Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) How the TPP Trade Deal Could Increase Risk of Dying of Breast Cancer
May 14, 2015 | EcoWatch
By Karuna Jaggar
On the surface, the fear and urgency of a new breast cancer diagnosis seems far removed from a huge international trade deal. -
(ACC Mentioned) California Demands Warning Labels for BPA
May 14, 2015 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
The US state of California has added bisphenol A (BPA) to its Proposition 65 list of chemicals linked to health concerns, despite opposition from the chemical industry. Products containing any of the ~800 chemicals on the list require warning labels in that state. -
(ACC Mentioned) Minnesota Bill Proposes Flame Retardant Bans
May 14, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
A bill proposing a ban on four flame retardants in mattresses, furniture and children’s products is being considered by Minnesota's House of Representatives. -
House Subcommittee Unanimously Forwards TSCA Bill to Full Panel
May 14, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode
The House Environment and Economy Subcommittee gave unanimous support for a draft plan to update the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, while also promising that changes would come before it hits the full Energy and Commerce panel. -
EDF statement on the Environment and the Economy Subcommittee Markup of the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015
May 14, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
The revised House TSCA discussion draft is another sign that chemical safety reform is set to move this Congress. -
(ACC Mentioned) Report: Shale Gas Helping to Drive $130 Billion in Investments in Plastics Manufacturing
May 14, 2015 | Pittsburgh Business Times
By Sam Kusic
The nation's shale gas fields have given the U.S. a new competitive advantage in the plastics industry, helping to spur $130 billion in new capital investments, according to the American Chemistry Council. -
(ACC Mentioned) Strong Opinions, Shaky Data in Arguments Over Permitting
May 14, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Dylan Brown, Matt Herbert and Ariel Wittenberg
The federal government's process for reviewing new air pollution permits is routinely barraged with complaints it is stifling a manufacturing renaissance. -
Industry 'Dead Wrong' to Back Obama's Climate Regs -- Inhofe
May 14, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
Climate change regulations may look like a good deal for the nuclear industry, but they mask the Obama administration's broader assault on all conventional sources of energy, Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe said today. -
Historically Bipartisan Law Offers a Template for Energy Progress
May 14, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Greg Dotson
As committees in both the House and the Senate begin to consider a slew of legislative energy proposals, one promising area for potential bipartisan collaboration is coming into focus – the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, or PURPA. -
N.Y. Releases Long-Awaited Study that Prompted Fracking Ban
May 14, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
New York state officials yesterday finally unveiled the controversial environmental study that led to Gov. Andrew Cuomo's (D) decision to ban hydraulic fracturing in the Empire State. -
FracFocus Releases Bulk Data on Frack Jobs
May 14, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
The groups that run the national fracking chemical registry FracFocus are making good on their promise to release chemical ingredient information in a "machine-readable" format. -
Time to Upgrade U.S. Energy Infrastructure
May 14, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Marty Durbin, president and CEO of America's Natural Gas Alliance
It’s no secret that America’s infrastructure is in need of a tune-up. -
Energy Production and Species Conservation Working Hand in Hand
May 14, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Barry Russell
This Friday marks Endangered Species Day, an event intended to spotlight and encourage the conservation efforts underway to protect endangered and threatened species and their habitats. -
Environmentalists Challenge DOT's Oil Train Safety Rule in Court
May 14, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
Seven green groups today asked a federal appeals court to scrap three major elements of the crude-by-rail safety regulations that the Transportation Department released earlier this month. -
Oil Industry Suit Targets Crude-Safety Rule's Timeline
May 14, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The oil and gas industry's gripes about the Obama administration's newly finalized rules for crude-by-rail safety are now in the hands of federal judges, as the American Petroleum Institute this week lodged an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. -
N.D.'s Oil Treatment Rules Reduced Danger in Latest Crude-by-Rail Wreck, Top Regulator Says
May 14, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Mike Lee
North Dakota's rules on crude-oil treatment prevented a rail car fire from becoming worse earlier this month, proof that the program is working, the top state energy regulator said.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
-
(ACC Mentioned) How the TPP Trade Deal Could Increase Risk of Dying of Breast Cancer
May 14, 2015 | EcoWatch
By Karuna Jaggar
On the surface, the fear and urgency of a new breast cancer diagnosis seems far removed from a huge international trade deal. And yet, as the executive director of Breast Cancer Action, I am acutely aware of how the highly contested Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) threatens the health and well-being of women.We must take a stand and demand public health comes before corporate profit. We must stand against the TPP which blatantly and unapologetically shifts power away from people and toward corporations. Photo credit: Shutterstock
Although negotiations between the world’s biggest economic players can feel disconnected and distant from the day-to-day issues of women living with or at risk of breast cancer, the truth is these massive multinational trade deals play out in ways that directly impact all of us. These impacts include restricting access to affordable cancer treatments and increasing our exposure to chemicals that increase our risk of cancer.
The TPP is a sweeping free trade deal negotiated in secret by the U.S. and 11 other Asian and European countries, with the “help” of more than 600 corporate advisors, including institutions and corporations that produce policies or products linked to breast cancer, like the American Chemistry Council, Avon and Chevron. Yet, while these multibillion dollar giants have a seat at the table, the public is forced to rely only on leaked snippets of information about the trade deal that will impact many aspects of our lives—and bodies.
And as if the secretive and back room deal politicking isn’t bad enough, President Obama has asked Congress to give him authority to quickly pass, or “fast-track,” the deal. Yesterday the Senate said “no” to moving forward with Fast Track—and we must keep the pressure on.
As the head of a watchdog organization for the breast cancer movement, I work to ensure that public health and patient interests come before those of big business—and I say no way to secret trade deals that harm our health and well-being, especially when we have no say in the matter. I am outraged that information revealed so far about the TPP shows that while it will be great for multinational corporations, it would be, as is too often the case, terrible for our health.
The TPP both threatens access to affordable treatments and limits regulation that protects the public from toxic exposures and processes. This means that not only will more people be exposed to chemicals that are known and suspected to cause health harm, but the treatments for these medical problems will be more expensive as a result of the TPP.
Cost of treatment for breast cancer (and other) patients is a critical issue in the U.S. Too many women already experience first-hand the exorbitant cost of cancer drugs in the U.S.: 11 out of the 12 cancer drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2012 cost more than $100,000 per year. The current U.S. patent system is designed to reward drug companies for introducing new treatments by providing them with a period of exclusivity, during which no other drug company can sell a competing or generic version of that drug.
The Obama administration once acknowledged that an important step in making cancer treatments more affordable is by limiting this period of exclusivity so that generic options can come onto the market more quickly and provide cancer patients with affordable treatments options. Despite this, the administration is reportedly pushing for market exclusivity periods to last 12 years.
According to language in the TPP’s leaked intellectual property chapter, the trade deal would require all participating countries to enact automatic market exclusivity periods on many essential medical drugs, including biological therapies used to treat cancer. In this way, no country would be able to take action within their borders to bring down the cost of treatment by reforming the patent system or reducing the period of exclusivity. It could also limit the U.S. government from negotiating with pharmaceutical companies for lower prices and better reimbursements for patients requiring Medicaid and Medicare. And it would spell disaster for developing countries signing on to the deal.
By locking all 12 nations into patents with long exclusivity periods, the TPP removes any chance for participating countries to take action to reduce the cost of breast cancer and other medical treatments. The TPP would limit access to life-saving treatment by keeping drug prices high—and out of reach of too many patients. This is unacceptable and wrong.
The TPP will include an “Investor-State Dispute Settlement” (ISDS) provision, which allows international investors—mainly multinational corporations—to sue a country if its laws interfere with their profits. Corporations are able to bypass domestic courts and go before an international tribunal of private lawyers, who can, in turn, force nations to pay compensation or “reparation” to corporations—sometimes handing over millions in taxpayer dollars. While ISDS is a provision in many international trade agreements, the TPP expands the current reach of ISDS to thousands of corporations in the twelve countries signing on to the trade deal.
Currently, the nation’s fifth-largest pharmaceutical company, Eli Lilly, is using an ISDS to challenge Canada’s drug approval process. After finding that one of Eli Lilly’s drugs was not effective, Canada invalidated one of its drug patents. In response, Ely Lilly is attempting to use the ISDS provision under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to sue Canada for $500 million. The TPP threatens to expand the power of pharmaceutical corporations like Eli Lilly to set and maintain high drug costs—and high profits at the expense of patient well-being.
Not only do the TPP and its ISDS provision threaten to keep the costs of breast cancer treatments high, this trade deal will also erode efforts to stop cancer before it starts—meaning more and more people may need these exorbitantly expensive cancer treatments.
Health activists, environmental justice activists, and healthcare professionals have long sought strong chemical policy reform in the U.S. to limits exposures to toxic chemicals—some of which have been linked to breast cancer—in consumer, personal care, and household products. While we have a long way to go to strengthen the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) and other chemical regulatory policies, the TPP would enable countries importing goods to the U.S. to bypass our existing chemical safety regulations. As a result of ISDS, countries signing on to the TPP won’t be held to U.S. standards for chemical safety when importing their goods here.
Similarly, activists across the country have been fighting for both local and national bans on fracking, a process using many chemicals linked to breast cancer and other health harms. But because of ISDS, foreign oil and gas corporations could sue the U.S. if they assert that our fracking bans interfere with their profit – thus undermining the important work the anti-fracking movement is doing in the U.S. to limit its toxic impact.
We must take a stand and demand public health comes before corporate profit. We must stand against the TPP which blatantly and unapologetically shifts power away from people and toward corporations. Not only would the TPP block vital work to reduce toxic exposures that increase our risk of breast cancer in the first place, the TPP threatens access to affordable and effective treatments for women who are diagnosed with breast cancer.
Now is the time to tell our Congressional representatives: Don’t trade away our health.
-
(ACC Mentioned) California Demands Warning Labels for BPA
May 14, 2015 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
The US state of California has added bisphenol A (BPA) to its Proposition 65 list of chemicals linked to health concerns, despite opposition from the chemical industry. Products containing any of the ~800 chemicals on the list require warning labels in that state.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Food Safety Authority have both determined that BPA is safe at current levels in foods, as well as for approved uses in food containers and packaging. The FDA also maintains that current research does not support BPA as a reproductive toxicant.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) has criticised the Proposition 65 list as ‘inherently flawed’, because it only considers chemical hazards. The agency points out that sound chemical management policy is based on risk, which takes into account both hazard and typical human exposures.
‘Proposition 65 ultimately does not provide California citizens with useful information to allow well-informed decisions about the products they buy and use,’ an ACC representative tells Chemistry World.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Minnesota Bill Proposes Flame Retardant Bans
May 14, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
A bill proposing a ban on four flame retardants in mattresses, furniture and children’s products is being considered by Minnesota's House of Representatives.
If adopted, the legislation will be the strictest legislation on flame retardants in the US because it covers more products and chemicals than any other state.
The House Commerce and Regulatory Reform Committee passed the amended House bill (HF1100) on 11 May, while its equivalent in the Senate (SF1215) passed the full Senate on 28 April. The final legislation is expected to be approved by both chambers, by 18 May.
The House bill says that from 1 July 2017, manufacturers or wholesalers will be banned from manufacturing, selling or distributing these products, containing the following flame retardant chemicals in amounts greater than 1,000 parts per million (ppm):TDCPP (tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl)phosphate);TCEP (tris(2-chloroethyl)phosphate);decaBDE (decabromodiphenyl ether); andHBCDD (hexabromocyclododecane).
From 1 July 2018, the legislation will be extended to retailers.
The original bill, put forward in February, proposed a ban on ten flame retardants. Tetrabromobisphenol A, tetrabromo phthalate (TBPH), tetrabromo benzoate (TBB), chlorinated paraffins, tris(1-chloro-2-propyl)phosphate (TCPP) and antimony were also put forward, while the restricted amounts were proposed at 100ppm.
However, industry opposed it for being too restrictive. Tony Kwilas, director of environmental policy at the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, said some states have regulated one or two chemicals in children’s products or furniture but no state has proposed this many restrictions. He added: “It is very confusing to our retail and manufacturing members on what they can and can’t sell in Minnesota.”
Mr Kwilas said that studies on flame retardants are being conducted at the national and state level by the EPA, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. “We thought those studies should be completed, before we start banning chemicals,” he said.
Bryan Goodman, product communication director at the American Chemistry Council (ACC), said that because flame retardants on the market today are subject to review by the EPA and other government regulatory agencies around the world, the issue would be more appropriately addressed by regulatory bodies that evaluate chemical and occupational safety than through the state legislative process. But he appreciated the fact that Minnesota policy makers were open to feedback and modified the bill.
The original proposed ban has been pushed by Minnesota state firefighters, who are concerned with the carcinogenic properties of the proposed chemicals and claim that the substances are not as effective as suggested in slowing the spread of fire. The interest from firefighters gained momentum, following the release of a study by Susan Shaw, director and founder of the Marine & Environmental Research Institute, in 2013, which measured brominated dioxins and furans - byproducts of brominated flame retardants - in firefighters’ blood.
She said that scientific evidence shows that, as well as being carcinogenic, many flame retardants have little use in reducing the spread of fire, and that health concerns far outweigh the benefits. “Studies show that adding flame retardants to foam and plastic products increases the toxicity of fire, doubles the amount of smoke and produces 80-90 times more soot in the air.”
Mr Goodman said that while firefighters concerns should be taken very seriously, irrespective of the presence or absence of these flame retardants, fire, smoke, and the associated residual combustion byproducts are hazardous.
-
House Subcommittee Unanimously Forwards TSCA Bill to Full Panel
May 14, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode
The House Environment and Economy Subcommittee gave unanimous support for a draft plan to update the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, while also promising that changes would come before it hits the full Energy and Commerce panel.
On a 21-0 vote, the subcommittee agreed to forward the bill to the full panel.
“At the start of our committee's work on this, I knew the subcommittee could produce a bill,” ranking member Paul Tonko said. “It was less certain whether we could produce a bill that could become a law. This draft puts us on the path to a law. It is a good bill.”
“This is not a finished product, and more work remains to be done,” Energy and Commerce ranking member Frank Pallone said. “But already, this draft is more protective, less preemptive, and better written than any other recent TSCA reform proposal.”
There is a bipartisan Senate TSCA update named after the late-New Jersey Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg that has 39 cosponsors and was approved 15-5 in the Environment and Public Works Committee recently. That bill may hit the Senate floor in June.
Multiple House panelists noted that changes would still need to be agreed to in their version, including regarding chemical reporting requirements under the law.
“We would like these changes to come in a bipartisan manner,” Subcommittee Chairman John Shimkus said.
There is no firm timetable yet for a markup in the full committee. -
May 14, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
The revised House TSCA discussion draft is another sign that chemical safety reform is set to move this Congress. We thank the members of the Committee for their continued bipartisan work. EDF looks forward to working with all Members of Congress to ensure that the final legislation the President signs into law establishes a strong overall system of protection from dangerous chemicals, provides for timely safety reviews for all new and existing chemicals against a purely health-based standard, strong testing authority for EPA, broadened transparency and information access, adequate resources, and robust authority for EPA to regulate chemicals presenting risks to the public.
-
May 14, 2015 | Pittsburgh Business Times
By Sam Kusic
The nation's shale gas fields have given the U.S. a new competitive advantage in the plastics industry, helping to spur $130 billion in new capital investments, according to the American Chemistry Council.
In a report looking at the rising competitive advantage of the U.S. plastics industry, the council found that inexpensive supplies of natural gas are tipping the favor of the plastics industry toward the U.S. That's because, in North America, plastics producers primarily use natural gas as a feedstock, while other parts of the world use oil as a feedstock.
"Because energy resources — which account for up to 70 percent of total costs for plastic resin producers — are the primary raw materials to make plastic resins, the price of energy feedstocks is critical to the global competitiveness of plastic resin producers," the report said.
As a result of the advantage, the council said it is tracking billions in new manufacturing capacity. That includes nearly $25 billion in investments in the production of polyethylene, which is what Shell's proposed ethane cracker plant in Beaver County would produce.
As a result of these investments, the council said it believes the plastics industry will generate 127,500 jobs.
Dave Spigelmyer, president of the Marcellus Shale Coalition, said Pennsylvania's shale gas fields present an opportunity to re-establish the state as a leading manufacturer.
“Shale development continues to be a powerful economic engine, especially for our manufacturing sector, as this new report and countless others reflect," he said. "To make certain that we fully realize these broad-based benefits for all of Pennsylvania, leaders in Harrisburg should pursue commonsense policies aimed at attracting more investment into the Commonwealth and creating even more jobs.”
-
(ACC Mentioned) Strong Opinions, Shaky Data in Arguments Over Permitting
May 14, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Dylan Brown, Matt Herbert and Ariel Wittenberg
The federal government's process for reviewing new air pollution permits is routinely barraged with complaints it is stifling a manufacturing renaissance.
The American Chemistry Council told Congress as much last year in support of legislation to streamline and speed up U.S. EPA's New Source Review (NSR) program.
But a Greenwire review of state and federal permitting data has found that argument is largely anecdotal.
As multiple state and local regulatory agencies are tasked with permitting, tracking timelines -- determining whether permits are being unduly delayed -- is nearly impossible.
The only semblance of a national database is an EPA clearinghouse designed for another purpose, and it contains information on a fraction of permits issued nationwide.
Stakeholders agree there is no useful way to track permitting times. Still, each blames the others for delays. Local regulators claim to be issuing permits along federally required time frames, blaming ill-prepared applicants for delays. Industry places the blame on complex, ever-evolving EPA standards. Meanwhile, EPA says it's the states' problem.
"In the end, you couldn't permit a lemonade stand out there," said Bradford Muller, vice president of marketing for Charlotte Pipe and Foundry, which pulled the plug on its plan to move a metal casting foundry from downtown Charlotte, N.C., to a rural area after its NSR permit application got mired in regulatory changes.
The Clean Air Act requires NSR permits before construction begins on facilities that could be major sources of pollution, like power plants, steel mills and refineries, and minor sources -- autobody paint shops, small timber mills or tweaks at existing power plants -- that are not expected to undermine a region's compliance with air quality regulations.
The program is intended to prevent air quality deterioration in areas meeting national ambient air quality standards and to require more stringent emissions controls in areas out of compliance.
The Clean Air Act requires NSR permits be issued within 12 months after the regulatory agency receives a complete application. In 2012, an EPA letter urged state agencies to take no more than 10 months on Prevention of Significant Deterioration permits for major pollution sources in areas with good air quality.
U.S. EPA guidelines urge regulators to issue NSR permits within 10 months. The Clean Air Act requires permits be issued within 12 months, but permitting often exceeds that standard. Data courtesy of U.S. EPA.
Regardless, no true national dataset exists to prove whether the program has met either goal.
"The program is decades old, and it shouldn't be this difficult still," said Gary McCutchen, head of the NSR program during the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations who now works as a consultant.
NSR regulations are federal, but the task of issuing permits falls to the states, which sometimes divide the responsibility among regions or counties.
The only multistate dataset for NSR permits is EPA's online clearinghouse known as RBLC, which catalogs the best-available air pollution technologies permitted in each state.
The clearinghouse is meant as a "helpful tool" for comparing strategies, but EPA says it's largely unreliable for analyzing permitting times.
Reporting in RBLC is optional except for those in areas with substandard air quality or those required to file by their state plan.
The result is a clearinghouse with 1,845 permits filed nationwide between 2002 and 2014. Data entry is so inconsistent that 1,571 entries feature both the date an application was deemed complete and the final permit issuance date.
EPA admits the database is far from complete, and many state agencies say it includes less than a quarter of all permits.
According to the limited data, 67 percent of applications were finalized within the required 12 months. Sixty percent met the agency's 10-month guideline.
EPA whittles that number down to just the 189 complete permits filed since 2012. In 2012, the agency changed the "acceptance date" category on the data-entry form to an "application complete" date.
Of those 189 permits, almost 85 percent were processed within the one-year requirement outlined by the Clean Air Act.
The Obama administration used that statistic to justify EPA's fiscal 2016 budget request to Congress. Meanwhile, many states have all but given up using RBLC due to the system's shortcomings.New Source Review permits
• Established by Congress in 1977 as part of the Clean Air Act.
• Required before construction for any new project that will have a notable effect on air quality.
• Permits issued to new plants and existing projects seeking major modifications.
• Permits specify what construction is allowed, emission limits and often how emissions sources must be operated.
• Large construction projects requiring NSR permits fall into two categories: 1) Prevention of Significant Deterioration permits are issued if pollution does not substantially worsen after construction is complete, and 2) nonattainment NSR permits are issued in areas where air is already substandard to show air quality won't get any worse.
• State agencies are responsible for implementing federal air quality standards. Some states have U.S. EPA-approved state implementation plans, and others have authority "delegated" by EPA.
• Some permitting authorities are granted to state agencies, while other states have multiple counties that handle permitting.
-- Dylan Brown, Matt Herbert and Ariel Wittenberg
In Nevada, where the RBLC average permitting time is 625 days for 16 permits issued since 2002, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources spokeswoman Jo Ann Kittrell dismissed the database.
"Nevada doesn't track what percentage of permits issued are entered into the RBLC database as that is not a meaningful or regulatory-required metric," she said.
Some Nevada permits entered into the RBLC took more than three years to be processed, and one took more than seven years.
But Kittrell said that's because the RBLC does not adequately reflect a common state practice of "stopping and starting the clock" during the permitting process. Even after an application is deemed complete, she said, if state regulators have a question about the application they "stop the clock" while they wait for the applicant to respond in an effort to avoid violating the 12-month timeline set by the Clean Air Act.
"It is not our responsibility if it takes an applicant six months to respond to a question we had about their application," Kittrell said.
Applicants are left extremely frustrated.
"They say, 'What good is this rule of having a timeline if regulators can restart the clock at any time?'" said Jay Hoffman, president of the Texas-based Trinity Consulting.
EPA says it cannot penalize states that take too long to issue permits but notes that applicants are free to sue state agencies to speed up the process.
The American Chemistry Council said lawsuits are nearly nonexistent because "it would not help move things along more quickly." Instead, companies opt to preserve their relationships with regulators.
Former NSR chief McCutchen said that because companies have limited recourse against EPA, a dispute "doesn't really get addressed in a rational way."
"A lot of New Source Review has been EPA saying, 'If you want your permit, this is the way it's got to be,' and the sources caving in on it," he said.Tracking the solution
Republicans last year pushed legislation -- H.R. 4795, the "Promoting New Manufacturing Act" -- through the House along party lines (Greenwire, Nov. 20, 2014). It would have required EPA to create a "dashboard" for tracking NSR permits, but the then-Democrat-controlled Senate didn't take up the measure, sponsored by House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.).
Scalise has not reintroduced the bill in the current session of Congress.Average permitting time for applicationsStateAvg. days between# of appsWisconsin18259Alabama18867South Carolina25370Mississippi25427Michigan26361Washington26629Florida26783Alaska29616Minnesota30130California30354Montana30318Wyoming30418Iowa30945Virginia31158Oklahoma31650North Carolina31722Indiana33179North Dakota33212Kentucky33514Louisiana350101Georgia35742Pennsylvania36842Oregon37214Colorado38321Nebraska38620Arkansas41133New Jersey44922Texas452228Illinois47330Ohio49592Nevada62516Source: U.S. EPA
The dashboard would have put in one place the total number of pre-construction permits issued, the percentage issued within one year of application and the average length of the review process.
Democrats objected to the bill, saying it would create a permitting loophole that would allow new facilities to obtain permits under less restrictive air standards.
The bill would have done federally what a legislative audit forced the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Air Management to do more than a decade ago.
Before the audit, industry in Wisconsin -- mostly paper mills, coal-fired power plants, and steel or iron foundries supplying parts to Detroit automakers -- bombarded state officials with anecdotal evidence that permitting was taking too long, according to Kristin Hart, who leads the state bureau's permits and stationary source modeling section.
When lawmakers stepped in, the air bureau was unable to prove or disprove anything.
"We found we really didn't have the data to back up any of our own stories," said Hart, who started at the state agency as a permit writer in 1991. "We vowed at that time to put tracking in place so that we could actually verify or defend ourselves."
According to the RBLC, Wisconsin is one of the quickest permitting states, averaging 183 days for 59 permits listed since 2002.
Hart said that number roughly reflects state data for major source permits, but data entry into the federal database has lagged in recent years. The state database shows 153 major NSR permits filed since 2002, she said, far more than in the RBLC.
Hart estimated the average between initial application to final permit issuance is 120 days for all NSR permits, with major sources on the long side of that number. The span between complete application and final permit for major and minor permits is lower, 60 days.
"Just by the very act of collecting this data, you find places where you can get better or speed it up," Hart said. "You do find ones [permits] that have lingered and languished for no good reason, but then you can take steps to remedy that."Bad applications
The time it takes to issue a permit once an application is complete is only half the story.
Missing information or inaccurate air quality modeling calculations can result in permitting delays lasting months or even years.
While refusing to sacrifice standards for speed, most state agencies work proactively to help companies submit complete applications.
Mike Hopkins, the assistant chief of Ohio EPA's permitting section, said constant communication is required to streamline the process.
"Anywhere along that process we typically are in contact with the company, working back and forth to get additional information and also working with them on language for the permit, so that when we get the final permit done, we've got things covered," Hopkins said.
Ohio's Legislature has set a 180-day limit for application processing, and the state EPA issues 95 percent of its permits -- most for minor sources of pollution -- within that time period, said Hopkins. By contrast, according to the RBLC, Ohio projects averaged a response time of 470 days.
Hopkins said changes inside the department have improved turnaround time over the years.
For instance, the department designed a general permit program, which provides pre-written permit forms for specific frequently permitted sources, like gas stations. If an applicant qualifies, the department issues the permit more quickly, saving time and work for both parties.
Washington state also offers to review applications before they are officially submitted in order to ensure they are complete.
By contrast, Nevada state law allows regulators to conduct "informal reviews" of applications before they are submitted only if applicants pay $50,000. Those reviews are uncommon, Kittrell said. Her office will answer questions about the application process but only if they do not amount to a review of the entire application.Regulations in flux
Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is required to review standards for carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particle pollution and sulfur dioxide every five years. The agency is currently working to tighten the ozone standard.
EPA has argued that states generally have a good idea of what's required of them when standards change, but multiple state agencies disagreed in comments to the agency.
And Wisconsin's Hart said, "It takes us a long time to change our rules to try to catch up with federal regulations. We get behind, and then the federal regulation says one thing and our regulation says another."
EPA's efforts to regulate greenhouse gases and incorporate them into permitting -- the subject of a Supreme Court case last year -- have further clouded the issue.
In that case, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality successfully challenged new EPA regulations, specifically efforts to regulate greenhouse gases and incorporate them into permitting.
The Supreme Court limited state greenhouse gas permitting requirements to only sources otherwise required to obtain Prevention of Significant Deterioration permits.
TCEQ spokeswoman Andrea Morrow said such federal regulations of "questionable overall benefit" keep scarce resources from "the greatest environmental benefit."
"When EPA leaves significant technical questions unanswered ... the state is left vulnerable to challenges and there is great potential for waste of state resources," Morrow wrote in an email.
Future changes, Morrow said, will add to the already overstretched Air Permits Division's workload.
The total workload at TCEQ's Air Permits Division doubled between 2010 to 2014, with the number of permits received and completed both jumping from around 5,000 to nearly 12,000.
The 107 employees dedicated to both major and minor source permits spent 189,772 hours reviewing just major sites in fiscal 2014, according to Morrow.
Morrow attributed the permitting increase primarily to the recent oil and gas boom. The result is permits that take 453 days to issue, according to the RBLC.
And more work looms with pending updates to methane and volatile organic compounds standards -- central oil and gas regulations -- expected in the coming months.
But after four decades, changes to the Clean Air Act's demands are the norm.
"Changing the rules in the middle of the game always is happening in the air program, so we're kind of used to it," Wisconsin's Hart said, "but it has left a lot of questions out there, and how do we go forward?"
Her suggestion is to improve transparency and communication between companies, state regulators and EPA.
She also has a mantra about future changes: "I don't worry about something until I have to."
Reporter Amanda Peterka contributed.
-
Industry 'Dead Wrong' to Back Obama's Climate Regs -- Inhofe
May 14, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
Climate change regulations may look like a good deal for the nuclear industry, but they mask the Obama administration's broader assault on all conventional sources of energy, Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe said today.
Speaking at the Nuclear Energy Institute's annual conference in Washington, D.C., the Oklahoma Republican said the administration was pursuing a "war on nuclear" side by side with its much-vaunted "war on fossil fuels."
If nuclear advocates believe U.S. EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan will give them an advantage because it penalizes fossil-fuel competitors, he said, "you're dead wrong on that." The rule, he added, encourages renewable energy, not nuclear, which would receive less credit despite its status as a zero-carbon power source.
"This administration has an agenda, and we need to accept what it is," he said.
Regulation of any industry is bad for every industry, Inhofe argued. And the nuclear industry faces plenty of administration-generated obstacles of its own, he said, including its choice to abandon the Yucca Mountain, Nev., repository and a battery of "totally unnecessary" safety regulations that followed Japan's 2011 Fukushima nuclear meltdown.
Inhofe criticized the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for dropping its policy of "rigorous" cost-benefit analysis before pursuing new regulations. As proof, he pointed to the NRC staff's recommendation to the commission to consider a requirement for filtered vents, which was scaled back to a new hardened vents requirement in 2013. The initial recommendation was not justified by cost, Inhofe said.
Advertisement
NRC's budget and workforce have also grown in recent years despite the fact that only five new reactors are under construction nationwide, Inhofe said. The agency's budget now tops $1 billion, which he said was "symptomatic of a culture shift at the NRC" in favor of regulation and enforcement.
Inhofe pledged his committee would exercise oversight over NRC's budget and activities. He noted that all 10 of the GOP members of his panel are strong supporters of nuclear.
But he urged nuclear advocates to promote not only for their own issues -- especially the Yucca repository -- but to advance the cause of deregulation.
"If misery loves company, you've got a lot of company out there," he said. "Because overregulation affects everyone."
Inhofe was followed by Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), who leads the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy.
Shimkus also offered Republican lawmakers as champions of the nuclear industry, adding that House and Senate majorities are within striking distance of reviving Yucca.
"We are closer now than we've ever been, but you have to be engaged," he said.
He pointed to the retirement at the end of this Congress of Yucca's most formidable opponent, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
"I think you need to have representation in the state of Nevada," he said. "I think you need to have boots on the ground."
He also urged the industry to reach out to candidates for the Senate and White House, showing them that Yucca is at the top of its wish list.
Both Inhofe and Shimkus touted NRC's Safety Evaluation Report on the repository, which was released in January and which showed that waste would be safe for a million years once the site closed.
"People get concerned about what's going to happen a million years from now," Inhofe said. "I'm not. Let's just get by today."
But Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said in February that the same NRC report shows that the federal government lacks the land and water rights for the repository site (E&ENews PM, Feb. 12).
-
Historically Bipartisan Law Offers a Template for Energy Progress
May 14, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Greg Dotson
As committees in both the House and the Senate begin to consider a slew of legislative energy proposals, one promising area for potential bipartisan collaboration is coming into focus – the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, or PURPA. Today, the Center for American Progress is releasing a new report that recommends how to amend PURPA to help address the pressing energy challenges we face today.
The electricity sector in the United States is experiencing a period of dynamic change. Technological advancements are making energy available from new and innovative sources and offering an array of tools for managing and understanding the way we use energy. Market forces are pushing natural gas in and backing coal out, while renewable energy is increasing its share of the national market. Regulations, like the proposed Clean Power Plan, are charting a course toward a low carbon future. And the reality of climate change is barging onto the scene for the electricity sector – bringing challenges such as straining water supplies relied upon for cooling coal-fired and nuclear power plants and turning hydroelectric turbines.
Both Democrats and Republicans have introduced legislation to establish new so-called “must consider” standards under PURPA. These standards acknowledge that electric retail markets have historically been regulated at the state level, but some issues are of such importance that the federal government has a strong interest in ensuring they are addressed.
Over the past four decades, Congress has periodically amended PURPA to call upon the state public utility commissions, or PUCs, to consider adjusting their electricity policies using an open and evidence-based review process. By simply requiring that PUCs “must consider” the merits of various policies through public proceedings, PURPA has triggered states to adopt smart policies that have helped save energy and promote renewable energy. The last three times PURPA was amended in this fashion, it enjoyed bipartisan support and was signed by a Republican president.
In light of today’s challenges, the CAP report recommends that Congress amend PURPA to require state PUCs to consider three policy standards. First, PUC’s should consider boosting energy efficiency efforts through technology and regulation. Second, they should consider establishing policies to encourage utilities to use clean energy to reduce pollution. Finally, the state PUC’s should consider ensuring utilities develop the resilience to reliably function in the future.
Prompting states to carefully consider the merits of these policies would be a modest but important step forward. It would help American families by encouraging cleaner, more affordable and more reliable power. These policies will help the electric utilities as well by facilitating the coming transition to a low-carbon future. And amending PURPA will help Congress, by showing that heated rhetoric can be put aside, science can be acknowledged, and steps can be taken to deliver a more sustainable future for our children.
Last week, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said she was interested in putting aside divisive messaging efforts in order to build support around a bipartisan energy bill. The chairman even indicated that energy legislation could take steps to address climate change by cutting pollution and increasing energy efficiency. For anyone interested in making progress on the nation’s energy challenges, this was welcome news.
The 114th Congress may not be able to deliver policies most sought by either the left or the right -- a comprehensive climate change bill or approval of new tar sands pipelines -- but the chance to send an unambiguous policy signal that carbon pollution must be reduced swiftly by boosting energy efficiency and promoting renewable energy is an opportunity that shouldn't be missed.
In the coming weeks, some are likely to argue that policies to address climate change and encourage clean energy are too controversial to pursue. They'll argue for an approach that doubles down on the energy approaches of the past and asks us to accept the attendant increase in carbon pollution. This is where Murkowski’s approach will be tested. For the good of everyone, let’s hope she can lead the Senate to a bipartisan accomplishment.
Dotson is vice president of Energy and Environmental Policy at the center for American Progress.
-
N.Y. Releases Long-Awaited Study that Prompted Fracking Ban
May 14, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
New York state officials yesterday finally unveiled the controversial environmental study that led to Gov. Andrew Cuomo's (D) decision to ban hydraulic fracturing in the Empire State.
The final environmental impact statement, in the works for almost seven years, outlines the health and environmental concerns cited by Cuomo's administration in December, when acting state Health Commissioner Howard Zucker said fracking's risks outweigh its potential economic benefits.
The decision set off victory celebrations from the environmental community and furor from New York landowners and drillers who hoped to profit on the state's share of the natural-gas-rich Marcellus Shale -- which has spurred extensive development just across New York's border in Pennsylvania (EnergyWire, Dec. 18, 2014).
The final EIS contemplates a detailed set of regulations that would be needed if shale development were allowed in the state. To protect waterways and other sensitive areas, the study estimates that 7.5 million of New York's 12 million Marcellus acres would be placed off limits -- greatly diminishing potential development and profits.
"In response to additional scientific information regarding the magnitude of high-volume hydraulic fracturing's potential significant adverse impacts, the Department considered expanding many of the mitigation measures previously proposed in the [draft environmental study] to protect public health and the environment with a greater margin of safety," the executive summary says. "As a result, more and more area within the Marcellus Shale fairway would be off limits to high-volume hydraulic fracturing."
Proponents of shale development were dismayed at the release of the final EIS yesterday but vowed to fight it.
Advertisement
"Unfortunately, the Department of Environmental Conservation ignored their statutory responsibility to promote the development of New York's plentiful oil and gas resources," Business Council of New York CEO Heather Briccetti said in a statement. "We are confident that today's decision will ultimately be reversed. But for many New Yorkers looking for new jobs and new economic opportunity, that day will come too late."
Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner Joe Martens can now issue a "findings statement" after 10 days to make New York's fracking ban official. Groups opposed to the ban can move forward on potential legal challenges once the findings statement is issued.
The Joint Landowners Coalition of New York, which brought several failed legal challenges throughout the decisionmaking process, said in January that it will sue the Cuomo administration if it can raise sufficient funds (EnergyWire, Jan. 12). And New York State Petroleum Council Executive Director Karen Moreau said her group is also considering legal action (EnergyWire, April 29).
Environmentalists, meanwhile, praised the EIS as confirmation that New York should remain off limits to fracking.
"This report appears to solidly back up the governor's decision to ban fracking in New York," the Natural Resources Defense Council's Kate Sinding said in a statement. "New Yorkers have valid concerns about the threats fracking would pose to the air we breathe, the water we drink and the communities we live in. In the coming days, we will be digging through this lengthy analysis with a fine tooth comb. The governor has rightfully let science and the will of the people be his guide, despite pressure from a powerful industry. He should continue to proudly stand his ground."
-
FracFocus Releases Bulk Data on Frack Jobs
May 14, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
The groups that run the national fracking chemical registry FracFocus are making good on their promise to release chemical ingredient information in a "machine-readable" format.
Late last week, the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) and Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, which administer the site, began making data available for download in a database format.
The change addresses a key point of contention that environmental and open-government advocates had with the Bureau of Land Management's decision to use FracFocus for disclosure of chemicals used on federal lands (EnergyWire, Feb. 27).
Environmentalists and open-government advocates who'd criticized FracFocus have applauded the move.
"Used effectively, Big Data can lead to innovative, evidence-backed and highly tailored policy solutions, and the data released today by FracFocus can help make that happen," Adam Peltz, a lawyer at the Environmental Defense Fund, wrote last week.
John Amos of the advocacy group SkyTruth has been even more critical. He called the move to allowing bulk downloads a "positive change," but "only a first step."
Amos said he'd like to see improved accuracy and fewer trade secrets. GWPC officials say improvements in those areas are also part of what they are calling "FracFocus 3.0."
Officials are also planning to make the site itself easier to use, with pull-down menus and new search fields such as the disclosure submission date.
Actually downloading the data from the site can be difficult, because it takes above-average computer skills to access the file. But the needed software is free, and groups and websites have been working on putting it in a more accessible format.
FracFocus was launched in 2011 as a way for companies to voluntarily disclose their fracking chemicals. Many states have since turned to it as a means for mandatory disclosure. The site has data from 20 states, and a version of the system is operating in five Canadian provinces. It has data on more than 90,000 "frack jobs" at well sites.
Click here to reach the download page.
-
Time to Upgrade U.S. Energy Infrastructure
May 14, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Marty Durbin, president and CEO of America's Natural Gas Alliance
It’s no secret that America’s infrastructure is in need of a tune-up. While this debate understandably focuses on traditional projects from roads to bridges to ports, we must acknowledge the same sense of urgency and purpose for expanding pipelines to ensure communities across the country can take full advantage of the U.S. shale revolution.
Our new age of natural gas abundance has upended the global energy paradigm and provided a golden opportunity for American businesses and consumers. Innovative technologies that can quickly and efficiently access vast quantities of natural gas have transformed our nation’s energy prospects, allowing us to deliver affordable and clean energy for power generation, manufacturing growth and even export. But making the most of this moment requires connecting abundance to opportunity.And that’s where national and local leaders need to step in and help the public understand what’s at stake, and how the vast majority of consumers can benefit from the free flow of this American energy resource.
Fortunately, energy infrastructure needs are gaining attention: today the Senate Energy Committee has a hearing on 22 bills focused on infrastructure; yesterday the House Energy and Power Subcommittee addressed the pipeline permitting process at the Federal Energy Regulatory Committee (FERC); and the Department of Energy is conducting stakeholder meetings on its Quadrennial Energy Review infrastructure report.
Here at ANGA, we are hosting a discussion with labor, industry and congressional leaders on ways to move forward with the needed infrastructure. We hope this attention results in growing momentum and bipartisan support for constructive action.
Creating a policy environment that encourages and advances needed pipeline infrastructure projects can help deliver significant and broad economic benefits. Sean McGarvey, president of North America's Building Trades Unions, calls domestic energy development “the single biggest contributing factor for job growth in the U.S. construction industry today.”
For example, the proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline from West Virginia, through Virginia to North Carolina is projected to deliver more than $456 million annually to the region’s economy, supporting nearly 3,000 jobs from 2014 to 2019. Attesting to the economic ripple effect, Dura-Bond Industries of Steelton, Pa., also recently secured the largest single order in its history to produce steel pipes for this 550 mile infrastructure project. They’re now planning to add a second shift at the mill and hire 150 new workers to get the job done.
In New England, expanded pipeline is urgently needed to meet peak demand for heating and electricity during winter. The region enjoys close proximity to the vast natural gas supplies in the Marcellus and Utica shales, but a lack of adequate infrastructure keeps the opportunities offered by this plentiful, affordable energy at bay. Years of local opposition to a broad array of energy infrastructure projects—natural gas, offshore wind, nuclear or otherwise—has exacerbated the problem, leaving the region with the highest electricity prices in the nation. The tide may be turning with New England governors joining forces to make clear the importance of expediting a regional solution to the pipeline infrastructure gap.
Pipelines are funded by private capital investment, and that investment is encouraged by sound policies. The good news: $82 billion worth of projects are in development, from announced to under construction, with the expectation that they will be in service between 2015 and 2021. Most of this expansion will target the Northeast and/or emerging industrial corridors where ready access to low-cost natural gas is transforming the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing.
Innovations also are making our infrastructure more nimble. For example, roughly one third of natural gas pipeline capacity in the Northeast is expected to be bidirectional by 2017, allowing adequate supplies to flow north in cold winter months—and south to fuel expanding clean power generation and industrial expansion.
Without question, the shale gas revolution is transforming our nation’s economic, environmental and energy security prospects. To maximize this opportunity, U.S. pipeline infrastructure must keep pace with the scope and scale of our country’s natural gas abundance. The opportunity is now for all stakeholders – the public, policymakers and industry – to help deliver on the full promise and potential of world class energy infrastructure for communities across our nation. -
Energy Production and Species Conservation Working Hand in Hand
May 14, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Barry Russell
This Friday marks Endangered Species Day, an event intended to spotlight and encourage the conservation efforts underway to protect endangered and threatened species and their habitats. As companies who work every day to provide the energy we all rely upon, while protecting the environment we all care about, America’s independent oil and natural gas producers take great pride in the efforts they are making to support species conservation across the country.
In the west, independent oil and natural gas companies are working closely with states, local communities and stakeholders, and conservation groups in the development and implementation of state-based plans to conserve the greater sage-grouse. Some of these initiatives include Colorado’s Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan and Wyoming’s Sage-Grouse Core Area Program. One leading independent oil and gas company, for example, runs an annual conservation and restoration project in the Powder River Basin alongside the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Wyoming Conservation Corps to thin and remove invasive trees across priority sage-grouse habitat on BLM lands.
In recognition of the value of these collaborative efforts, Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell has stated that her department is “more determined than ever to work with the states, ranchers, energy developers, and other stakeholders who are putting effective conservation measure in place” so as to avoid the need to list the greater sage-grouse as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
In addition to supporting and complying with state-based plans, oil and natural gas companies also utilize various resources and techniques to limit the impact of their operations on sage-grouse and other species. Thanks to the advancement of hydraulic fracturing and improved horizontal drilling technologies, energy producers are able to access reserves miles away from the well pad. This practice enables operators to greatly reduce the number of wells required to develop oil and natural gas, thus reducing land disturbances and fragmentation of habitat. As Secretary Jewell has acknowledged, this practice gives operators “an opportunity to have a softer footprint on the land.”
Many energy companies in the 11-state range of the greater sage-grouse are also consolidating their operations to limit surface disruptions and adapting equipment to mirror the surrounding environment, reducing the visual disturbance to the natural habitat. As a recent peer-reviewed report from researchers at Anadarko Petroleum found, “new oil and gas development is being deployed at lower pad densities and should reduce impacts” on sage-grouse breeding ground. Companies also execute rigorous reclamation plans after operations are complete, ensuring the well pad area is restored to its original condition.
Oil and natural gas companies are also working to limit their impact on species in the eastern states, including the northern long-eared bat that was listed as threatened this April. As the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently concluded, natural gas development activities, even in the most intense areas of development, are not having a “significant population-level effect” on the bat population. In fact, according to an April 2014 Shale Gas Monitoring Report published by the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, the yearly impact of natural gas development on Pennsylvania’s forests is about 150 times smaller than the impact of forest management activities.
America’s independent oil and natural gas producers work hard every day to ensure that energy development, environmental stewardship, species conservation, and economic growth can thrive together across the nation. Like many other industries, oil and natural gas companies strive to abide by and go beyond the numerous federal and state regulatory requirements in order to minimize their impact on the environment. By working with local and state agencies and implementing advanced technology and conservation measures, these companies are ensuring domestic energy development and the continued protection of our land and species continue hand in hand.
Russell is the president and CEO of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, the leading, national upstream trade association representing oil and natural gas producers that drill 95 percent of the nation's oil and natural gas wells. These companies account for 54 percent of America's oil production, 85 percent of its natural gas production, and support more than 2.1 million American jobs. For more information, visit www.ipaa.org and @IPAAaccess on Twitter.
-
Environmentalists Challenge DOT's Oil Train Safety Rule in Court
May 14, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
Seven green groups today asked a federal appeals court to scrap three major elements of the crude-by-rail safety regulations that the Transportation Department released earlier this month.
The legal challenge takes aim at the “unduly long phase-out period” for removing the oldest-model tank cars from oil-by-rail service, as well as the DOT decision to establish separate safety standards for retrofits and new construction. The green groups’ petition also takes aim at notification requirements for first responders that emerged as less stringent than initial proposals and the creation of a 40 mph speed limit exclusively for “high threat urban areas”.
Earthjustice filed the petition in the Ninth Circuit on behalf of the Sierra Club, ForestEthics, Washington Environmental Council, Waterkeeper Alliance, Friends of the Gorge, Spokane Riverkeeper, and the Center for Biological Diversity. -
Oil Industry Suit Targets Crude-Safety Rule's Timeline
May 14, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The oil and gas industry's gripes about the Obama administration's newly finalized rules for crude-by-rail safety are now in the hands of federal judges, as the American Petroleum Institute this week lodged an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The challenge comes less than two weeks after the Department of Transportation released the final version of a regulation aimed at improving the safety of crude oil transportation. The rule, in the works since the 2013 Lac-Mégantic rail disaster that killed 47 people in Quebec, requires rail shippers to install enhanced braking systems on some trains and replace or upgrade a common type of tank car with a new standard featuring thicker steel and redesigned outlet valves.
Shippers have until 2018 to retire or update the most problematic type of tank cars, until 2020 to update another popular model and until 2021 to install electronically controlled pneumatic (ECP) brakes on oil trains with 70 or more cars (Greenwire, May 1).
API, the oil and gas industry's largest trade group, says it supports fleet improvements but opposes the timeline, arguing that DOT has not taken into account manufacturing limitations that prevent industry from upgrading tank cars that quickly.
"Improving on a 99.997 percent safety record requires data-driven efforts to prevent derailments with enhanced inspections and maintenance, upgrade the tank car fleet and educate first responders," spokesman Brian Straessle said in a statement. "Our safety goal is zero incidents, so retrofit timelines, braking systems and other actions must all be based on facts and science to maximize the safety impact of this rule."
In this week's petition for review, attorneys for the industry group asked the D.C. Circuit to invalidate the timeline for tank car upgrades and brake installation and send the provisions back to DOT for reconsideration.
Advertisement
API proposed its own timeline in comments to DOT last fall, suggesting that upgrades be completed by 2020, 2024 and 2025, depending on the type of tank car.
"This timeline improves the safety and modernizes the entire fleet of cars which transport flammable liquids, addresses all cars in the fleet, prioritizes retrofitting of cars that are the core concern of the Department in light of the reality of limited shop capacity, and does so on an aggressive yet achievable timeline which enables continued strength of the U.S. and North American economy," the group said in comments.
A spokesman for DOT's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration did not respond to a request for comment.
Manufacturers, meanwhile, have indicated that the rule's timeline is workable. Greenbrier Companies Inc., an Oregon-based tank car builder, called the timeline "completely feasible," and the trade group Railway Supply Institute deemed it "aggressive, but appropriate" (EnergyWire, May 4).Environmental litigation
The rule has come under harsher fire from environmentalists and advocates for communities located along rail lines. They cite concerns about explosions, oil spills, air pollution and other environmental degradation from crude transportation and related rail expansion projects.
Earthjustice attorneys representing several environmental groups filed suit against DOT in December, demanding that DOT-111 tank cars be taken off the rails. Now that the new standards are finalized, they say the rule does not adequately address speed concerns and that the timeline will leave dangerous tank cars on the tracks too long.
"These industry friendly regulations virtually guarantee more explosive derailments, putting people and the environment at great risk," Center for Biological Diversity attorney Jared Margolis said in a statement after the rule was released. "Continuing to allow volatile crude oil to be transported in unsafe tank cars and at speeds that virtually ensure punctures, spills and fires in a derailment is unconscionable."
The groups have not yet indicated how they plan to proceed on the legal front.
Meanwhile, various environmental and community groups have filed challenges throughout the country targeting individual rail expansion projects in local jurisdictions (EnergyWire, March 20).
-
N.D.'s Oil Treatment Rules Reduced Danger in Latest Crude-by-Rail Wreck, Top Regulator Says
May 14, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Mike Lee
North Dakota's rules on crude-oil treatment prevented a rail car fire from becoming worse earlier this month, proof that the program is working, the top state energy regulator said.
The state started requiring oil producers in April to "condition" their crude to make it safer to ship in rail cars. The state's Bakken Shale field produces mostly light, sweet oil with large amounts of those compounds, and the oil has been involved in a half-dozen fiery wrecks across North America since 2013 (EnergyWire, Dec. 10, 2014).
Ten cars loaded with crude derailed and burned near the town of Heimdal on May 6, less than 18 months after a derailment and fire outside Casselton (EnergyWire, May 7).
The Heimdal fire was smaller than the previous fire, though, and none of the tank cars exploded during the fire, state Mineral Resources Director Lynn Helms said yesterday on a conference call with reporters.
"We do think it helped," Helms said of the oil-conditioning rules.
He said the federal government should still move forward with a proposal to require tougher tank cars. That puts the state at odds with the American Petroleum Institute, which is appealing to the courts for a longer timeline (see related story).
Advertisement
"We think the quicker that existing rail cars can be retrofitted, the better," he said.
North Dakota pumps about 1.2 million barrels a day, mostly from the Bakken Shale field. The state had few oil pipelines before the Bakken was discovered, though, so about 60 percent of its production is shipped by rail.
A train loaded with Bakken crude caused a July 2013 fire that killed 47 people in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, and there have been fiery wrecks since then in Alabama, Illinois and West Virginia.
North Dakota's rules require producers to treat their oil by heating it or leaving it in tanks long enough for volatile compounds such as propane and butane to evaporate. Those compounds, known in the industry as light ends, are more explosive than conventional crude oil.
Critics, including the Dakota Resource Council and other environmental groups, have said the state should go further and require producers to partially refine the oil to remove more of the explosive compounds. The process, known as stabilization, is common in Texas and other oil-producing states, where the light ends can be sold to chemical makers and other users.
Helms said North Dakota's rules are still effective. To meet the standard, oil companies can either test the vapor pressure of their oil -- a measure of its volatility -- or show that they've used equipment to heat their oil to specified temperatures and pressures.
The state has received pressure-test results for about 2,600 wells, and 99 percent of them passed, Helms said.
State inspectors have inspected the treatment systems at about 60 percent of the other 9,800 wells. Of those, about 90 percent passed. Those that don't are given verbal warnings and a chance to retest their operations, Helms said.
"We think what we've been able to do is remove those outlying Bakken situations where vapor pressure was well above average," he said.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Add recipients
Suggested