted for the court to step in now.
Monica Trauzzi: So if there's a stay rather than the rule being struck down, is that something that would work?
Patrick Morrisey: Well, we're certainly open to a stay as they wrestle with all of these issues because we know that it's a complicated rule. Now, we would like for the rule to get set aside because I think that the energy industry and people crave certainty, and so long as you have this proposed rule as an overhang, even if it's a stay, that's a real problem. But clearly a stay would send a message to people, we're going to take the time, we're going to make sure we do this right, and we're going to do it in a lawful manner.
Monica Trauzzi: We're obviously expecting further legal challenges and from your state. As the final rule comes out, is this the panel of judges you'd like to see in future challenges?
Patrick Morrisey: Well, we have great respect for the panel that we went before just a few weeks ago, so we don't always get to pick who we argue before, but we have a lot of respect for those judges, and obviously we'll have respect for any of the jurists that we appear before because I think this is going to be a very long process. I can't predict at any given time who we will appear before, but we obviously are going to do our best job whenever we're making our arguments.
Monica Trauzzi: What is your state's plan in terms of submitting a compliance mechanism, and what is the legal viability of the Just Say No option?
Patrick Morrisey: Well, a couple things. One, our state Legislature this year decided that it wanted to take a closer look at ultimately what might get submitted to the EPA. So now the Legislature gets to have input before something ultimately gets submitted to EPA. In West Virginia, we're taking a close look at the lawsuits, and obviously we have our lawsuit. We have the 112 suit that's pending now, the MATS rule, and then later this summer, the administration's talking about issuing a federal implementation plan, which really could have a very negative effect on states and could arguably be commandeering on states. There's some potential constitutional vulnerabilities with that approach. We don't want to make a decision premature. We want to evaluate this and see all the developments occur and then we can make a thoughtful approach. Obviously it would be much better if the administration were to withdraw the rule now, but we recognize that that's not likely to happen.
Monica Trauzzi: Right, and so if the FIP is not a viable option, then the state should compare its own compliance mechanism.
Patrick Morrisey: Well, we're certainly going to look at all the options and what's a better pathway, but it's certainly not right if the federal government designs a FIP which commandeers states' traditional police power. That's not legal, and that could cause a host of additional legal challenges, but I think it's premature to talk much about the FIP until we actually see it.
Monica Trauzzi: A politics question for you. Do you have plans to run for governor?
Patrick Morrisey: Well, we're certainly examining all of our options and evaluating whether I can continue serving the people of the state of West Virginia as attorney general or would I be better off serving in a different capacity. I love being the state attorney general. Every day you can do something good. I think a lot of the work we're doing, fighting federal overreach against the EPA, that's really important for our state. It's important for the country as a whole.
Monica Trauzzi: So it's a maybe.
Patrick Morrisey: Well, we're certainly looking at it. We're keeping our options open.
Monica Trauzzi: All right. We'll end it there. Thank you so much for coming on the show.
Patrick Morrisey: Thank you so much.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
[End of Audio]
-
Legal Debate Trails McConnell's Latest Assault on EPA Rule
May 7, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's new offensive against U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan targets the draft rule for encouraging states to enter regional agreements to curb emissions of greenhouse gases.
States can't take the regional route, the Kentucky Republican warned last week, without the approval of Congress.
But there's a precedent for using the Clean Air Act to encourage interstate pollution pacts.
President George W. Bush's EPA took that tack twice. Bush's Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) for smog- and soot-forming emissions that cross state lines and the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) -- both promulgated in 2005 -- relied on interstate trading of emission credits to deliver reductions. The mercury rule even used the pollution law's same Section 111(d) as the carbon rule does.
At issue for McConnell is wording in Section 102(c) that does permit states to negotiate and enter interstate agreements and compacts to address air pollution but adds, "No such agreement or compact shall be binding or obligatory upon any State a party thereto unless and until it has been approved by Congress."
McConnell told EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy at an Appropriations hearing last week that the provision gave Congress the power to veto the rule (E&E Daily, April 30).
"Doesn't seem ambivalent to me," he said.
If it works as McConnell says, the Section 102(c) card could be a Republican dream: a way to scuttle the Obama administration's flagship climate rule without having to move a bill through the Senate.
McConnell has made the Clean Power Plan a top target, advising like-minded state leaders to "just say no" to the rule by refusing to submit approvable state implementation plans (SIPs) to EPA and counselling them that EPA lacks the authority to impose a stringent federal plan if they do. He has promised that the courts and Congress would provide backup (Greenwire, March 4).
But while Republicans on both sides of the Capitol are moving bills to bar EPA from implementing a federal implementation plan (FIP) in noncompliant states, Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) acknowledged Tuesday the measure she will introduce next week will face an uphill battle to the Senate's 60-vote threshold for controversial legislation (Greenwire, May 5).
McConnell's Section 102(c) bid offers an alternative.
Jeff Holmstead, who was EPA air chief under George W. Bush and is now representing industry clients at Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, said EPA appears not to have fully considered the impact of Section 102(c). He noted that the agency did not address that provision in documents supporting the rule, and McCarthy and the agency have not responded directly to McConnell's statement.
"I think it's a big issue that EPA is going to have to deal with in some way, and I think it does create a problem for them," he said.
Even though the proposal does not require interstate compliance, EPA staff and the rule's supporters in the advocacy community have promoted the option as a way to cope with a myriad of reliability and supply concerns that stakeholders have raised about the rule, he noted.
Numerous studies -- like one released last week by the Bipartisan Policy Center -- show interstate compliance approaches would benefit the vast majority of states (Greenwire, April 29).
And independent system operators (ISOs) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have expressed interest in interstate compliance plans that would track with the integrated nature of the grid. ISOs that back a regional approach include PJM Interconnection, the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) and ISO New England.
If Congress now must give permission for states to enter into these agreements, Holmstead said, "You will have a huge, huge uproar from ISOs, from FERC, anybody who has been looking at this from a reliability perspective or an implementability perspective, and has been thinking about regional plans.
"If regional plans are pulled off the table, it creates a whole set of issues that are way beyond the pushback that EPA's getting now."
EPA's only option in that case, he added, may be to propose a new version of the rule rather than finalizing it this summer as planned.
But David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council said the Section 102(c) argument was just the latest of many "desperate" bids to stymie EPA.
"It's just somebody throwing something up there and hoping that they can make it stick," he said, adding it "wouldn't go anywhere in the courts."'Question of interpretation'
Doniger pointed to Holmstead, who presided over Bush's CAIR effort and evidently saw no legal problems with its interstate architecture then.
And the court challenges to the Bush rules, he said, failed to address whether interstate cap-and-trade programs were permissible.
Holmstead maintains the Section 102(c) provision was so obscure that he and his staff were unaware of it when they wrote CAIR.
"As far as I know, it was never discussed internally or raised by anyone from inside or outside the agency," he said. "I have to admit that I had never heard anything about it until now."
He added, "But Section 102 is still the law of the land, and now that it has been raised, EPA will have to deal with it."
Peter Glaser of Troutman Sanders LLP said CAIR was different, because it was a voluntary cap-and-trade program that would be administered by EPA that states would join in on via SIPs.
It's not "states banding together and coming to an independent agreement," he said in an interview. "That's the difference."
But other Clean Air Act experts question whether the section McConnell cites weakens states' ability to work together or strengthens it.
They note that Section 102 was originally designed to address issues arising from the Compact Clause, a provision in Article 1 of the Constitution aimed at preventing states from assuming powers over interstate commerce and treaty making that are reserved for the federal government.
The clause is virtually identical to the sentence from Section 102 that McConnell hangs his argument on. It reads: "No State shall, without the consent of Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State."
Robert Nordhaus, a senior partner at Van Ness Feldman who has studied historical perspectives on the Clean Air Act, said it was unclear whether the Clean Air Act provision expanded the universe of interstate agreements that would require congressional approval.
"I think the issue here is that, is it referring to compacts that otherwise would require approval under the Compact Clause? Or does it refer to a much wider range of interstate agreements, which under the Constitution would not require congressional approval?" he said. "There is a question of interpretation here."
But Nordhaus noted the Supreme Court has generally taken a narrow view of which interstate agreements require congressional approval and has usually deferred to the agency when the statutory language is ambiguous.
Nathan Richardson, a visiting fellow at the think tank Resources for the Future, said agreements between states or between a state and EPA "are common in Clean Air Act practice, and have not in the past given Congress a route to independently review or reject EPA rulemakings."
The section McConnell cites does not create any new problems for the Clean Power Plan, Richardson said. That the Clean Air Act encourages states to work together in Section 102 implies Congress intended to loosen that constitutional limitation, not tighten them, he said.
And whether or not it expands on states' constitutional authorities, he said, neither the Constitution nor the Clean Air Act provision can be used as a weapon against any federal rule that contemplates interstate cooperation.
"It doesn't give Congress the power that McConnell alleges it does to go in and independently review any EPA regulation that might eventually lead to binding agreements between states," he said.'Hitch'
McConnell and Holmstead hold that the Clean Air Act provision would prevent states from entering an agreement that would be binding -- or that would allow the federal government and third parties to sue to enforce participation.
This is why regional programs under the EPA rule would run afoul of the law, they say, while voluntary programs like the Northeast's Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative did not.
But environmental lawyers say that is not the case because EPA approves individual state plans, not regional agreements.
"It's not the regional agreement that is going to be obligatory, it's the state's compliance with its own plan," Georgetown University Law Center professor Lisa Heinzerling said.
The only "hitch" in Section 102, said Heinzerling -- a former climate lawyer at EPA and an architect of the agency's endangerment finding for carbon dioxide emissions -- "is that any regional agreements or state agreements can't themselves be enforceable under the Clean Air Act."
If a state backs away from participation in a regional plan after EPA approves its SIP, she said, "then I imagine they'd have to come up with some kind of alternative."
-
Will Greens' Support of the Clean Power Plan Ever Match Their Fervor Against Keystone XL?
May 7, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Scott Detrow
This week, Environment America launched a canvassing campaign aimed at engaging "at least 100,000 people" in conversations about U.S. EPA's unprecedented attempt to reduce the power sector's carbon footprint 30 percent below 2005 levels over the next 15 years.
The project is just the latest in a series of efforts among environmental advocates to drum up support for the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan, which is the first attempt by the federal government to curb greenhouse gases on such a broad scale.
"It's our top institutional priority," said Pete Altman, who directs the Natural Resources Defense Council's Climate and Clean Air Campaign. "Putting the first-ever limits on carbon pollution in place is absolutely our first priority."
And yet many environmental leaders will concede that the regulation, which will form the backbone of the proposal the United States will bring to U.N. climate negotiations later this year, has yet to punch through and become the top-tier environmental rallying point that, say, the Keystone XL pipeline has become in recent years.
That's likely due to a range of factors, said Barry Rabe, a University of Michigan professor who conducts polls on climate politics. "Until you have that final rule, and each state can know what it's going to mean for them, I think it's a little harder to target this," he said. "And I also think it's a little tough to have a national conversation about a policy that is probably going to play out so differently in individual states."'Does the public know it's called the Clean Power Plan?'
Rabe also faulted the dense, technical nature of the regulation as a roadblock for the Clean Power Plan ever becoming the issue on the tip of every environmental activists' tongue. "I'm not sure we're going to see big rallies in Madison or Bismarck on the Clean Power Plan. ... How do you set up your SIP [state implementation plan], etc. -- it might be too technical for a national conversation."
"It's easier to oppose something like Keystone XL," said Adam Garber, the field director for Environment America's Pennsylvania chapter, PennEnvironment. But Garber insisted that, even in a state where hydraulic fracturing is a front-and-center issue, his group has devoted substantial time and resources to promoting the Clean Power Plan. He said that effort is paying off.
"Does the public know it's called the Clean Power Plan?" he asked, conceding that the answer is, more than likely, no. "But does the public believe we have to cut this source of pollution? Definitely. And is the public mobilizing? Definitely."
Garber pointed to resolutions passed by more than a dozen Pennsylvania cities and municipalities voicing support for the plan as an example of local organizing. And, like every other environmental organizer ClimateWire spoke with, Garber singled out the millions of public comments EPA received last year about the draft regulation.
"Collectively, [environmental groups] have delivered 8 million comments to EPA on clean air rules for power plants, starting with mercury and then the Clean Power Plan," said Anna Aurilio, who directs Environment America's Washington, D.C., office. "I don't know any other issue that generated 8 million. That's a pretty big drumbeat."Promoting EPA without mentioning it
"Drumbeat" is a word that many environmental advocates mention when asked about how they've organized around the proposal. They aren't necessarily singling out the regulation by name but rather are talking about the broader problem of climate change and pollution from power plants. "We have been focused first and foremost on connecting the dots for people between the impacts of global warming and the reason we need to take action," said Aurilio.
A good example of that type of approach is a television ad that NRDC ran against Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) earlier this year. Referencing a Portman budget resolution allowing states to opt out of the Clean Power Plan, the spot said the Republican "led the charge in Congress last month to allow power plants to keep polluting our air." EPA or the Clean Power Plan was never specifically mentioned, though.
NRDC's Altman predicted that the proposal will become a more front-and-center issue for the public later on in the process, once states begin debating and formulating their implementation plans. "That's where we think we'll see a big uptick on public engagement and interest," he said. "Once you start talking about 'Here's what your state can do,' and once people see the potential of what their state can achieve, that's something that gets people very excited."
Public engagement campaigns would also serve a much more specific purpose for environmental groups once states begin crafting their plans. EPA has laid out four "building blocks" for states to achieve their carbon dioxide emission reductions: improving efficiency at coal-fired power plants, shifting generation to natural gas, shifting generation to no-emission sources like wind and solar, and improving energy efficiency.
Groups like Environment America say they're going to do everything they can to push states to embrace the third and fourth building blocks, rather than the first two that stick to fossil fuel-based power sources.
"Our goal across the country is to keep the 'clean' in Clean Power Plan," Aurilio said.
-
EPA Extends Deadline For Refinery Air Toxics Rules
May 7, 2015 | InsideEPA
EPA and environmentalists have agreed to extend from June to September the agency's consent decree deadline to finalize revised standards to reduce air toxics and other emissions from oil refineries, with the Department of Justice (DOJ) citing EPA's need to take additional time to respond to a high volume of public comments.
Under the terms of the previously established settlement agreement, EPA was due to issue by June 16 its final package of rules setting maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards to limit refinery air toxics, and new source performance standards (NSPS) to limit releases of other pollutants.
In an April 24 filing with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Air Alliance Houston, et al. v. Gina McCarthy -- the case that led to the settlement -- DOJ on EPA's behalf says that the groups involved in the suit have agreed to the agency's request to extend the final rule deadline until Sept. 30.
“In light of the significant number of comments EPA received on the proposed rules, the Parties have agreed to an additional three and a half-month extension -- until September 30, 2015 -- by which EPA is required to sign the enumerated final actions,” says the filing, which marks the latest extension of the deadline.
EPA already extended the consent decree deadline once -- from April 17 to June 16 -- in order to allow an additional 60 days for public comment on the proposed refinery rule revisions it issued in May 2014.
One environmentalist says the new filing accurately reflects the reasons for the delay. The rules in question are broad in scope and cover a wide range of equipment found in refineries under two distinct MACT rules, and set NSPS to limit air emissions from flares, used to dispose of excess gases and combust toxics.
In a related development, EPA on April 20 issued its updated “emissions factors” for equipment found at refineries and at some chemical plants. The factors are developed by gathering emissions data and then calculating typical rates at which various pieces of equipment emit air pollution. These are then used to calculate facilities' emissions for permitting and other regulatory purposes.
Environmentalists said the factors were outdated and underestimated pollution, sometimes by an order of magnitude. Some of the same groups that sued EPA to issue the updated refinery MACT and NSPS rules, including Air Alliance Houston and Environmental Integrity Project, had also sued the agency to update its emissions factors.
Environmentalists welcomed EPA's revised emissions factors, noting that the updated factors predict higher emissions of volatile organic compounds from flares, and the neurotoxin hydrogen cyanide from fluid catalytic cracking units, among other changes. One source told Inside EPA that the revised emissions factors could influence the shape of the final refinery MACT and NSPS rules, likely by making them stricter.
-
Senator: Take Congress Out of Pipeline Approval Process
May 7, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A Republican senator is looking to take Congress out of a key natural gas pipeline approval process.
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) introduced a bill Thursday that would give the Interior Department the power to allow construction of natural gas pipelines on National Park Service lands without needing congressional approval first.
Right now, Congress must sign off on these pipeline projects before the Interior Department can authorize them, even though Interior can approve other infrastructure projects on NPS land on its own. Cassidy's bill would take Congress out of the equation and give Interior the whole natural gas pipeline approval process.
"Updating an outdated law will make it easier to build pipelines and improve the safety of existing pipelines," Cassidy said in a statement. "Cutting out unnecessary steps helps families and communities across America have access to affordable, reliable energy."
Congress's role in this process dates back to the 1980s, when an Interior Department analysis of the law found that it didn't specifically mention natural gas pipelines among the types of projects it could approve on its own. Congress has signed off on at least three natural gas pipelines on National Park Service land over the past 10 years, an energy executive told a House committee last summer.
Under current law, and Cassidy's bill, the Interior Department still needs to conduct an environmental review of a pipeline before it can be built.
-
Preventing Derailments is the Key to Crude Oil Shipment Safety
May 7, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Chet Thompson
Not since the 1970s’ oil embargoes has there been such a loud public discussion about how fuel gets to local gas stations. But 40 years ago, the issue was scarcity. Today, the landscape looks much different because of new sources of crude oil, increasingly shipped by rail, that have helped our nation prosper and lessened consumers’ financial burden.
But we must ensure the safe transport of crude by rail, otherwise, consumers may once again have reason to be concerned. That’s why we’re disappointed with the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) recently announced Enhanced Tank Car Standards. These standards fall well short of requiring the modernization of the rail infrastructure that is necessary to provide maximum safety of crude oil shipments.
The refining industry, DOT, and the rail industry have a common goal of ensuring the safe transport of crude oil and other flammable liquids. According to DOT, the principal causes of derailments are track integrity and human factors. The Department, however, chose to forego establishing measures designed to prevent derailments, and instead focused almost exclusively on tank car standards and other mitigation measures. This was a missed opportunity to improve public safety.
Although the refining industry supports improved tank car standards—indeed, the industry petitioned DOT for such measures and has since voluntarily invested more than $4 billion to purchase upgraded tank cars—such measures alone will not solve the core problem. The only way to do that is to keep trains on the tracks by requiring more frequent rail inspections and maintenance.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) previously tried to strike the right balance between tank car mitigation and derailment prevention through a recommendation to DOT that would obligate the rail industry to enhance its maintenance and inspection programs. That recommendation was rejected by both DOT and the railroads.
If you work or live along a railroad route, it would be nice to know that in addition to better tank cars, the infrastructure in place is being maintained and inspected in a manner that strives to render derailments unlikely. Requiring investments in track integrity, more inspections, and better rules mitigating human error would help provide that assurance.
We cannot afford to sabotage our domestic energy boom, which has resulted in less reliance on foreign oil and tremendous job growth. Between 2003 and 2012, the number of new jobs in the oil and gas industries grew 92 percent versus just three percent across the entire U.S. economy. Cheaper, domestic energy also translates into lower fuel manufacturing costs for domestic refiners and more money in the pockets of families across the nation.
At the same time, however, approval for more pipeline infrastructure has slowed. As most Americans know, the Obama administration has delayed the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline. Without adequate pipeline infrastructure oil companies are increasingly relying on rail. The only other alternative would be to less efficiently move more oil on U.S. highways or waterways.
We’re doing our part to get rail safety right. Now it is time for DOT and the rail industry to make sure that cars carrying crude do not go off the tracks in the first place. DOT must do better than its recent rule. It needs to put together a comprehensive plan to address track improvement and reduce human error.
Thompson is president of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, which represents more than 400 companies that encompass virtually all U.S. refining and petrochemical manufacturing capacity.
-
Another Derailment and Another 'Gamble' for Oil Train Industry
May 7, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
A train hauling crude through rural North Dakota jumped the tracks and caught fire early yesterday morning, less than a week after the Department of Transportation issued a rule aimed at preventing crude-by-rail disasters.
The derailment hurt no one, but officials evacuated about 15 residents around Heimdal, N.D., according to the train's operator, BNSF Railway Co., and local emergency responders.
The National Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Railroad Administration said they had dispatched investigators to the scene.
"Today's incident is yet another reminder of why we issued a significant, comprehensive rule aimed at improving the safe transport of high hazard flammable liquids," FRA's acting Administrator Sarah Feinberg said in a statement yesterday.
Critics of oil train transport seized on the event as yet more evidence of the dangers in moving large volumes of hazardous liquids across the country.
"This is an industry that has a very tenuous social license," said Fred Millar, an independent hazardous materials consultant and longtime advocate for oil train safety and transparency. "I don't know how many of these derailments they can withstand."
Similar derailments and fires in Illinois and West Virginia earlier this year prompted evacuations. No one was killed in either crash, although one resident of Mount Carbon, W.Va., was slightly injured as he fled his burning home.
Two other oil trains operated by Canadian National Railway Co. have exploded in rural Ontario since the start of the year, causing no injuries.
Millar said the industry has adopted a "gambler's perspective," betting no major city suffers a devastating oil train derailment as long as the current oil boom lasts.
In July 2013, a 72-car train hauling oil from North Dakota's Bakken Shale play burst into flames in downtown Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, killing 47 people and spurring calls to ban the oldest, most puncture-prone tank cars from the tracks.
The oil and rail industries have said they are working with regulators to improve safety, noting that the overwhelming majority of crude shipments reach their destinations without incident. BNSF, for instance, recently voluntarily adopted a 35 mph speed limit on oil trains traveling through major population centers.
Under the Department of Transportation's new rule, the type DOT-111 cars involved in the Lac-Mégantic event would be allowed to carry the most hazardous categories of crude until January 2018, although they would be phased out seven months sooner in Canada.
BNSF confirmed the tank cars that caught fire in yesterday's derailment were unjacketed but built to a newer standard, the thicker CPC-1232 design in place since 2011.
DOT's new regulations would give companies until 2020 to upgrade or retire such unjacketed CPC-1232s from most crude service, although less-volatile oil could be shipped in such cars until 2023.
Meanwhile, derailments will continue to happen.
The U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration yesterday increased its estimate of the number of annual crude oil or ethanol train derailments, from 10 per year in a draft analysis to roughly 14 per year on average through 2034 in the absence of its new rulemaking. But the agency cautioned that its final rule is mainly designed to mitigate the impact -- not the frequency -- of oil and ethanol derailments.
North Dakota has taken its own steps to lower the effects of an oil train derailment, with state regulators last year approving a conditioning order capping Bakken crude's vapor pressure, a measure of its volatility. The new regulations took effect April 1.
The increase in oil production from the Bakken Shale play in North Dakota and Montana has been accompanied by an uptick in rail capacity in the region, driving more traffic onto the track networks of BNSF and Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd. North Dakota exported 650,000 barrels per day of crude in tank cars as of February, according to the most recent data available from the state's Pipeline Authority.
Yesterday's derailment near Heimdal was the second high-profile oil train incident to hit the state in less than two years. In December 2013, a 106-car oil train collided with another derailed train near Casselton, N.D., sending huge fireballs into the sky.
"We cannot allow these [derailments] to become the norm," Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) said in a statement yesterday. "This derailment reinforces that all sides need to work together to prevent such derailments from happening -- and that has been a top priority of mine since the derailment of a crude oil train in Casselton in 2013."'Only luck'
Heitkamp isn't the only lawmaker to have noticed the string of recent crude-by-rail accidents.
Since the Lac-Mégantic disaster, several members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have pressured DOT to speed up its updates to decades-old tank car regulations.
Some Democratic lawmakers have said the agency's newly finalized timeline for tank car repairs is not fast enough. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) introduced legislation earlier this year that would take the oldest DOT-111s off the tracks immediately (EnergyWire, March 26).
Similarly, this week, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) announced a measure that would give shippers until 2017 to remove all DOT-111s, calling slower deadlines a "reckless gamble."
After yesterday's derailment in North Dakota, Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) said she would add her own legislation to the mix, seeking to immediately prohibit shipments of crude oil with an average Reid vapor pressure level greater than 8.5 pounds per square inch (psi).
By contrast, North Dakota's new conditioning order caps vapor pressure levels at 13.7 psi using a different testing method.
Lowey's RVP cap of 8.5 psi would force producers in the Bakken Shale play to adopt more costly measures of "stabilizing" crude and would likely temporarily grind most crude-by-rail traffic to a halt.
To environmentalists, that would be a welcome break.
"It is luck, and only luck, that has kept rail workers, responders and bystanders out of harm's way," said Todd Paglia, executive director of ForestEthics. "But we are averaging a major oil train accident a month; how long will our luck hold out?"
PHMSA has attempted to put hard numbers on that oil train "luck," projecting in its final regulatory impact analysis that about a third of fiery derailments will be in places with 200 or more people within a half-square-kilometer radius.
Barring adoption of its final rule, PHMSA said to expect two "higher-consequence" oil train events -- on par with the Lac-Mégantic disaster -- to occur at some point over the next 20 years.
"It could happen as easily tomorrow or 20 years from now," Millar said. "If that happens, that would be the end of this industry."
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Add recipients
Suggested