Preview Newsletter
ACC AM MAy 21
-
(ACC Mentioned) Republicans Shouldn’t ‘Rescue’ States From Bad Federal Laws
May 20, 2015 | The Federalist
By Sean Saffron
In charge of a Congress focused on “getting Americans back to work” and pursuing “common sense, bipartisan” legislation to “get our economy going,” Republicans have gone to their friends in Big Business and received their marching orders. What is holding our economy back? Too much federalism, apparently. -
D.C. Circuit Unites Definition of Solid Waste Lawsuits With 2009 Petroleum Industry Case
May 21, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
A federal appeals court has consolidated newly filed litigation over the Environmental Protection Agency's definition of solid waste rule with a 2009 petroleum industry lawsuit over the agency's treatment of spent petroleum refinery catalysts in a 2008 waste rule (American Petroleum Institute v. EPA, D.C. Cir. , No. 09-1038, court order 5/18/15). -
(ACC Mentioned) As An Insider Speaks Out, Chemical Industry’s Credibility Sinks
May 20, 2015 | The Sacramento Bee
Politicians know the cover-up can be worse than the crime. Parents tell their children that no matter what bonehead stunt they pull, they’ll make it worse by lying. Perhaps some American Chemistry Council and corporate executives whose companies produce certain types of flame retardants didn’t learn that lesson. -
(ACC Mentioned) Full Chemical Plant Statements Sent to KSDK
May 21, 2015 | KSDK
You can read the full statements of the chemical plants mentioned in the 5 on Your Side Investigates story below: Afton Chemical Statement: "The safety of our employees and our surrounding community is of paramount concern to Afton Chemical. It is a responsibility that we take very seriously. -
OECD Upgrades Chemicals Management Tool
May 21, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The OECD has released its new version of the IOMC Toolbox for decision making in chemicals management. The tool was developed to help governments in emerging economies establish regulations to manage the safety of industrial chemicals (CW 18 February 2014). New features give guidance on: an industrial chemicals management system... -
European Parliament Blocks Hazardous Substance Exemption for Cadmium
May 21, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
European Parliament lawmakers May 20 overwhelmingly voted to block a proposed implementing directive that would have allowed an exemption under the European Union's Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive (RoHS Directive, 2011/65/EU). European Parliament spokesman Baptiste Chatain told Bloomberg BNA that it was the first... -
Plains Oil Pipeline Leaks 500 Barrels Of Crude Near Santa Barbara, California
May 21, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Robert Tuttle
A Plains All American Pipeline LP oil pipeline released more than 500 barrels of crude near the Southern California beach town of Santa Barbara in the area's worst coastal spill in 46 years, according to the U.S. Coast Guard. The 24-inch Las Flores-to-Gaviota pipeline was shut and the company initiated emergency response measures, Plains... -
Cleanup Crews Tackle California Oil Spill as Officials Assess Size
May 21, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Tamara Audi and Alison Sider
The oil spill in Santa Barbara County, Calif., could be as large as 2,500 barrels, or 105,000 gallons, in a worst-case scenario outlined Wednesday by the burst pipeline’s operator, which estimated 500 barrels may have reached the water. As an investigation and cleanup efforts began in the aftermath of Tuesday’s spill... -
Santa Barbara Oil Spill Fuels More Warnings From Pipeline Critics
May 20, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor & Andrew Restuccia
As spilled oil from a failed pipeline spread to cover 9 miles of the Pacific Ocean on Wednesday, befouling one of California’s iconic beaches, the safety of fossil-fuel infrastructure took on fresh urgency for green groups that have made climate change the core of their campaign against Keystone XL. -
(ACC Mentioned) Politics Shouldn't Prompt Change to Statute That Set Up EPA Science Board, Senators Say
May 21, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Politics shouldn't be the reason for changing the law that established the Science Advisory Board to serve the Environmental Protection Agency, senators said at a hearing May 20. “Neither Republicans nor Democrats want Lysenkoism,” Sen. Michael Rounds (R-S.D.) said during the hearing by the Senate Environment and Public Works... -
New Mexico’s Udall Straddles The Oil And Gas Divide
May 20, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
He may have drawn cheers from environmentalists for pushing back on fracking near a major historical site in his state, but Sen. Tom Udall’s approach to oil and gas hews more toward the center than his green backers might prefer. The New Mexico Democrat has urged top Interior Department officials to visit the state for face-to-face talks with ... -
PHMSA Plastic Pipe Proposal Would Make More Stringent Requirements for Gas Service
May 21, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Plastic pipe used in natural gas transmission and distribution systems would be subject to new tracking and traceability requirements and gas system operators would need to use the most protective class of mechanical fittings, among other changes, under a pipeline safety proposal to be released May 21. -
Opposition Expressed on Pipeline Bill to Give Interior Routing Authority in National Parks
May 21, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
A bill to expedite the permitting of natural gas pipelines across national parks ran into opposition from the Obama administration and a senior Democrat during a congressional hearing May 20, seven days after it was introduced. The National Energy Security Corridors Act (H.R. 2295) would give the Interior Department authority to approve... -
Senators Push Funding Increase For Energy Research
May 20, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A bipartisan group of senators introduced a bill Wednesday to bump up energy research funding and tweak the structure of American energy research programs. Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Chris Coons (D-Del.) introduced the bill, which would reauthorize energy programs included in the America COMPETES Act, an eight-... -
Bill to Modernize DOE Labs Passes House
May 21, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The House passed a bill aiming to modernize Department of Energy laboratories and effectively lift certain barriers on DOE laboratory researchers and research funding mechanisms. An amended version of the bill, H.R. 1158, was passed May 19 by voice vote in the House under a suspension of rules and will proceed to the Senate for consideration. -
Lawmakers Jumping Onto Energy Bill Bandwagon
May 21, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Geof Koss
Following an extended hiatus on pushing major energy legislation past the finish line, lawmakers are hoping to make up for lost time. While the Senate Energy and Natural Resources and House Energy and Commerce committees are taking the lead on assembling an energy package for floor debate, other panels are eyeing the bill to move provisions... -
Moniz House Appearance Delayed By Scheduling Conflict
May 20, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Geof Koss
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz's scheduled appearance before a House subcommittee tomorrow has been pushed off because of a scheduling conflict, but Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) says the delay won't hamper his panel's efforts to write an energy bill for floor debate next month. -
House Passes Scientific Research Funding
May 20, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Cristina Marcos
The House passed legislation on Wednesday to reauthorize $33 billion for federal scientific research programs. Passage by a vote of 217-205 fell largely along party lines. The bill would establish grant funding and programs through 2020 across multiple agencies, including the National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Energy ... -
GOP Senators Cite Critical GAO Findings To Push EPA Science Reform Bill
May 20, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dave Reynolds
GOP senators are citing preliminary Government Accountability Office (GAO) findings faulting EPA procedures for answering Congress' requests for information on agency science advisory bodies in their push for approval of a bill they say would make EPA science more transparent by overhauling the Science Advisory Board (SAB). -
Obama Describes Climate Change As Imminent National Security Threat
May 21, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Cheryl Bolen
Climate change constitutes a “serious threat to global security” and an immediate risk to U.S. national security, President Barack Obama said at a military academy commencement May 20. The White House released a report May 20 finding that climate change contributes to increased natural disasters that result in humanitarian crises... -
Republicans Denounce Obama Speech Calling Climate Change Threat to National Security
May 21, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Senate Republicans sharply criticized President Barack Obama for saying that climate change represents a “serious threat” to global security and an “immediate risk” to U.S. national security. None of the senators interviewed by Bloomberg BNA May 20 were surprised by Obama's comments—they said his viewpoint was already well-known... -
Obama's Warning About Security Threat Draws GOP Rebuke
May 20, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Daniel Bush
President Obama today framed global warming as a major threat to global stability and domestic security in his commencement speech at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in New London, Conn. Climate change will play a significant role in events that the next generation of Coast Guard officers will have to face, from rising sea levels to... -
Bill Would Require EPA Impact Analyses To Be Measured Without Other Assumptions
May 21, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The regulatory impact analyses for Environmental Protection Agency rules would include a scenario that doesn't factor in the costs and benefits of separate regulatory actions, under a bill introduced May 20 by Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.). The EPA's draft regulatory impact analysis for proposed revisions to the national ozone... -
EPA Appears To Drop New Coal CCS Requirement From Draft Final NSPS
May 21, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dawn Reeves
EPA appears to have dropped its controversial requirement that new coal plants install partial carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) from its draft final new source performance standards (NSPS) that it recently sent to the White House for interagency review, according to one informed source. -
States Say Background Levels, Few Controls Present Ozone Compliance Complications
May 21, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Some states say they have few options left for curbing ground-level ozone formation as the Environmental Protection Agency contemplates setting more stringent air quality standards for the pollutant. The range proposed by the EPA for its national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone would approach background levels for many... -
House Votes to Cut Research Funding For Clean Energy, Efficiency Programs
May 21, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The House voted May 20 to pass a research funding bill that would slash Energy Department research programs for clean energy, while increasing money for nuclear energy and fossil fuel research programs. In all, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015 (H.R. 1806) would authorize $16.4 billion in both fiscal ... -
Energy Efficiency Grades Are In – How did Los Angeles Do?
May 20, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jorge Madrid
School’s out for summer! It’s time to check those report cards and figure out if we made the energy efficiency grade or if we’re stuck trying to catch up. For Los Angeles, the marks are pretty consistent: “Not great yet, but getting there…” According to the American Council for an Energy Efficiency Economy (ACEEE), who just released their 2015... -
Enviros Sue EPA Over Los Angeles Soot Plan
May 20, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Peterka
Environmentalists filed a lawsuit accusing U.S. EPA of violating the Clean Air Act for failing to act on a plan to clean up sooty air in the Los Angeles area. According to the lawsuit, EPA missed an August 2014 deadline to either approve or reject the plan developed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. -
On Eve Of 'Waters' Rule, EPA Seeks To Clarify Key Regulatory Definitions
May 20, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
On the eve of EPA's imminent release of its controversial final rule to define Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction, observers say the agency appears to be taking steps to clarify key regulatory definitions of concern including clarifying how to define “tributaries” and expanding protections for certain features such as prairie potholes. -
Rail Safety Fact Check: Fires, Spills Up Despite Industry Claims
May 20, 2015 | The Huffington Post - Politics
By Isaiah Thompson
Despite the terrible derailment of an Amtrak train last week and a spate of other fiery accidents involving trains carrying flammable crude oil -- five so far this year -- railroad industry and government officials have taken pains to reassure the public of rail transportation safety. Railroad safety in 2014, as the Association of American Railroads... -
CSX Employee Wins Industry Lifetime Achievement Award For Hazardous Material Safety
May 20, 2015 | Mil-Tech
CSX's ROmano DeSimone has been awarded the Association of American Railroad (AAR) Holden-Proefrock Award for his significant career achievements and contributions to the safe transportation of hazardous materials by rail. "CSX puts safety at the forefront of everything we do, and ROmano has personified this commitment through his...
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Mentioned) Republicans Shouldn’t ‘Rescue’ States From Bad Federal Laws
May 20, 2015 | The Federalist
By Sean Saffron
In charge of a Congress focused on “getting Americans back to work” and pursuing “common sense, bipartisan” legislation to “get our economy going,” Republicans have gone to their friends in Big Business and received their marching orders.
What is holding our economy back? Too much federalism, apparently.
It may seem hypocritical from the party that venerates the Constitution’s balance of powers and sings paeans to devolution, but the bills moving through the Republican-led Congress indicate a desire to quash the “laboratories of democracy” model when it offends the sensibilities of Big Business.
Let Liberals Run Nanny States
What is the federalism Republicans seek to quash? The kind that has (mostly liberal) states implementing more and more burdens on businesses in the pursuit of questionable benefits and at the behest of narrowly-targeted special interests.
For instance, if you want to deliver goods by sea to a port in California, your freight ship must be able to eradicate all life from the ocean water it brings onboard as ballast. California’s ballast water discharge laws are unreasonable and demand technologies that did not exist when they passed the law in 2006, do not exist now, and may never be available, according to the California State Lands Commission’s own report. These laws remain limited to the states themselves, and, in the spirit of competitive federalism, people and corporations are allowed to vote with their feet.
Across the country, a number of states have implemented chemical safety laws that limit the make-up of products from children’s toys to household cleaners. Some of these state laws have pushed entire industries to adopt new manufacturing to avoid controversial ingredients. Some of these laws are based on bad science and fear-mongering by advocacy groups, needlessly driving up the price of necessities for poor families.
In Vermont, a law signed last year to require labeling of “genetically modified organisms” in the grocery store will finally be put into place this month. Now, your local grocery store is required to actively advertise against the safety of its products—products made with all the benefits of modern food science and in compliance with federal safety standards. Expect the poor to be hardest hit.
There are many more areas where overactive state governments trample their citizens’ economic freedom, but these laws remain limited to the states themselves, and, in the spirit of competitive federalism, people and corporations are allowed to vote with their feet. But that is not good enough for the business-friendly Republican-led Congress. Don’t Listen to the Business Lobby
The well-organized interests hurt most by these misguided state regulations are the national and multinational corporations stuck complying with them. Businesses being market players, they do what they know, and seek a market solution. In this case, they go shopping for a better regulator more friendly to their arguments.
Republicans’ solution is to “pre-empt” these bad state laws by imposing federal laws over top of them and banning further state action. In each of the above instances, a federal law has been proposed to supersede state-level regulations: In response to Vermont’s labeling law and similar (thankfully failed) referenda throughout the nation, Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kansas) has written the “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act” to “guard against a[n]… inefficient state-by-state food labeling system.” Monsanto and their allies have championed this bill in letters to Congress.On chemical safety, the Senate recently approved a new bill, sponsored by Sen. David Vitter (R-Louisiana), which would grandfather in current state-level restrictions while ensuring the Environmental Protection Agency has final say on chemical ingredient regulations going forward. The American Chemistry Council, featuring large chemical suppliers like DuPont, has had a large role in writing the legislation.And on ballast water, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-California), who head the relevant congressional committees, have introduced the “Vessel Incidental Discharge Act” to enact “a uniform set” of national rules for ballast water. The American Waterways Organization, which is made up of shippers and tugboat companies throughout the United States, is leading the push for this legislation.
In each of these situations (and numerous others), Republicans pre-empt the constitutional balance of powers between state and federal governments by opting for one-size-fits-all regulations from Washington. This is precisely what they rhetorically rail against when it comes to Obamacare or liberal policies in general, but are eager to enact when it serves their (and their donors’) interests.
True Federalism and Hard Work
Instead of using Progressive tactics of circumventing the Constitution to achieve their desired ends, Republican should stand on principle and fight these bad regulations at the source: state legislatures and regulatory agencies. Despite the disastrous nature of these regulations, at least they are confined to the state in question, and duly enacted by that state’s political bodies.
States should not be able to enact onerous regulations on what inputs businesses must use, how grocers label their products, or what shippers must install on their vessels. Strict and timely tort laws would protect states from being victims of bad actors while nurturing innovation and a welcoming climate for entrepreneurs. Maximizing economic liberty will do more to keep people healthy and protected than government bureaucrats ever could.
Despite the disastrous nature of these regulations, at least they are confined to the state in question, and duly enacted by that state’s political bodies. Republicans should stand by their rhetoric and support the Constitution’s structure of federalism, not expand the bad ideas of Vermont, California, et al., to the entire nation.
And they should certainly not do so at the behest of large corporations seeking a handout through the regulatory regime. It does nothing but prove they are a party willing to accommodate Big Business at all costs.
-
D.C. Circuit Unites Definition of Solid Waste Lawsuits With 2009 Petroleum Industry Case
May 21, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
A federal appeals court has consolidated newly filed litigation over the Environmental Protection Agency's definition of solid waste rule with a 2009 petroleum industry lawsuit over the agency's treatment of spent petroleum refinery catalysts in a 2008 waste rule (American Petroleum Institute v. EPA, D.C. Cir. , No. 09-1038, court order 5/18/15).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit asked the parties to file proposed briefing formats in the case by June 29 in its May 18 order. It also encouraged joint submissions and said it would look “with extreme disfavor on repetitious submissions.”
In its 2009 original challenge, the petroleum industry argued the EPA gave spent refinery catalysts, a by-product of petroleum refining, disparate treatment in its original 2008 waste rule and said the agency improperly asserted authority under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act over the material because they are not “discarded” wastes.
The appeals court held oral arguments on the 2009 lawsuit but ultimately held the challenge wasn't ripe because the EPA planned to reconsider the 2008 rule (111 DEN A-2, 6/11/12).
Reconsidered Definition
That reconsidered definition of solid waste rule came in January using an approach the EPA said would balance reuse of hazardous secondary materials with additional human health and environmental protections for those types of hazardous material recycling operations. Various lawsuits from industry and environmental groups challenging the final rule were then filed in April (Utils. Solid Waste Activities Grp. v. EPA, D.C. Cir. , No. 15-1083, order filed 5/18/15).
The 2015 revisions (80 Fed. Reg. 1694) amended the 2008 rule by granting the EPA a greater, up-front role in verifying the legitimacy of third-party recycling operations by requiring recyclers to demonstrate their ability to pay for any cleanups and to submit information about their operations. Entities looking to take advantage of the hazardous waste regulation exemptions also would have to show four mandatory legitimacy criteria (08 DEN A-1, 1/13/15).
One Argument Said Likely Moot
In an April 27 motion to govern future proceedings, the American Petroleum Institute said the EPA's reconsideration of the 2008 final rule likely made their argument about disparate treatment of spent refinery catalysts likely “now moot.”
Nevertheless, the industry's other argument in the 2009 litigation—that the EPA improperly regulated materials over which it lacked jurisdiction because they weren't discarded—stands, and both cases are sufficiently alike to warrant consolidation, it argued.
“The 2015 rule continues to assert RCRA authority over recycled refinery catalysts in a manner that API maintains is arbitrary and capricious and in excess of EPA's statutory authority,” the motion states.
-
(ACC Mentioned) As An Insider Speaks Out, Chemical Industry’s Credibility Sinks
May 20, 2015 | The Sacramento Bee
Politicians know the cover-up can be worse than the crime.
Parents tell their children that no matter what bonehead stunt they pull, they’ll make it worse by lying.
Perhaps some American Chemistry Council and corporate executives whose companies produce certain types of flame retardants didn’t learn that lesson.
The chemistry council denied involvement with an AstroTurf group known as Citizens for Fire Safety, an industry front that lobbied against legislation to restrict what Gov. Jerry Brown calls “toxic flame retardants.” The chemicals had become ubiquitous in the environment and showed up in mothers’ breast milk.
Last month, industry lobbyist Grant Gillham wrote a powerful letter to the California Legislature detailing how he established the front group in 2007 at the request of the American Chemistry Council and three member corporations that produce the flame retardants.
“My role, at the direction of the three companies, and under the oversight of the American Chemistry Council, was to develop a national advocacy and grassroots public relations campaign to defeat the growing body of legislation aimed at banning chemical flame retardants,” writes Gillham, a former legislative aide.
In 2012, as Gillham oversaw a lobbying effort that derailed bills in several states to restrict flame retardants, the Chicago Tribune printed articles exposing Citizens for Fire Safety’s questionable tactics and scientific claims.
The Center for Public Integrity picked up on the story earlier this month, focusing on Gillham, and reprinted a 2012 letter from the chemistry council’s executive director, Cal Dooley, in which he told Maine legislators that the council “is not affiliated with Citizens for Fire Safety.”
We must be missing some nuance. Maybe we don’t know what the definition is of “is,” as used by Dooley, a former Democratic member of Congress from Fresno. On Wednesday, Anne Kolton, the chemistry council’s communications director, restated the council was not involved with Citizens for Fire Safety.
In 2012, after the front group had been exposed, Brown directed his staff to rewrite regulations so that California no longer required the flame retardants be added to furniture sold in the state.
Last year, Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, whose previous legislative attempts to restrict flame retardants had died in part because of Gillham, won approval of a bill requiring that products containing the flame retardants be labeled.
Now, with Gillham as an ally, Leno is carrying a new bill, SB 763, which would require labeling of products for juveniles such as napping pads. It deserves passage, no matter what the American Chemistry Council says.
In Washington, the chemistry council is lobbying for S. 697, a bill that threatens states’ ability to regulate chemicals. California’s congressional delegation should protect the state’s authority by opposing this bill unless the preemption language is dropped.
If chemistry council representatives claim states would lose no authority, lawmakers should pay close attention to the nuance. Words and reputation matter.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Full Chemical Plant Statements Sent to KSDK
May 21, 2015 | KSDK
You can read the full statements of the chemical plants mentioned in the 5 on Your Side Investigates story below:
Afton Chemical Statement:
"The safety of our employees and our surrounding community is of paramount concern to Afton Chemical. It is a responsibility that we take very seriously.
Afton Chemical's Sauget facility has numerous safety systems and controls in place 24/7 to prevent any off-site impacts from our operations. Additionally, our on-site emergency response teams conduct extensive training and drills with local emergency responders to ensure appropriate and immediate response in any emergency situation. These controls and our safety management system have been recognized by industry and Federal regulators.
Afton Chemical in Sauget has received the highest star rating in OSHA's Voluntary Protection Program and Responsible Care & ISO 14001 certification from an independent certifying body. The facility also is inspected on a regular basis by multiple Federal and State agencies to ensure our safety protocols are up to date and effective.
As a member of the ACC, Afton Chemical supports the industries efforts to work with President Obama's Interagency Working Group, which was established as a part of the Executive Order on Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security.
Note: For background purposes it's important to note EPA's Risk Management Worst Case Scenario analysis assumes an unprecedented release with absolutely no safety measures in place to prevent or mitigate the release."
Solvay Statement:
"Solvay takes seriously its commitment to safety in all its operations and to compliance with all state and federal regulatory requirements.
Solvay's Alorton plant has a long history of engagement with public safety authorities including active participation in the St. Clair County Special Emergency Services Association, the Local Emergency Planning Committee and the chemical industry's Responsible Care® program. Solvay also provides training to local emergency responders who have full access to information about plant operations and safety procedures.
Solvay likewise provides specialized safety and emergency response training for its employees and follows a systematic program of equipment upgrades and maintenance to ensure reliability.
More information about Responsible Care® and related industry initiatives is available from the American Chemistry Council."
Solutia/Eastman Statement:
"Safety is a top priority at Eastman and the Company is committed to ensuring the safety of its employees and the communities in which we operate.
Raw materials are ordered based on customer requests and are not stored on a long-term basis. In addition, there are robust policies and procedures in place to manage and control any material that is utilized at our facility.
Eastman strives to operate facilities in top working order and in full compliance with regulations. We are very sensitive to the impact we may have on our community and maintain close relationships with emergency responders to ensure we have comprehensive plans in place to respond to a potential incident."
Vertex Chemical/Hawkins Statement:
"We take our responsibilities to our local communities seriously and strive to be good neighbors, employers and citizens in each of the communities where we have operations.
We have had a Risk Management Plan for our Dupo, Illinois, facility for over 20 years so that our facility is able to prevent, and is prepared to respond, to a release. In those years, we have never had a reportable chlorine release. In addition, for more than 15 years, we have had annual, coordinated emergency response drills, which have included reviews of the Risk Management Plan, with local, state and national authorities, including but not limited to: the St. Clair County Emergency Management Authority, local and nearby fire departments, police departments, local schools and hospitals, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security.
The security of this facility has been reviewed by the Department of Homeland Security and found to be in compliance with DHS's Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards. We train our employees regularly on safety and emergency response. We have safety equipment in place to prevent and promptly detect any release. We are also members of numerous trade organizations, including the Chlorine Institute and American Chemistry Council, which allows us to keep abreast of industry best practices for the safe handling of our products."
-
OECD Upgrades Chemicals Management Tool
May 21, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The OECD has released its new version of the IOMC Toolbox for decision making in chemicals management. The tool was developed to help governments in emerging economies establish regulations to manage the safety of industrial chemicals (CW 18 February 2014).
New features give guidance on:
an industrial chemicals management system;
a classification and labelling system; and
a system to support health authorities, which have a role in the public health management of chemicals.
IOMC is the inter-organisation programme for the sound management of chemicals.
-
European Parliament Blocks Hazardous Substance Exemption for Cadmium
May 21, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
European Parliament lawmakers May 20 overwhelmingly voted to block a proposed implementing directive that would have allowed an exemption under the European Union's Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive (RoHS Directive, 2011/65/EU).
European Parliament spokesman Baptiste Chatain told Bloomberg BNA that it was the first time lawmakers had vetoed an implementing directive of the RoHS Directive, which bans lead, mercury, hexavalent chromium and polybrominated biphenyls and polybrominated diphenyl ethers from electrical and electronic goods above a threshold of 0.1 percent by weight, and cadmium above a threshold of 0.01 percent by weight.
The proposed exemption would have permitted the use of cadmium above the legal threshold in some illuminated displays through June 30, 2017, and in high definition televisions that use “quantum dot” technology, through June 30, 2018.
Lawmakers sitting in a European Parliament plenary session in Strasbourg, France, rejected the proposed exemption by 618-33 with 28 abstentions. The blocking vote has the effect of sending the proposed exemption back to the European Commission, the EU's executive arm, which must reconsider and re-propose it.
Cadmium Alternatives
Members of the European Parliament blocked the exemption on the grounds that in preparing it, the commission had drawn a “manifestly incorrect” conclusion that cadmium-free quantum dots were not available, and that the commission ignored an expert report that had concluded that the exemption for cadmium in illuminated displays was not necessary.
The motion to block the exemption was put forward by two lawmakers from the European Parliament's Green Group, Baz Eickhout and Keith Taylor. Found naturally in the earth's crust, cadmium is a known carcinogen.
Nanoco Group, a Manchester, England-based company that produces cadmium-free quantum dots, welcomed the European Parliament vote.
Nanoco CEO Michael Edelman said in a statement that cadmium-free quantum dots “have significant technological benefits and they are available today.”
Alternatives Disputed
However, the U.S. company that requested the exemption for cadmium under RoHS, Lexington, Mass.-based QD Vision, said that alternatives to cadmium-based quantum dots containing indium phosphide could also have an “adverse environmental impact.”
Indium phosphide is classified as carcinogenic in the EU and is subject to certain restrictions under the bloc's REACH law (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation, and authorization of chemicals).
In a statement to Bloomberg BNA, QD Vision said the European Parliament vote would lead the commission to “conduct further analysis of its exemption of cadmium-based quantum dots for illumination and display lighting applications.”
The commission proposal to grant an exemption for cadmium was based on “sound scientific principles and independent analysis, which concluded that cadmium-based quantum dots are the most energy efficient, and the best solution for the environment,” QD Vision said.
-
Plains Oil Pipeline Leaks 500 Barrels Of Crude Near Santa Barbara, California
May 21, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Robert Tuttle
A Plains All American Pipeline LP oil pipeline released more than 500 barrels of crude near the Southern California beach town of Santa Barbara in the area's worst coastal spill in 46 years, according to the U.S. Coast Guard.
The 24-inch Las Flores-to-Gaviota pipeline was shut and the company initiated emergency response measures, Plains spokesman Brad Leone said in an e-mail late May 19. The culvert where the oil flowed into the ocean was blocked to prevent any more crude from entering the water, he said.
The release created an oil slick extending for nine miles along the coastline, Jennifer Williams, Los Angeles-area sector commander at the U.S. Coast Guard, said in a televised news conference May 20.
“That's a little bit more than we anticipated last night,” she said. Nine vessels are at work, six attempting to corral the slick with booms and three vessels skimming oil from the surface, she said.
Plains doesn't have an accurate estimate of the amount of oil spilled, Plains official Darren Palmer said at a news conference. The company has 130 clean-up workers on-site with more en route, he said.
The release is believed to be the largest oil spill into Santa Barbara waters since 1969, Lt. John McCormick, Coast Guard public affairs officer, said by phone May 20. In that year, an oil platform blowout spilled 200,000 gallons of crude into the Pacific, marring 35 miles of Santa Barbara coastline.
“The administration will do everything necessary to protect California's coastline,” Evan Westrup, spokesman for California Gov. Jerry Brown (D), said in an e-mailed statement. “Governor Brown was briefed after the incident and is monitoring the situation with great concern.”
Refinery Supply
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, part of the Transportation Department, said it is investigating the spill of heavy oil.
The 24-inch line carries 150,000 barrels a day of crude oil and runs to a network that supplies the Phillips 66 Santa Maria refinery, Santa Barbara County said on its website. The Plains’ system in the area carries crude pumped by Exxon Mobil Corp. and Arquello Inc. from offshore fields.
The refinery continues to operate and it is too early to know how the plant will be affected, Dennis Nuss, a Phillips 66 spokesman, said in an e-mail May 20.
The spill comes a year after a Plains pipeline that supplies some of the state's largest refineries leaked 21,000 gallons of oil in Los Angeles.
-
Cleanup Crews Tackle California Oil Spill as Officials Assess Size
May 21, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Tamara Audi and Alison Sider
The oil spill in Santa Barbara County, Calif., could be as large as 2,500 barrels, or 105,000 gallons, in a worst-case scenario outlined Wednesday by the burst pipeline’s operator, which estimated 500 barrels may have reached the water.
As an investigation and cleanup efforts began in the aftermath of Tuesday’s spill near the shore, federal officials said the oil had spread into two large patches in the Pacific Ocean, covering an area 9 miles long by midday.
Wednesday night, Gov. Jerry Brown declared a state of emergency in the county, which frees up emergency state funding and resources to help in the cleanup.
It was uncertain how much oil seeped from the pipeline operated by Plains All American Pipeline LP. Initial estimates had put the leak at 500 barrels, or 21,000 gallons, of oil.
Cleanup crews from state and federal agencies were on hand at Refugio State Beach, the site of the spill 140 miles north of Los Angeles. The area is a protected cove prized by surfers, kayakers, campers and fishing enthusiasts, and home to seals, sea lions and birds.
Workers in white protective suits faced a complex mess. Black, sticky crude coated large rocks along the shore of the elbow-shaped cove, and a heavy stench of petroleum hung in the air.
“This spill is unlike others we’ve dealt with in the past,” said Capt. Jennifer Williams, the federal on-scene coordinator with the U.S. Coast Guard. She added that the cleanup is expected to be slow and complicated. Nearby fisheries have been closed.
During a Wednesday evening news conference, Greg L. Armstrong, chairman and chief executive of Plains All American, apologized for “the disruption and inconvenience it has caused on the citizens and the visitors to this area.”
He said the company will expand its cleanup efforts to a 24-hour, seven-day operation and will double its response personnel.
“We are fully committed to this response effort,” Mr. Armstrong said. “We will remain here until everything has been returned to normal.”
Santa Barbara was the site of a January 1969 oil spill that helped spark the modern environmental movement. In that accident, an offshore platform suffered a blowout and oil leaked into the Santa Barbara channel. Within a week, the crude washed ashore, fouling beaches and wildlife.
A little more than a year after that spill, the first Earth Day was held in the U.S. By the end of 1970, then-President Richard Nixon halted any future growth in the oil industry’s activity offshore California, beginning a drilling ban that is still in effect today.
The latest spill is under investigation by the Environmental Protection Agency and the federal Transportation Department, which recently had taken over regulating the pipeline from the state, said Michelle Rogow, the EPA coordinator on site.
Santa Barbara County District Attorney Joyce Dudley and state Attorney General Kamala Harris said they are investigating the spill for possible criminal prosecution or civil liability.
The Coast Guard is managing cleanup on the water, while the EPA is working to clean up the land. About 145 barrels, or 6,090 gallons, had been skimmed off the water, Plains All American said.
Plains All American said aerial surveys of the pipeline, which operates at about 1,200 barrels an hour, are conducted weekly and the pipe was inspected internally a few weeks ago, but those results aren’t yet available.
At the news conference, Rick McMichael, director of pipeline operations for Plains, said the company was investigating whether pump malfunctions along the line—which led to the line’s temporary shutdown Tuesday—may have played a role in the spill.
“Our investigation will reveal if that was the cause, but that is still under way,” he said.
The pipeline has been carrying crude since 1991 and is used to move oil pumped off the coast of California from a facility owned by Exxon Mobil Corp. to refineries inland, said Darren Palmer, a district manager with Plains.
Exxon Mobil offered to assist with the cleanup Tuesday, but was told its aid wasn’t needed, a spokesman said.
Environmental groups and California politicians said the spill underscored the dangers associated with pipeline oil delivery across sensitive areas, such as the California coast or the Alaskan tundra, and called for a renewed emphasis on alternative forms of energy.
Hannah-Beth Jackson, a Democrat who represents the area in the state Senate, said she was “deeply saddened” by the spill, calling it a “tragic reminder of how precious our coastline and wildlife are.”
Politicians and activists Wednesday questioned whether stronger safeguards should be in place to alert the pipeline operator and regulators to such leaks.
“This shouldn’t have happened,” said Doreen Farr, a county supervisor whose district includes the spill site. “Something failed someplace.”
The total number of wildlife affected by the spill wasn’t known Wednesday evening, with an estimate expected Thursday, said a state official, who also announced they would be closing El Capitan State Beach in Goleta at least through the weekend.
Paula Perotte, the mayor of Goleta, the shoreline community south of the spill, said, “It’s a tragedy.”
Some cleaning crews, fire officials and residents reported seeing a few oil-covered birds and fish. A spokesman for the state’s Department of Fish and Wildlife said his agency didn’t have any injured animals, but “undoubtedly there’s been an impact.”
Officials also grappled with the impact to the local economy.
Refugio State Beach also was to remain closed through the holiday weekend. And fishing was banned indefinitely a mile west and a mile east around the beach, a state official said.
Gov. Brown is monitoring the spill with “great concern,” a spokesman said. “The administration will do everything necessary to protect California’s coastline.”
Santa Barbara County, on California’s central coast, is home to affluent beach communities nestled around the University of California, Santa Barbara, as well as blue-collar neighborhoods in Santa Maria, an inland city where many oil-industry workers live.
Since oil was discovered here in the late 1800s, the region has been home to oil fields, refineries and pipelines. The county’s close ties to the oil industry were widely seen as contributing to the defeat by voters in November of a ballot initiative that would have banned fracking.
California’s offshore production is minuscule compared with the U.S. Gulf Coast.
In 2014, 23 platforms in federal waters off the coast of California produced 18.5 million barrels of oil, or just more than 50,000 barrels a day, according to the Interior Department. By comparison, oil production in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico was about 1.4 million barrels of oil a day.
-
Santa Barbara Oil Spill Fuels More Warnings From Pipeline Critics
May 20, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor & Andrew Restuccia
As spilled oil from a failed pipeline spread to cover 9 miles of the Pacific Ocean on Wednesday, befouling one of California’s iconic beaches, the safety of fossil-fuel infrastructure took on fresh urgency for green groups that have made climate change the core of their campaign against Keystone XL.
The oil leak onto Santa Barbara’s Refugio beach from a 28-year-old line operated by Plains All American Pipeline could reach 105,000 gallons, or 2,500 barrels, according to a worst-case estimate released Wednesday by a response team that includes the company as well as state and local officials. The Obama administration’s pipeline safety regulator dispatched four inspectors to the scene, a presence insufficient to quell criticism from environmentalists who warn that the system is broken.
If the worst-case scenario proves correct, that would make this spill larger than the 2011 oil spill into Montana’s Yellowstone River and about half the size of the 2013 spill in Mayflower, Ark.
“Over the last few years, despite some really serious pipeline incidents, we haven’t made much progress on pipeline safety, and that needs to be changed,” Anthony Swift of the Natural Resources Defense Council said in an interview.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration — which critics on and off Capitol Hill warn is culturally and fiscally incapable of fulfilling its mandate to protect the public from the risks of oil and gas transportation — “lacks the political will” to use its limited powers to prevent accidents like the Refugio spill, Swift added.
Plains spokesman Darren Palmer said at a Wednesday news conference near the spill site that the company has yet to begin an investigation into “exactly what caused the leak” from a 24-inch pipe that shipped up to 150,000 barrels a day of oil from an Exxon-owned facility to larger transmission lines.
“Plains is taking responsibility for this spill and they are paying for everything,” Palmer said, echoing a statement that said the Houston-based company “deeply regrets this release has occurred.”
But activist groups seized on the Refugio spill as proof that expanded oil production carries risks beyond global warming — an argument that matches their hopes of leveraging the Keystone dispute into victories against a panoply of fossil-fuel infrastructure projects.
“It’s devastating to see what happens when the oil industry remains unchecked,” said Lena Moffitt, director of the Sierra Club’s Dirty Fuels Campaign, who lamented that “even the [safety] regulations that do exist are scarcely implemented because of budget-constrained agencies.”
Moffitt linked the California spill, with its images of oiled birds that recalled the 2010 BP oil gusher in the Gulf of Mexico, to greens’ fight against drilling off the coast of Alaska and the hotbed of local Keystone resistance in the Plains.
“Frankly, the industry cannot be trusted with our precious resources,” she said. “We know that in the Arctic. We know that in the Sandhills of Nebraska. We know that in Santa Barbara.”
The Western States Petroleum Association, which counts Plains as a member, said in a statement that the industry is “always concerned when accidents like this happen,” adding that its companies “will review the facts surrounding this incident and apply what they learn to prevent future accidents.”
Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.), who represents Santa Barbara, said in an interview that the spill brought back memories of a massive 1969 offshore oil spill in the Santa Barbara Channel that spewed as much as 100,000 barrels of crude into the ocean and eventually onto nearby beaches. To this day, it is one of the largest oil leaks in U.S. history.
Capps said the Refugio incident is “another reminder of how dangerous oil drilling is, and how serious the stakes are for our economy and our environment.” She said she spoke to acting PHMSA Administrator Timothy Butters about the incident earlier Wednesday and she noted that the EPA and U.S. Coast Guard were also on the scene.
Beth Pratt, the National Wildlife Federation’s California director, also pointed to the 1969 Santa Barbara disaster in saying the spill “seems like history repeating itself.” She fretted that the spill could have a devastating impact on “sea lions and migrating whales and shore birds” in an area she likened to “the Galapagos of North America.”
Pratt spoke on the same day that researchers published a peer-reviewed paper that said oil from the 2010 Gulf disaster contributed to the death of bottlenose dolphins in the region.
The Refugio oil slick spread from 4 miles to 9 miles after the spill’s initial discovery Tuesday afternoon, according to Coast Guard officials who estimated the total coastal oil release at 21,000 gallons on Wednesday.
PHMSA’s incident data show that a leak of less than half a barrel of oil occurred one year ago this week from the Las Flores pump station of a Plains pipeline in Santa Barbara County. The company has identified Las Flores as the starting point of the pipe that failed on Tuesday.
A subsidiary of the company, Plains Pipeline LP, has had 175 incidents on its pipeline network since 2006, resulting in no deaths or injuries, according to federal records. Those incidents have caused $23.8 million in property damage and spilled 16,404 barrels of hazardous liquids, figures that don’t include Tuesday’s spill.
PHMSA has collected $115,600 in penalties from the subsidiary since 2006, according to federal records.
An analysis conducted by the Pipeline Safety Trust, a pipeline watchdog group, found that the rate of incidents per mile of crude oil pipelines operated by Plains Pipeline LP was about 14 percent higher than the national average.
The subsidiary operated about 6,400 miles of hazardous liquids pipelines, representing about one-third of the company’s total pipeline mileage. PHMSA does not appear to have records on its website detailing much of the rest of the company’s pipeline network, possibly because those pipelines operate completely within a state’s borders and are regulated by state authorities.
-
May 21, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Politics shouldn't be the reason for changing the law that established the Science Advisory Board to serve the Environmental Protection Agency, senators said at a hearing May 20.
“Neither Republicans nor Democrats want Lysenkoism,” Sen. Michael Rounds (R-S.D.) said during the hearing by the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management and Regulatory Oversight. “Lysenkoism” refers to Stalinist-era manipulation of science to reach a predetermined, ideologically based conclusion.
Senators used the term repeatedly after Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) noted that former President Ronald Reagan used it in a 1982 veto message, rejecting a previous effort to amend the Environmental Research, Development and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 4365), which established the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB).
Like the Reagan-era legislation, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015 (S. 543) would amend the 1978 law to revise the process of selecting the board's members, guidelines for participation in board advisory activities and terms of office.
Proponents of the bill say the changes would thwart the political interference they say the EPA exercises over the board. Opponents of S. 543 charge that “moneyed special interests” are behind the bill, because the legislation would impose requirements serving those special interests.
The House approved its version of the bill (H.R. 1029) by a 236-181 vote March 17. Just two Democrats joined all but one Republican to back the legislation, which President Barack Obama has threatened to veto (42 DEN A-1, 3/4/15).
Oversight Tied to Water Rule, Fracking
Rounds said the hearing served two purposes.
First, it was intended to provide oversight concerning the SAB, as well as the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), established by the Clean Air Act, he said.
The 1978 statute that established the SAB directed the board to provide the EPA administrator with scientific advice and, when requested, to advise the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works or the House committees on Science and Technology, Interstate and Foreign Commerce, or Public Works and Transportation. Today, those House committees are known, respectively, as the Science, Space and Technology Committee; the Energy and Commerce Committee; and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Issues the advisory panels have addressed have included the ecological and human health effects of chemicals; economic methods to value life; environmental justice; hydraulic fracturing; ozone emissions; and stream and wetland connectivity, which is related to a waters of the U.S. rule on which the EPA is working.
CASAC provides advice about the health-based standards the agency sets for six criteria air pollutants—carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter and sulfur dioxide.
The law underlying CASAC doesn't require it to provide advice to congressional committees, whereas the law establishing the SAB does, said Alfredo Gomez, director of natural resources and the environment at the Government Accountability Office.
The procedures the EPA uses to handle congressional committee requests for the board's advice are not entirely clear and have gaps, Gomez said. He described his findings as preliminary. The GAO will issue a final report in June, he said.
Congressional Committee Requests
Until 2014, the EPA did not have written procedures describing how it would address congressional committee requests for SAB advice, Gomez's testimony said.
The 2014 policies were issued after the board received its first formal requests from congressional committees for guidance. The House Science, Space and Technology Committee made those requests in 2013, and it sought the board's comment about the impacts of hydraulic fracturing and water body connectivity, according to his testimony.
EPA policies do not ensure compliance with the 1978 act's requirement that the board advise congressional committees, Gomez said.
A challenge the EPA faces is that, under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, it also manages the board's time to ensure the agency receives timely advice needed for regulations, he said.
While the agency was working to get advice on hydraulic fracturing and water connectivity, it is now confronted with not promptly responding to Congress, Gomez said.
In response to questions, Gomez said it would be possible for one or more congressional committees to submit unlimited requests to the board without consideration of the funds Congress had appropriated for the board.
Details of Legislation
Gomez said he wasn't allowed to comment on the second purpose of the hearing, which was to take comment on S. 543, which Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.) introduced in February.
Provisions of the bill would require:
• public disclosure of board members' financial information, including EPA grants, contracts and cooperative agreements;
• that at least 10 percent of board members represent state, local or tribal governments;
• that public comment “not be limited by an insufficient or arbitrary time restriction”; and
• the board to respond in writing to significant comments offered by members of the public.
Such changes are needed, Rounds said, because “in recent years, EPA regulations have been driven not by science but by politics.”
“The EPA has not submitted critical agency science or technical information to the SABs for review prior to implementing major regulations such as greenhouse gas rules for cars and trucks, new source performance standards for coal-fired power plants and ozone regulations, despite statutory authority to do so. Rather than allowing the science to drive the regulations, the EPA is carrying out the administration's political agenda through regulations with questionable science supporting them,” Rounds said.
Science as Political Weapon
Markey said the hearing and bill are part of an effort to use science as a weapon to thwart actions to protect public health and the environment.
“The Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015 will cripple the scientific process at EPA,” Markey said.
The public disclosure of board members' financial information would have a chilling effect on the participation of qualified scientists, he said.
The bill's requirement for unlimited public comment time, coupled with the mandate that board members provide written responses to public comments—all of which must take place during public meetings—could force an infinite loop of public meetings that would not allow the board to provide its scientific advice, he said.
“This bill also forces changes to the board's membership. Currently, membership is based solely on scientific expertise. The bill would require EPA to consider where experts work, not just what they know,” Markey said.
Boozman Wants Bipartisan Bill
Terry Yosie, who managed the EPA Science Advisory Board under Reagan and has been a vice president at both the American Chemistry Council and the American Petroleum Institute, said S. 543 reminded him of the bill Reagan vetoed in 1982.
Both S. 543 and the Reagan-era bill proposed to substitute quotas for scientific merit and proposed to add burdensome new requirements to EPA's board that would diminish its ability to focus on its core purpose—to provide independent evaluation of the research and scientific basis of agency risk assessments, policies and standards, Yosie said.
Yosie previously shared similar views with Bloomberg BNA (70 DEN A-2, 4/13/15).
Other witnesses provided testimony either supporting or opposing S. 543.
Similarly, Rounds entered into the record a comment from the American Chemistry Council supporting the bill, while Markey entered a letter from the Union of Concerned Scientists opposing it.
Boozman said he was willing to work on concerns Markey raised, such as the possibility that public financial disclosures would discourage qualified scientists from serving on the SAB and the quota concern.
“I want to advance a bipartisan bill,” he said.
It is important, however, that states' perspectives be represented on issues such as hydraulic fracturing and waters of the U.S. that come before the board, Boozman said.
Yosie agreed, adding that when states had scientists with relevant expertise, they were represented on the various SAB panels when he directed the board.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said the 47 members of the full, or “chartered SAB,” include scientists from just two states: California and Vermont.
-
New Mexico’s Udall Straddles The Oil And Gas Divide
May 20, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
He may have drawn cheers from environmentalists for pushing back on fracking near a major historical site in his state, but Sen. Tom Udall’s approach to oil and gas hews more toward the center than his green backers might prefer.
The New Mexico Democrat has urged top Interior Department officials to visit the state for face-to-face talks with locals worried about fracking near the cherished Chaco Canyon, a move hailed by activists hoping to halt drilling in the area.
And while his 96 percent lifetime rating from the League of Conservation Voters places Udall in the green wing of the party, he’s an anchor in a western Democratic bloc — along with his state’s junior senator, Martin Heinrich, and Colorado’s Sen. Michael Bennet — that at times lines up with Republicans on oil and gas issues.
Balancing conservationism and support for the economic boost that drilling brings to their home states is hardly a new challenge for western Democrats. New Mexico produced nearly 5 percent of the nation’s natural gas in 2013, and ranked as the sixth biggest oil- and gas-producing state, according to the Energy Information Administration.
Yet Udall, the son of former Interior Secretary Stewart Udall, is in a uniquely visible position as he helps shepherd a bipartisan chemical safety bill through the Senate while backing increases in natural gas exports and calling for the Obama administration to rethink fracking in Chaco, which is home to a collection of pre-Columbian pueblos. And the same day that Udall pressed the Interior Department, he and Heinrich introduced a strong renewable electricity standard bill.
But greens also noticed when Udall joined Heinrich, Bennet and seven other Democrats in January to oppose an amendment that would have repealed a Safe Drinking Water Act exemption for most fracking activity. The day before the vote on “the Halliburton loophole,” Udall signed on to a liquefied natural gas exports bill crafted by Heinrich and Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), a longtime foe of greens.
That made Udall’s public call last week for Bureau of Land Management chief Neil Kornze to “take a personal look” at the impacts of fracking on Chaco all the more significant to New Mexico activists who had recently sought an injunction to stop BLM from issuing new drilling permits.
“Given the lineage that Sen. Udall comes from, I think his position on the issue carries great weight and he has quite a bit of influence,” said Kyle Tisdel, the Western Environmental Law Center’s climate and energy director.
Udall’s request to Kornze was coupled with a letter to Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, also signed by Heinrich and Rep. Ben Ray Lujan, the House Democrat who represents the region around Chaco, that is also home to Navajo tribal communities. “Federal leasing activities should adequately take into consideration the important cultural, historical and ecological value of the area,” the New Mexicans wrote.
Udall “recognizes that the development, as it’s approached now, is problematic,” Tisdel added. “The extent that it balances some of the positions he’s taken with regard to the Halliburton loophole, I’ll leave that up to him to address.”
BLM is operating under a 12-year-old resource management plan for the Chaco area, which sits atop the potentially prolific Mancos shale play. The agency is moving forward with an update to that plan that would take into account the past decade’s fracking boom, and it postponed a January lease sale that included land within 10 miles of Chaco. But greens are fuming over what they count as more than 240 new permit bids in the vicinity that BLM has approved in the meantime.
Udall’s request that Kornze travel to Chaco and the joint Democratic letter is “a good start,” said Robert Tohe, an organizer in the Sierra Club’s Albuquerque office, but lawmakers “should go even further and [call for] a halt to new development” until BLM finishes its new plan for the region, which is expected to take effect late next year.
Udall spokeswoman Jennifer Talhelm said his approach to BLM and Chaco is in line with his longstanding support for a “’do it all, do it right’ energy strategy that includes natural gas,” as well as strong state regulations on fracking.
“Pushing for the protection of a world heritage site and support for responsible oil and gas development aren’t mutually exclusive,” Talhelm said.
Udall spent 10 years representing the House district that now belongs to Lujan before his move to the Senate in 2008. While his Colorado cousin Mark Udall lost reelection in November to then-Rep. Cory Gardner — a battle in which the economic and environmental tensions raised by the oil and gas boom proved particularly bruising to the Democrat — Tom Udall bested a relatively weak GOP opponent with 55 percent of the vote.
Oil and gas industry political action committee donations to Tom Udall jumped from $16,000 during the 2012 cycle to $71,500 in 2014, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. That’s far higher than the single oil and gas PAC donation of $1,000 he got during his first Senate run.
Udall’s openness to oil and gas growth in his home state “makes complete sense,” said an energy industry source, speaking on condition of anonymity. “To be successful out west, Democrats need to be seen as being supportive of responsible oil and gas development, cautious about EPA overreach, and protective of local environmental priorities. That is why you are seeing Sen. Bennet and Sen. Udall take much more centrist positions following the demise of Mark Udall last election cycle.”
Beyond avoiding the electoral fate of Mark Udall, GOP lobbyist Mike McKenna also pointed to the popularity of New Mexico’s Republican governor, Susana Martinez, which necessitated “a little insurance” from Udall on oil and gas politics ahead of his reelection run in 2020.
Udall’s prominent role as an early co-sponsor of the bill updating the Toxic Substances Control Act is also testament to his efforts to balance competing environmental policy concerns. That chemical safety bill, which has split the environmental community and could reach the Senate floor next month, now counts 36 cosponsors from both ends of the Senate’s partisan spectrum .
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said despite the vehement opposition from Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Udall “stuck with his guns and never hesitated” during TSCA talks that earlier this year.
“I was impressed with the courage he showed,” he said.
Perhaps the best model for Udall’s approach to even-handed environmentalism is in his own family tree. Stewart Udall played a major role in setting up the Land and Water Conservation Fund, seeding the program with funds from offshore oil and gas leasing, and other iconic wilderness protection laws while also risking activists’ ire with a 1967 proposal to begin developing domestic oil shale.
“The Udall family has always been OK on resource development,” McKenna said. “The senator is trying to get in that groove.”
-
PHMSA Plastic Pipe Proposal Would Make More Stringent Requirements for Gas Service
May 21, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Plastic pipe used in natural gas transmission and distribution systems would be subject to new tracking and traceability requirements and gas system operators would need to use the most protective class of mechanical fittings, among other changes, under a pipeline safety proposal to be released May 21.
The new requirements, some of which were requested by industry, would make it easier to locate and track pipe and lower the risk of leaks or incidents, in addition to other benefits, according to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposed rule.
The rule is expected to improved rule clarity and lower compliance costs for industry and isn't expected to significantly alter the human environment, the notice of proposed rulemaking said.
The proposed rule (RIN 2137–AE93) is intended to update plastic pipe rules to reflect the latest technology and industry best practices.
The American Gas Association, Evonik Industries, UBE Industries, Arkema, the National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives and others have expressed interest in issues addressed in the rule.
Under the proposed rule, PHMSA would:
• add requirements regarding marking and tracking of plastic pipe;
• establish plastic pipe installation standards to prevent pipe damage and interference with other underground structures;
• strengthen mechanical fitting requirements; and
• address four industry petitions.
The industry had petitioned PHMSA to tackle issues related to the design factor of certain pipes; use of above ground, encased plastic pipes for gas regulators and metering stations; the use of one class of polyamide pipe (PA-12); and the use of a separate polyamide pipe class (PA-11) at higher pressures.
The petitions, if ultimately adopted, would incorporate certain industry standards in pipeline safety rules and make certain changes in acceptable pipe uses, such as allowing use of polyethylene pipes with smaller wall thickness under certain conditions.
-
Opposition Expressed on Pipeline Bill to Give Interior Routing Authority in National Parks
May 21, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
A bill to expedite the permitting of natural gas pipelines across national parks ran into opposition from the Obama administration and a senior Democrat during a congressional hearing May 20, seven days after it was introduced.
The National Energy Security Corridors Act (H.R. 2295) would give the Interior Department authority to approve rights-of-way for gas pipelines across units of the National Park System, an authority currently exercised only by an act of Congress.
Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.), who wrote the bill along with Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.), cited the high costs and high demand for gas in populous Eastern states as two of the motivations for the legislation, which received a hearing by the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
The hearing was notably collegial in tone, as established by Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.), chairman of the subcommittee, and Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.), ranking member.
Both Lamborn and Lowenthal expressed a hope for bipartisan support for legislation that would advance development of natural gas infrastructure. But when it came to the details of H.R. 2295, Lowenthal clearly felt it was not the right vehicle.
Elements of Bill Criticized
Lowenthal and Timothy Spisak, an adviser to the Bureau of Land Management within the Interior Department, both expressed opposition to basic elements of the bill.
Interior would be obligated to designate energy corridors across federal lands—including at least 10 in the East within two years—where pipelines could be permitted. Corridor designations would not be subject to National Environmental Policy Act requirements for environmental impact analyses, although NEPA would apply to any pipeline projects within the corridors.
A decision on a right-of-way permit would need to be made within one year of receipt of an application.
Lowenthal and Spisak both opposed a shift of permitting authority from Congress to Interior for pipelines in national parks. Lowenthal also argued against the bill's requirement for evaluation of potential energy corridors on a “multiple-use” basis, taking account of national energy security needs with existing land-use principles.
Lowenthal argued the bill would effectively shut the public out of corridor decisions. He criticized the requirement for at least 10 corridors in the Eastern U.S. as an arbitrary minimum. Spisak criticized the idea of exempting corridor designations from NEPA analyses.
Looking for Progress in East
The corridors idea was derived from the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which required agencies to designate energy corridors across federal lands but did not address the question of gas pipelines in national parks.
“Ten years later, we have exactly zero of those corridors in the Eastern half of the United States,” MacArthur said. “Why? Because the National Park Service lacks the authority to negotiate natural gas pipelines. It requires an act of Congress for every individual project.”
MacArthur noted that the National Park Service exercises authority to permit electric transmission lines, telephone lines and water pipelines across parks.
He also illustrated some of the economic geography of natural gas. In Wichita, Kan., in a region with ample pipeline infrastructure, people are paying $2.64 per million British thermal units (Btu) of gas. In Linden, N.J., people are paying $22.35 per million Btu for gas, almost 10 times as much.
While Congress does at times exercise its authority to approve a pipeline across a park, that may add two years to a process that already takes three or four years, testified Jim Moore, a pipeline operations executive for Williams Companies Inc., primarily a gas pipeline and processing company.
Other Pipeline Bills Introduced
The National Energy Security Corridors Act is one of several pipeline bills awaiting action in Congress.
The Federal Land Access Act (S. 1196), introduced May 5 by Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), contains only one provision, the transfer of authority from Congress to Interior for granting rights-of-way. It contains no attempts to avoid NEPA, set permitting decision deadlines or mandate corridors.
The Natural Gas Gathering Enhancement Act (S. 411) was introduced in February by Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) to reduce gas flaring by expediting the permitting of gas pipelines on federal lands. It would not apply to national parks or national wildlife refuges (27 DEN A-9, 2/10/15).
The Oil and Gas Production and Distribution Reform Act (S. 1210), introduced May 6 by Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), would streamline pipeline permitting by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
The North American Energy Infrastructure Act (S. 1228), introduced May 6 by Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), would expedite permitting of international pipelines and electric transmission lines to avoid delays like those of the Keystone XL pipeline project (88 DEN A-14, 5/7/15).
-
Senators Push Funding Increase For Energy Research
May 20, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A bipartisan group of senators introduced a bill Wednesday to bump up energy research funding and tweak the structure of American energy research programs.
Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Chris Coons (D-Del.) introduced the bill, which would reauthorize energy programs included in the America COMPETES Act, an eight-year-old law that supports federal research and development. The bill would increase funding for energy research by 4 percent annually and reauthorize two Department of Energy research offices. The overall goal is to double the $5 billion the Energy Department spends on energy research.
The bill would also eliminate six Department of Energy programs that Alexander's office said were never fully implemented and reform five others.
“If we want to maintain our brainpower advantage and create an abundance of clean, cheap, reliable energy to compete in our 21st-century economy, we need to fuel innovation in our free enterprise system," Alexander said in a statement.
"Governing is about setting priorities, and this legislation will put us on a path to double basic energy research – one of the best ways to keep good-paying jobs from going overseas – while streamlining basic energy research programs at the U.S. Department of Energy."
Alexander's bill has bipartisan support. Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the ranking members on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, have signed on, signaling that it eventually could be incorporated into a larger energy reform bill the committee is working on right now.
The bill covers only the energy research provisions in the America COMPETES Act. The House is scheduled to vote on a broader reauthorization measure on Wednesday, but that bill is significantly more controversial because of the way it shuffles around funding for federal research programs.
House Democrats have opposed that bill, and the White House's Office of Management and Budget has threatened a veto if it were to pass.
-
Bill to Modernize DOE Labs Passes House
May 21, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The House passed a bill aiming to modernize Department of Energy laboratories and effectively lift certain barriers on DOE laboratory researchers and research funding mechanisms. An amended version of the bill, H.R. 1158, was passed May 19 by voice vote in the House under a suspension of rules and will proceed to the Senate for consideration. The bill directs DOE to report annually on efforts to improve technology transfer and the commercialization of energy technologies. It also directs DOE to report annually on its work to authorize, host and oversee privately funded fusion and non-light water nuclear reactor prototypes. The bill also extends the Agreements for Commercializing Technology pilot program until Oct. 31, 2017, which enables laboratory contractors to conduct privately funded research for third parties. Additionally, it enables DOE to form an agreement with the National Science Foundation to enable DOE researchers to participate in the NSF Innovation Corps program. The House bill is available at http://op.bna.com/der.nsf/r?Open=rken-9wpsvf.
-
Lawmakers Jumping Onto Energy Bill Bandwagon
May 21, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Geof Koss
Following an extended hiatus on pushing major energy legislation past the finish line, lawmakers are hoping to make up for lost time.
While the Senate Energy and Natural Resources and House Energy and Commerce committees are taking the lead on assembling an energy package for floor debate, other panels are eyeing the bill to move provisions that reflect their slice of the sprawling energy debate.
The House Natural Resources Committee -- which has oversight of energy development on federal land -- jumped in on the action yesterday with a pair of subcommittee hearings on energy infrastructure bills, including one, H.R. 2295, intended to expedite the siting of natural gas pipelines on public lands, and a second to streamline the thinning of vegetation along electric transmission rights of way on Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management tracts.
Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) said the bills are his committee's starting point, with additional legislation and hearings to be forthcoming.
"I can't tell you what they are right now, but, yeah, we will," he said.
While the lion's share of energy jurisdiction in the Senate resides in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, senators have made clear they're looking to incorporate legislation from other panels, as well.
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) introduced a bill yesterday to reauthorize energy programs in the America COMPETES Act, with the intention of folding it into the emerging energy package. But the bulk of the broader COMPETES bill will be written by the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, handing an opening to members of that panel to put their imprint on the energy package.
Additionally, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) last week plugged a bipartisan bill, S. 280, he authored with Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) that is intended to streamline the federal permitting apparatus as a contender for the energy bill, even though it was approved by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee earlier this month (E&E Daily, May 5).
"I hope it can be part of this broader package," Portman said during a hearing on infrastructure. 'You don't get if you don't try'
It's hardly surprising that multiple committees would look to make their mark on energy, given that the last comprehensive bill to be signed into law dates to 2007, when President George W. Bush occupied the White House.
But a flurry of add-on provisions further complicates the already-tough task of seeing major energy legislation made into law, given the polarization of energy politics in recent years and the tendency of such bills to sink under their own weight.
While the comprehensive Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill that the House passed in 2009 struggled to gain traction in the Senate due to intense GOP opposition to capping heat-trapping emissions of carbon dioxide, a broader energy-focused measure carefully assembled with bipartisan support by then-Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) languished in the 110th Congress as Senate Democrats weighed a floor strategy.
That bill was eventually shelved, as was a bipartisan offshore drilling safety measure that also passed the Energy Committee in the wake of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and subsequent oil spill, as the two parties squabbled over how to address liability over economic damages from such spills.
Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who worked with Bingaman to craft both bills, this month acknowledged the difficulties in managing sprawling energy legislation when asked about her strategy for keeping her bill above water.
"See this magic wand?" she said, holding up her hand. "I don't have the answer to that, but you know what? You don't get if you don't try. And I think we have to be moving forward as if we're going to be successful at every step."
Bud Albright, who served as chief of staff to then-House Energy and Commerce Chairman Joe Barton (R-Texas) during the tough negotiations that led to the sweeping 2005 energy law, said that effort benefited from early agreement by all parties that they would produce a comprehensive bill.
"There's going to be tough decisions, and everyone's going to be a part of the decisionmaking process," recalled Albright, now a lobbyist with Ogilvy Government Relations.
Expectations over the current energy push are somewhat tempered by tensions between the GOP and the White House, which is wary of negotiating with Republicans who bring vastly different policy objectives to the table.
"I'm not sure they've decided what they want to do at this point," Albright said of GOP leaders. "They're trying this piecemeal to see what we can do. ... And I think it's a good strategy" given the political environment.
For his part, current House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) yesterday said he had not spoken directly with Bishop about energy legislation, but indicated he was content to let each committee exercise its jurisdictional prerogatives.
"I know our leadership is looking to move a number of energy bills the end of next month, and we hope to be ready with some ourselves," he said. Tax title?
The fate of the current energy push hinges on how far leaders want to push the scope of the bill, a subject that very much remains a work in progress.
For example, Murkowski and Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) both want to see the Senate's package include provisions to expand the sharing of offshore drilling revenue with coastal states. That's been a tricky lift historically because of the budgetary impacts of such legislation, which in the past has included hefty Congressional Budget Office scores needing offsets to prevent adding to the federal deficit.
Cassidy argues that opening the eastern Gulf of Mexico to drilling -- as his bill (S. 1276) would do -- would swell federal coffers through royalty payments, lease sales and taxes.
Referencing testimony from an American Petroleum Institute official this week, he said opening the Gulf areas in his bill would generate $80 billion in new federal revenues over 18 years.
"I'll take that score," Cassidy said.
While Cassidy said he hasn't received a CBO score of his bill, Murkowski spokesman Robert Dillon said the committee would be able to find offsets within its jurisdiction to pay for revenue sharing by the time the energy bill gets to the floor.
"I think we can provide pay-fors," Dillon said yesterday.
That would avoid opening the can of worms that could accompany adding a tax title to the bill -- the alternate way of paying for revenue sharing.
However, Murkowski this month indicated a willingness to bring taxes into the legislative mix, noting that the 2005 and 2007 energy laws both contained titles addressing revenue.
"It's something that I think about because I recognize in a lot of different areas in order to do what we're trying to do, it's helpful to have that tax piece," she said. "A lot of people are talking about the PTC, production tax credits, and how they might fit in."
She added, "That's not our committee."
Albright acknowledged congressional appetite for revisiting energy tax breaks but said doing so outside the broader tax overhaul favored by GOP leaders would be an uphill lift.
"This has to be done in the context of the comprehensive tax reform effort," he said. "What you don't want is this little tax issue pulled off or that one. In the end, you've killed your ability to do comprehensive tax reform."
-
Moniz House Appearance Delayed By Scheduling Conflict
May 20, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Geof Koss
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz's scheduled appearance before a House subcommittee tomorrow has been pushed off because of a scheduling conflict, but Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) says the delay won't hamper his panel's efforts to write an energy bill for floor debate next month.
Moniz was supposed to discuss the Quadrennial Energy Review with the Energy and Power Subcommittee tomorrow morning (E&E Daily, May 18), but the postponement of a full committee markup of the "21st Century Cures Act," a health care bill, prompted a reshuffling of the schedule. The markup will take place at 8:30 a.m.
The hearing is now scheduled for June 2.
Also on the agenda was draft legislation unveiled this week to expedite cross-border energy projects and liquefied natural gas exports. The bill is the panel's starting point for the "energy diplomacy" title of its energy package (Greenwire, May 19).
In a brief interview, Upton today said GOP leaders are planning to bring "a number of energy bills" to the floor late next month, a timeline he said would not be affected by the delay in tomorrow's hearing.
"We're intending to be ready for the last week of June," he said.
-
House Passes Scientific Research Funding
May 20, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Cristina Marcos
The House passed legislation on Wednesday to reauthorize $33 billion for federal scientific research programs.
Passage by a vote of 217-205 fell largely along party lines.
The bill would establish grant funding and programs through 2020 across multiple agencies, including the National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Energy and National Institutes of Standards and Technology.
Democrats charged that the GOP was underfunding necessary research programs in a manner that would undermine efforts to increase American scientific competitiveness. The measure would, among other provisions, cut NSF's funding for social behavior and economic sciences research by 55 percent compared to current enacted spending levels.
"You could argue that this is not an investment in the 21st century at all. It's a throwback bill to the 20th century," said Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.).
But Republicans said the legislation would ensure that taxpayer funds aren't used for research projects that some may view as silly or unnecessary. They cited examples of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for studying human-set fires in New Zealand in the 1800s and a musical about climate change.
"Unfortunately, NSF has funded a number of projects that do not meet the highest standards of scientific merit. From climate change musicals to evaluating animal photographs in National Geographic to studying human-set fires in New Zealand in the 1800s. There are dozens of other examples," said House Science, Space and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas).
"The bill assures accountability by restoring the original intent of the 1950 NSF Act in requiring that all grants serve the national interest," Smith said.
Many scientific research associations oppose the bill, including the American Academy of Political and Social Science, American Anthropological Association, American Association of Physics Teachers, Association of American Universities, Geological Society of America and Union of Concerned Scientists.
President Obama has issued a veto threat against the measure due to concerns over the authorized funding levels.
Before final passage, the House rejected an amendment from Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.) by a vote of 187-236 that would eliminate a provision in the bill requiring a comptroller general report identifying duplicative climate science related research across federal agencies.
Under the provision, the director of the Department of Energy's Office of Science and Technology Policy would not allowed to approve new climate science related initiatives "without making a determination that such work is unique and not duplicative of work by other agencies." Any duplicative research efforts would have to end within three months unless the director justifies that it is "critical to achieving American energy security."
Lowenthal warned that the legislation would restrict efforts to independently verify scientific research results.
"A basic tenet of science is that you have to reproduce scientific results," Lowenthal said. "Now Congress is trying to legislate changes to the scientific method. And I think that's a shame."
But Republicans maintained the bill's provision would ensure that federal agencies don't overlap.
"All members of Congress should support transparency in federally funded research," said Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.).
-
GOP Senators Cite Critical GAO Findings To Push EPA Science Reform Bill
May 20, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dave Reynolds
GOP senators are citing preliminary Government Accountability Office (GAO) findings faulting EPA procedures for answering Congress' requests for information on agency science advisory bodies in their push for approval of a bill they say would make EPA science more transparent by overhauling the Science Advisory Board (SAB).
Environmentalists and other EPA supporters counter that the legislation, S. 543, would undermine the scientific process underpinning agency rulemakings. For example, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) says that the Senate bill would allow a significant increase in business influence on the advisory board, and establish new public comment policies and other requirements that could delay SAB's work “for years, if not decades.”
A similar House bill, H.R. 1029, cleared the lower chamber in a 236-181 vote March 17, but the White House has issued a veto threat for it. “H.R. 1029 would negatively affect the appointment of experts and would weaken the scientific independence and integrity of the SAB. For example, the bill would impose a hiring quota for SAB members based on employment by a State, local, or tribal government as opposed to scientific expertise,” among other concerns about the legislation that prompted the veto threat,” says a Statement of Administration Policy.
Even with a veto threat pending, the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee's (EPW) oversight panel held a May 20 hearing to discuss its version of the bill, and to highlight the critical GAO findings.
GAO in its preliminary observations on the process for SAB offering scientific advice to EPA concludes that the agency lacks procedures for answering legislators' questions about SAB's work.
The findings also fault the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) for providing incomplete advice to EPA on its review of its six national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). GAO says that while CASAC gave certain types of advice it did not give input “on adverse social, economic, or energy effects related to NAAQS,” echoing EPA critics' claims that CASAC should assess a broader range of impacts of the NAAQS in its advice.
The GAO observations will inform a pending report that it will issue in June on the SAB and its ability to respond to Congressional inquiries, but GOP senators are already citing the findings to boost S. 543.
Pending Legislation
Senators said the bill, introduced by Sens. John Boozman (R-AR) and Joe Manchin (D-WV), would make agency science advisors more responsive to Congress and agency science more accountable to the public.
Boozman described the bill as a modest proposal that would create a framework to ensure agency science advisors come from diverse professional backgrounds and are free of bias. The bill would require a percentage of SAB members come from state or tribal governments, provide financial disclosure statements to prevent conflicts of interest and add opportunities for public comment during the review process.
Republicans at the hearing said that delays in SAB's responses to their questions about scientific advice to EPA interfere with Congressional oversight of the agency, specifically citing still unanswered scientific questions legislators have put to EPA science advisors on complex issues such as hydraulic fracturing.
Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD), chair of EPA's oversight panel, said senators have long waited for SAB answers and that such delays in responding interfere with congressional oversight.
In response to a question from Rounds on how to speed science advisors' responses to Congress, GAO's Alfredo Gomez said that EPA lacks clear procedures on which agency office should facilitate a response.
“When a request comes over, it wasn’t clear who was to respond, the SAB staff office or EPA's Office of Congressional [and Intergovernmental] Relations,” Gomez said, citing an issue the GAO will likely recommend EPA clarify in response to the report that it plans to issue in June.
Also at the hearing, EPW Chairman Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) said, “One of the biggest issues before us today is that the SAB is not fully independent from the EPA.”
“The SAB has not fulfilled its obligation to respond to Congress because of EPA interference,” he said. Inhofe argued SAB should be fully independent of EPA, but said agency advisors are discouraged from voicing dissenting views. “EPA selects members of the SAB and CASAC who are seemingly an extension of the Agency due to the number of EPA grants received, work cited under review, or tenure on such panels,” he said.
Critics' Concerns
Critics of the EPA science legislation however used the EPW subcommittee hearing to raise their concerns that it could boost industry influence at SAB and complicate the board's advice to the agency.
Sen Ed Markey (D-MA) criticized the bill, and argued S. 543 would rely on quotas for selecting SAB members rather than merit. Other provisions, such as requiring financial disclosure and multiple rounds of public comment, would deter qualified scientists from serving on panels and stall SAB reviews, he said.
Scott Faber of the Environmental Working Group testified that S. 543 would likely inject politics into SAB reviews, by putting affiliation, such as with a state or local government, ahead of merit.
He also said that the Federal Advisory Committee Act already requires EPA to check for conflict of interests in agency science advisors, making new legislation on the issue unnecessary.
In a May 20 letter to Rounds and Markey, ranking member on the EPW oversight panel, UCS says it “strongly opposes” the bill, saying it would allow for industry influence on SABs and “greatly impede” EPA's ability to protect public health. “This bill opens the door for more corporate influence on the Board, because the bill directly stipulates that experts with financial ties to corporations affected by SAB assessments are 'not excluded,'” the letter says. “This signal likely will increase the number of conflicted SAB panelists empowering companies to delay the SAB’s work for years, if not decades,” UCS argues.
-
Obama Describes Climate Change As Imminent National Security Threat
May 21, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Cheryl Bolen
Climate change constitutes a “serious threat to global security” and an immediate risk to U.S. national security, President Barack Obama said at a military academy commencement May 20.
The White House released a report May 20 finding that climate change contributes to increased natural disasters that result in humanitarian crises, potentially increasing refugee flows and exacerbating conflicts over basic resources like food and water.
Obama traveled to New London, Conn., to deliver the commencement address at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, where he cautioned graduates about the impacts of climate change on national security.
“You are part of the first generation of officers to begin your service in a world where the effects of climate change are so clearly upon us,” Obama said. “It will shape how every one of our services plan, operate, train, equip, and protect their infrastructure, their capabilities, today and for the long term,” he said.
League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski said the president's remarks once again demonstrate the fundamental threat climate change poses.
“The Defense Department has for years acknowledged that left unchecked, climate change will not only impact our ability to protect Americans at home, but will lead to deteriorating economic conditions abroad, fueling global instability and humanitarian crises,” Karpinski said in a statement.
However, Senate Republicans sharply criticized President Barack Obama for saying that climate change represents a “serious threat” to global security and an “immediate risk” to U.S. national security (see related story).
Seen Increasing Risk of Instability, Conflict
Around the world, climate change increases the risk of instability and conflict, Obama said. Rising seas are already swallowing low-lying lands from Bangladesh to Pacific islands, forcing people from their homes, he said.
“Globally, we could see a rise in climate change refugees,” the president said. Elsewhere, more intense droughts will exacerbate shortages of water and food, increase competition for resources and create the potential for mass migrations and new tensions, he said.
Rhea Suh, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the president is right and that climate change is a “clear and present threat” to U.S. national security.
“The military has been a leader in reducing its reliance on fossil fuels by embracing clean and renewable forms of energy,” Suh said. “It's time for the rest of America to also step up to this critical challenge.”
Some Warming Called Inevitable
Some warming is now inevitable, Obama said. At some point the worst effects will be irreversible, and time is running out, he said.
“And we all know what needs to happen,” the president said. “The world has to finally start reducing its carbon emissions—now.”
The U.S. has reduced its carbon emissions more than any other advanced nation, but more needs to be done, Obama said. So going forward, the president said he is committed to doubling the pace at which the U.S. cuts carbon pollution.
Affects Seen in Arctic
Obama also noted that Arctic sea ice is vanishing faster than ever and by the middle of this century, Arctic summers could be essentially ice free.
“We're witnessing the birth of a new ocean—new sea lanes, more shipping, more exploration, more competition for the vast natural resources below,” the president said.
The U.S. is an Arctic nation and has a great interest in making sure that the region is peaceful, that its indigenous people and environment are protected and that its resources are managed responsibly in partnership with other nations, Obama said.
“And as the U.S. chairs the Arctic Council this year, I'm committed to advancing our interests in this critical region because we have to be ready in the Arctic, as well,” the president said.
Bipartisan Agreement?
Rob Cowin, senior manager of government affairs at the Union of Concerned Scientists, called the president's comments well timed.
“The timing is opportune politically because the only bipartisan movement (or agreement) on climate in this Congress has been around the issue of national security,” Cowin said in a statement.
Sea level rise, and the tidal and storm surge flooding that come with it, is already challenging the nation's defense infrastructure, and it can have real consequences for military readiness as well, Cowin said.
“National security still appears to be an area where science and pragmatism trump party politics, which gives me some hope that Congress will eventually prioritize investments in preparedness and legislate policies that incentivize rapid reductions in heat-trapping emissions to preserve our nation's long-term security,” he said.
-
Republicans Denounce Obama Speech Calling Climate Change Threat to National Security
May 21, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Senate Republicans sharply criticized President Barack Obama for saying that climate change represents a “serious threat” to global security and an “immediate risk” to U.S. national security.
None of the senators interviewed by Bloomberg BNA May 20 were surprised by Obama's comments—they said his viewpoint was already well-known—but said there were numerous other factors in the world that constituted greater risks to national security.
“It's probably in keeping with his views,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told Bloomberg BNA. “It's too bad he didn't mention the fact that people are burned to death in the streets of Ramadi, [Iraq]. That should be more of a concern to anyone who has a moral compass.”
Democratic senators, for their part, backed the president. Climate change will exacerbate regional tensions, result in extreme violence and strain U.S. military installations, they said.
“I think the president is right,” Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, told Bloomberg BNA. “I think that America is not taking this seriously, and we are seeing changes on this Earth that will [not only] endanger future generations but destabilize the current situation and create fertile fields for violence and dislocation of innocent people.”
Obama spoke of the link between climate change and national security during a commencement address at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in New London, Conn. (see related story).
“This is not just a problem for countries on the coast or for certain regions of the world,” Obama said. “Climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security, and make no mistake: It will impact how our military defends our country.”
The Defense Department and senior military officials have warned climate change will worsen global instability, disease, poverty and conflict (199 DEN A-10, 10/15/14).
Some Senators Criticize Link
Some Republican senators criticized Obama's assertions of a link between climate change and national security, while also denying that human activities significantly contribute to climate change.
“We'll learn to adapt,” Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) told reporters. “I've never understood why we think this is the sweet spot in human history and in geologic time that we've got to spend hundreds of billions, if not trillions, trying to maintain this temperature. A lot of people write a slight warming of the Earth would be pretty beneficial.”
Asked if climate change had any impact on national security, Johnson said, “I don't think so, no.”
Even moderate Republicans that acknowledge human activity contributes to the problem questioned whether climate change posed an immediate risk to U.S. national security.
Effects Can Destabilize World
“I don't know if it's an immediate national security threat, but I think the effects of climate change can destabilize the world,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a likely presidential candidate for 2016, told Bloomberg BNA. “In that regard, it is a national security threat.”
Others were far more blunt in slamming the president's evaluation of national security risks.
“Who's killing Americans?” Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) asked. “Who's beheading people? Let's use a little common sense.”
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, declined to comment on the substance of Obama's remarks because he hadn't seen them, but said the president likely hoped linking national security to climate change would raise the issue's profile.
“I know that certainly the administration and many others want to create more urgency around that issue,” Corker told Bloomberg BNA, referring to climate change. “Typically the best way to do that is to frame it in national security terms.”
-
Obama's Warning About Security Threat Draws GOP Rebuke
May 20, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Daniel Bush
President Obama today framed global warming as a major threat to global stability and domestic security in his commencement speech at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in New London, Conn.
Climate change will play a significant role in events that the next generation of Coast Guard officers will have to face, from rising sea levels to drought and displaced populations, Obama said.
"You are part of the first generation of officers to begin your service in a world where the effects of climate change are so clearly upon us. It will shape how every one of our services plan, operate, train, equip and protect their infrastructure, their capabilities, today and for the long term," Obama said.
Calling climate change an "immediate risk to our national security," Obama highlighted floods caused by rising sea levels that have damaged infrastructure from Miami to Charleston, S.C., to Bangladesh and other low-lying countries.
In the United States alone, Obama said climate-related infrastructure damage could cost the nation $200 billion by the end of the century if sea levels rise by 1 foot as many experts predict.
To adapt to the impacts of global warming, Obama said the United States must double down on efforts to slash heat-trapping carbon emissions. The White House has made slashing domestic emissions, including at new and existing power plants, the centerpiece of its climate change agenda.
"Today we can be proud that our carbon pollution is near its lowest levels in almost two decades. But we've got to do more," Obama said.
His speech was greeted with skepticism on Capitol Hill, where Republicans oppose the administration's energy policies.
The chairmen of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security committees accused the president of dragging the military into the "war on fossil fuels."
"Today, President Obama had a chance to talk about the importance of a strong and secure America," Armed Services Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) said in a statement. "Instead, he opted to expand the missions for our overtaxed military by putting them on the front lines of his war on fossil fuels."
Thornberry accused Obama of using climate change as "political campaigning" to distract the nation from more pressing national security issues like the fall of Ramadi, Iraq, to the Islamic State group this week, as well as North Korea's and Iran's ongoing efforts to develop nuclear weapons.
"Our adversaries are not motivated by the weather; they are emboldened by America's withdrawal from the world," he said.
Thornberry also noted that Obama has threatened to veto the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act because it uses overseas contingency operations funds to circumvent budget caps.
Rather than climate change, the Republican said that the "real threat to military readiness is the failure to fund the troops, which is exactly what the President will do if he vetoes the defense bill as he is threatening."
Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), who leads the Homeland Security Committee, also criticized Obama's speech for what he called lackluster funding to the Department of Homeland Security.
"President Obama sounds alarm bells about climate change and in the meantime short-changes those responsible for tackling real threats to homeland security," McCaul said in a statement.
McCaul also listed the Islamic State among threats that should be prioritized above climate change, saying more resources need to be spent preventing the violent extremist group from recruiting new members online.
"The White House shouldn't busy DHS with climate politics when terrorism is going viral," McCaul said.
-
Bill Would Require EPA Impact Analyses To Be Measured Without Other Assumptions
May 21, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The regulatory impact analyses for Environmental Protection Agency rules would include a scenario that doesn't factor in the costs and benefits of separate regulatory actions, under a bill introduced May 20 by Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.).
The EPA's draft regulatory impact analysis for proposed revisions to the national ozone standard was the genesis for the Real EPA Impact Reviews (REPAIR) Act (bill number unavailable). The analysis assumed other proposed rules would be fully implemented, despite the possibility that those regulations would be delayed, modified or dismissed by a court.
The assumptions mean the regulatory impact analyses might significantly underestimate the true costs of regulations, according to Thune, who is a member of the Senate Republican leadership.
The Thune bill would apply to any regulation anticipated to cost more than $1 million.
“While including proposed regulations can be important for forecasting the future regulatory landscape, isolating a proposal's impact without the influence of other proposed regulations will provide a clearer analysis of the proposal's immediate impact,” Thune said in a statement.
The bill would require EPA regulatory impact analyses to include a scenario that doesn't factor in the impacts of pending proposed rules or final rules that have been issued but are not fully implemented.
Ozone Analysis Included Other Rules
In a November 2014 proposed rule that would lower the ozone national ambient air quality standard of 75 parts per billion to somewhere in the range of 65 ppb to 70 ppb, the EPA issued a regulatory impact analysis that “incorporates air quality improvements achieved through the projected implementation of existing regulations and full attainment of the existing ozone” standard.
Thune, however, questioned whether the existing standard can ever be fully implemented and said 227 counties aren't meeting it. The assumption that the current standard will be fully implemented—along with belief that the mercury and air toxics standards, Clean Power Plan and Tier 3 vehicle and gasoline standards will be fully implemented—means the agency probably underestimated the costs of the proposed rule.
The Clean Air Act doesn't allow the EPA to consider costs in setting the health-based ozone standard.
The REPAIR Act is not the first time Thune has targeted revisions to the ozone standard through legislation. He introduced the Clean Air, Strong Economies Act (S. 751) in March, which would block more stringent ozone standards until more of the U.S. comes into compliance with the current standard (52 DEN A-17, 3/18/15).
-
EPA Appears To Drop New Coal CCS Requirement From Draft Final NSPS
May 21, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dawn Reeves
EPA appears to have dropped its controversial requirement that new coal plants install partial carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) from its draft final new source performance standards (NSPS) that it recently sent to the White House for interagency review, according to one informed source.
The source believes EPA decided to drop the CCS mandate in the face of growing legal concern that the technology requirement would not withstand court review, because the projects the agency had relied on to show that CCS is “adequately demonstrated” and “commercially available” are faltering.
A final NSPS must be in place in order for EPA to go forward with its final existing source performance standards (ESPS) to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the current power fleet -- a rule that the agency also plans to complete this summer and one that would achieve far more emissions reductions than the NSPS, particularly because there are no new coal plants planned in the U.S.
However, environmentalists note that dropping CCS would hurt the Obama administration internationally, just ahead of major United Nations climate talks in Paris, while a European environmentalist who supports CCS says if the United States allows uncontrolled new coal plants it would remove pressure on Europe to craft a new coal plant standard.
EPA staff has already considered the possibility of finalizing the NSPS without the CCS requirement in an analysis of fallback options that included ultra super critical pulverized coal (USCPC) and integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) without CCS.
EPA's proposed NSPS sets an emissions rate for new coal plants of 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) per megawatt hour (lbs CO2/MWh), which can only be achieved with partial CCS. The rate of an IGCC plant without CCS is between 1,300 and 1,450 lbs CO2/MWh, while a USCPC plant emits between 1,600 and 1,700 lbs CO2/MWh.
The informed source says the final rule sent to the White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) on May 8 is “relaxed measurably” from the proposal. “You're going to see some movement on the coal standard,” the source predicts, adding it will likely be eased enough to allow compliance through a stand-alone IGCC facility, which can be considered “CCS ready.”
The final rule is also expected to allow USCPC to meet the standard, at least technically, but will require those plants to co-fire significantly -- about 40 percent --with gas. That requirement makes it unlikely any USCPC facilities will be built, the source says. “If you have to co-fire such a high percentage of gas in coal boilers, then” it would make more sense to “just build gas.”
The major reason EPA has likely dropped the CCS-based standard is because of ongoing problems at a high-profile project in Mississippi, Southern Company's Kemper plant, which has faced significant cost overruns, delays and other major problems. Also, the developers of another CCS plant, FutureGen, canceled the project after the Energy Department dropped funding. The only operating coal plant with CCS is in Saskatchewan, Canada.
Final Regulation
The source says it is unclear how much of a role White House officials played in drafting the final rule at EPA before it was formally sent over, and that EPA might still need to convince the White House to accept dropping CCS -- which could be a tough call on the international front as the administration prepares to lead on United Nations climate talks in Paris late this year.
“I don't know if there is some understanding at the White House that they're going to do it this way, or there is still that shoe to drop,” the source says, adding that problems with Kemper and the Boundary Dam CCS plant in Saskatchewan made agency lawyers “very nervous about being able to defend the original proposal.”
Further, the source says EPA can legally finalize an NSPS that drops CCS from the definition of best system of emissions reduction (BSER) because it solicited and received thousands of comments on other options.
The source was unsure about the rule's final standard for coal plants, but says it would have to go as high as 1,700 lbs CO2/MWh to accommodate stand-alone USCPC without co-firing gas, or it could be set as low as 1,300 lbs CO2/MWh for IGCC. Another option is a number that would require IGCC with a smaller amount of carbon capture, as low as 10 percent, as a way to ease into CCS.
EPA's original proposal required 30 percent CCS capture immediately, along with an option to phase it in over time and achieve a lower rate of 1,000 lbs CO2/MWh after seven years.
While the specific numbers in the draft final rule are not known, “directionally, this is where they're going,” according to the informed source.
EPA declined to comment on the contents of the draft final NSPS, with one source saying, “Nothing's final til it's final. I couldn't confirm or deny anything at this point.” A spokeswoman would only say the final NSPS is “an important part of President Obama's Climate Action Plan and will put in place the first-ever national carbon pollution standards for new power plants.”
OMB has not yet met with any outside groups on the issue yet, according to its list of external meetings on its website, and the informed source predicts there will not be a rash of meetings because the “feeling is this is a done deal.”
Industry sources also believe the final rule will drop CCS, though they could not confirm that a decision has already been made. One source expects it to come “deeper in the process.” But “at the end of the day they will get sued by someone, so they might as well get sued for something [they] can defend,” the source says.
The informed source was not sure why EPA would drop CCS other than as a way to get around the legal vulnerabilities of the NSPS to protect the ESPS. And because no one is building new coal, “it's really the less-important piece of this. Everybody's building gas and it's not like they're weakening the gas standard. I think they're less worried about blowback from [environmentalists] on something like this.”
Data Quality
In dropping CCS, EPA could cite an option floated by the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness (CRE), which urged the agency to finalize a rule without CCS while conducting what it says is a required peer review of the technology under the Data Quality Act (DQA).
A CRE source notes that EPA in two separate responses, the most recent dated March 25, “made a definite commitment to comply with the” DQA, “thus my reason for concluding that CCS is not in the final rule.” Also, the source notes, its exclusion will dramatically reduce litigation over the NSPS.
Environmentalists are skeptical that EPA has indeed dropped CCS but admit it's a possibility, and acknowledge that the agency would not have to re-propose a final NSPS that drops CCS as BSER.
One source, however, says that because the proposal banned new coal plants that did not limit their CO2 emissions, it “would be a pretty big change to say, actually, you can build new coal without controlling its carbon,” and it would be “very concerning.”
But the source also acknowledges that no new coal plants are being built domestically, and that coal plants are not cost effective with or without CCS. “Either way, probably we wouldn't see any new coal.”
The source does argue that dropping CCS could bring problems internationally, given the Obama administration's commitment to leading globally on climate. “And I don't think the administration would walk away from that lightly.”
One source with the European environmental group Bellona Foundation agrees that it could be difficult internationally for the Obama administration to drop CCS from the final rule.
Bellona has touted the proposed NSPS on its website and as part of its year-old bid to convince the European Union (EU) to adopt new coal plant standards that include CCS. The United Kingdom and Canada have CCS requirements already, the source notes.
The Bellona source says it would be surprising and disappointing if EPA concludes that CCS is no longer “adequately demonstrated” for new coal. “I thought it was settled,” the source says.
Also, the source says that the CCS mandate “was an important one” because it sent a signal that “high CO2 intensity fuels will not be part of the future.” Europe sees the United States on a de-carbonization pathway that starts with replacing coal with gas, and continues with putting CCS on coal and gas units, the source says, and Bellona is hoping to pressure Europe to reduce use of its coal fleet in part by pointing to U.S. action.
If EPA drops CCS, that would only encourage Europeans to continue their current path of rising coal use, the source says. “It would be quite annoying from my point of view if they weren't able to go to Paris and say we are moving to a world without” uncontrolled coal. Dropping CCS would essentially mean EPA was “removing the performance standard” for coal. However, the source says it is hard to gauge what the official reaction of other nations would be in the Paris framework, and acknowledges that the United States could defend its position by noting that no new coal plants are being built here anyway. “It is very hard to say how these talks will pan out until they're here. . . . We have to cross our fingers and hope for the best.”
-
States Say Background Levels, Few Controls Present Ozone Compliance Complications
May 21, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Some states say they have few options left for curbing ground-level ozone formation as the Environmental Protection Agency contemplates setting more stringent air quality standards for the pollutant.
The range proposed by the EPA for its national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone would approach background levels for many sparsely populated areas in the West, while the controls envisioned by the Clean Air Act may not be the most effective means of controlling formation of the pollutant elsewhere, state regulators said during a May 20 forum sponsored by the American Bar Association.
Regulators also raised concerns with delays in the EPA issuing guidance to states for developing their ozone compliance plans, how the rule would address interstate and international transport of pollution and how the agency tracks ozone exceedances that occur overnight.
State regulators also said their efforts to comply with a more stringent standard would be constrained by budget cuts at both the state and federal level.
“We know that we can't, even with all the Western states working together,” Colleen Delaney, an environmental scientist with the Utah Department of Environmental Quality's Division of Air Quality, said. “It's going to be a huge challenge for us.”
The EPA in November 2014 proposed (RIN 2060-AP38) to revise the current standards issued in 2008 of 75 parts per billion to somewhere in the range of 65 ppb to 70 ppb, a development that the agency estimated could cost up to $16.6 billion annually.
The proposal would revise both the health-based primary standard and the welfare-based secondary standard to somewhere in that range (229 DEN A-1, 11/28/14).
The EPA must sign the final rule by Oct. 1.
New Standards Questioned
Tennessee and Ohio have both questioned the need for the EPA to revise the ozone standards, which were last updated in 2008.
Bob Hodanbosi, chief of the Division of Air Pollution Control at the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, said there have been no new health studies since the EPA's last review in 2008 that would support further lowering the standards.
“One of the underlying issues EPA looks at for ozone is the impact on asthmatics, and that's certainly something that concerns us, but you think about the fact that first of all ozone concentrations overall are going down across the country but asthma rates are going up,” Hodanbosi said. “We spend most of our time indoors, so we're not exposed to the ozone concentrations that are experienced in the environment 24 hours a day.”
Regulators also questioned whether the controls would be available to achieve the kinds of emissions reductions that would be necessary to meet a lower ozone standard.
Focus Seen on VOCs
Robert Martineau, commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, said many of the pollution controls for ozone envisioned by the Clean Air Act when it was updated in 1990 focus on volatile organic compounds rather than nitrogen oxides. Volatile organic compounds react with nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight to form ozone.
In Tennessee, the Tennessee Valley Authority already has installed nitrogen oxide controls on its power plants and plans to close other aging coal-fired units, Martineau said. That leaves few opportunities to achieve the kind of emissions reductions the state would need to achieve a significantly lowered ozone standard, he said.
States said quicker guidance from the EPA also would be beneficial as they look to craft compliance plans for a new ozone standard.
“They need to dramatically speed up the process,” Hodanbosi said. “The way EPA comes out with proposals and then gets comments in and goes through this process, it just takes way too long for us to be guessing what we should be putting into a [state implementation plan] well before the guidance comes out.”
Guidance Not Expected With Rule
The EPA has said it's unlikely to issue that guidance to states with the final rule this fall (78 DEN A-2, 4/23/15).
Although New York supports the EPA proposal to set a more stringent ozone standard, Rob Sliwinski, director of the Bureau of Air Quality Planning for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, said his state has concerns with how the agency tracks overnight ozone violations.
Because the EPA currently tracks ozone exceedances by calendar, a high level ozone event that occurs overnight is considered two separate violations of the standard.
“This is a big deal for us because we do see a lot of overnight high levels of ozone,” Sliwinski said.
Western States See Few Options
The EPA proposal to lower the ozone standard would approach background levels of the pollutant in many sparsely populated Western states that would have few options for further reducing emissions of precursor pollutants, Delaney said.
Emissions blown into Western states from Mexico, Canada and Asia all contribute to ozone formation in that region, as do the higher elevation and prevalence of wildfires, Delaney said.
The kinds of controls required by the Clean Air Act aren't designed to address the unique challenges facing Western states, she said. Modeling done by the Western Region Air Partnership shows that human activity plays a much smaller rule in ozone concentrations in Western states than it does in Eastern states.
“Despite all the emissions reductions that have been occurring, ozone levels have not been improving,” Delaney said. “We think so much of it is coming from these outside influences we can't control.”
-
House Votes to Cut Research Funding For Clean Energy, Efficiency Programs
May 21, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The House voted May 20 to pass a research funding bill that would slash Energy Department research programs for clean energy, while increasing money for nuclear energy and fossil fuel research programs.
In all, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015 (H.R. 1806) would authorize $16.4 billion in both fiscal 2016 and fiscal 2017 for federal research and science programs at the Energy Department, the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology and White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Specifically, the bill introduced by House Science, Space and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) would reduce funding for the Energy Department Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy by nearly $500 million, or 30 percent from current funding levels. It also would cut funding for the department's Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy by 50 percent, or $140 million, according to a summary.
The House narrowly passed the bill by a 217-205 vote.
‘Unjustified' Energy Programs Cut
At the same time, the bill would increase funding for the Energy Department's fossil energy and nuclear energy research programs by 6 percent and 1.2 percent, respectively, from enacted funding levels.
“The COMPETES Act reduces by $1 billion the Obama administration's massive and unjustified climate change, green energy and late-stage commercialization programs. These programs pick winners and losers that compete with the private sector,” the committee said in the bill summary.
The legislation is opposed by committee Democrats, who said it was rushed to the floor without hearings or a subcommittee markup, and it has garnered a veto threat from the Obama administration.
Veto Threat
“The Administration believes that H.R. 1806 would be damaging to the Administration's actions to move American competitiveness, innovation and job growth forward through a world-leading science, technology and innovation enterprise,” the Obama administration wrote in a May 18 Statement of Administration Policy.
In addition, the Task Force on American Innovation, which represents companies such as Dow Chemical Co., Google Inc. and Babcock & Wilcox Co., said in an April letter that they have “serious concerns about the consequences” of the funding cuts in the legislation.
“We are concerned that a lack of new resources for research, at a time when our economic competitors are investing heavily in R&D, is creating an innovation deficit for the United States that threatens our global leadership in innovation and our international competitiveness,” the Washington, D.C.-based organization wrote.
Smith Applauds Legislation
In a statement, Smith said the legislation would ensure “that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely.”
“The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015 funds innovative science and prioritizes taxpayer investments in basic research, without increasing overall spending,” Smith said.
The bill would increase funding for the National Science Foundation by more than 4 percent, the National Institute of Standards and Technology by more than 8 percent and the Energy Department's Office of Science by more than 5 percent above 2015 enacted levels.
But according to a summary of the bill by committee Democrats, the research and development funding in the bill was kept flat, and the bill “simply adds funding to accounts the Majority favors at the expense of those it doesn't.”
Climate Science Funding
For instance, social, behavioral and economic sciences research would be cut by 55 percent from fiscal 2015 appropriated levels, and funding for geosciences research would be reduced by 8 percent, according to the summary.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) geosciences directorate funds climate science, ocean sciences and natural hazards research, as well as space weather and polar programs, the summary said.
Other provisions opposed by Democrats include a measure that would bar the results of Energy Department research and development activities from being “used for regulatory assessments” and language that would “ impose a level of political review on NSF's gold-standard merit-review system,” the summary said.
Would Pit Disciplines Against Each Other
“H.R. 1806 seeks to pit different scientific disciplines against one another and to prevent research in fields to which the Majority is ideologically opposed,” Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), the committee's ranking member, said in a statement.
The original COMPETES bill, which was enacted in 2007 and established ARPA-E, was inspired by a 2005 National Academies report that found U.S. scientific and technological advantages were eroding, putting the country at a competitive disadvantage.
“Sadly, H.R. 1806, the COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015, is a COMPETES Act in name only,” Johnson said in a letter urging her House colleagues to oppose the bill.
“H.R. 1806 does nothing to further our scientific and innovation enterprise, and may cause grievous and lasting harm to U.S. scientific leadership and economic competitiveness,” Johnson added.
-
Energy Efficiency Grades Are In – How did Los Angeles Do?
May 20, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jorge Madrid
School’s out for summer! It’s time to check those report cards and figure out if we made the energy efficiency grade or if we’re stuck trying to catch up.
For Los Angeles, the marks are pretty consistent: “Not great yet, but getting there…”
According to the American Council for an Energy Efficiency Economy (ACEEE), who just released their 2015 City Energy Efficiency Score Card, Los Angeles is the most improved city in the country – rising the fastest of all cities and finally breaking the top 15 rankings (up to #12 from #28 last year). ACEEE cites “a strong new suite of climate goals and high marks in energy and water utilities” as key factors in the city’s improved score.
For a city the size and scale of Los Angeles (second largest U.S. city in total population, a regional economy larger than most countries, and the largest manufacturing sectors and ports in the U.S.) these are impressive accolades. The city has consistently kept water demand relatively flat despite a booming population and desert-like climate. L.A. also has a gold star from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for being ranked second on a list of the top 25 U.S. cities with the most energy efficient buildings in the nation.
But L.A. can’t party too hard because the once carefree days of summer are now likely going to be its hardest. Record-breaking heat and worsened drought due to climate change are projected to be the new normal for Los Angeles and many cities like it; the population is expected to grow by 10 percent to nearly 20 million people by 2030 and resources will continue to be stretched even thinner. In fact, several studies have cited Los Angeles as one of the cities most in danger of running out of water in the near- to medium-term. Further, buildings are the second largest source of climate-pollution in the city and the largest users of energy and water.
The city needs to prepare now. Taking bold steps to increase energy and water efficiency is more important than ever.
Good news: L.A.’s on top of it
We’re pleased to see the mayor is responding with an ambitious plan to boost energy efficiency, calling for the city to shave 15 percent of its total energy demand by 2020 and reduce energy use in all buildings by 30 percent per square foot by 2035. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), the city’s municipal utility, is already leading one of the most forward-thinking energy efficiency programs in the country.
These programs are good for the environment and also boosted the local economy to the tune of $260 million in 2014 alone. And, the city’s energy efficiency programs are expected to create over 17,000 jobs by 2020. Because buildings are responsible for about 40 percent of energy use nationwide, we’ve got to continue to squeeze as much energy out of buildings as possible. Doing so will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and water use.
And then there’s the water thing…
The continuing California drought is putting pressure on every resident and industry in the state, but it may not be obvious to many that these energy goals are also water-saving strategies. And it even works in reverse: water goals are energy-saving strategies.
Energy and water are inextricably linked. Energy is used to secure, deliver, treat, and distribute water, while water is used to develop, process, and deliver energy. This is a particularly tough problem in Southern California. Water that is moved to Southern California is nearly three times as energy-intensive as water moved in Northern California. All those Los Angeles hills mean water moved to hilltop homes is using more energy than those in the valleys.
The mayor also has a water plan: reduce imported water by 50 percent by 2025, and source 50 percent of its water locally by 2035.
Significant untapped potential for energy savings exists in programs focused on water use efficiency — the California Energy Commission estimates that, statewide, water efficiency programs could achieve nearly all of the energy savings of utility energy efficiency programs at half the cost.
But L.A.’s on the right track…
Los Angeles has made great strides in recent years by coming to terms with its air quality problems. Now its leadership is tackling energy and water use. We’re looking forward to the day when L.A. moves from “most improved” to “best in class,” when it comes to creating a sustainable, resilient city.
-
Enviros Sue EPA Over Los Angeles Soot Plan
May 20, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Peterka
Environmentalists filed a lawsuit accusing U.S. EPA of violating the Clean Air Act for failing to act on a plan to clean up sooty air in the Los Angeles area.
According to the lawsuit, EPA missed an August 2014 deadline to either approve or reject the plan developed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The plan outlines how the region would come into compliance with the 2006 standard for fine particulate matter.
The Sierra Club and Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles filed the lawsuit today in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. They have asked the court to compel EPA to act on the plan.
Fine particulates are one-thirtieth the width of a human hair. They're linked to adverse health effects such as premature mortality and aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease.
The 2006 standard limited annual ambient concentrations of fine particles to 15 micrograms per cubic meter and 24-hour concentrations to 65 micrograms per cubic meter. EPA has since revised the annual standard to 12 micrograms per cubic meter and the 24-hour limit to 35 micrograms per cubic meter.
EPA declared the South Coast area out of compliance with the 2006 24-hour standard in December 2009. In February 2013, the California Air Resources Board submitted the air quality district's plan to clean up pollution to EPA.
"Since people are suffering from fine particulate pollution now, we need EPA to do its job to crack down on this deadly foe," Earthjustice staff attorney Adrian Martinez, who is representing the environmental groups, said in a statement.
-
On Eve Of 'Waters' Rule, EPA Seeks To Clarify Key Regulatory Definitions
May 20, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
On the eve of EPA's imminent release of its controversial final rule to define Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction, observers say the agency appears to be taking steps to clarify key regulatory definitions of concern including clarifying how to define “tributaries” and expanding protections for certain features such as prairie potholes.
A slew of industry groups, environmental organizations, state officials and others have met with EPA and White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) representatives in recent weeks to try to sway changes to the various definitions, which will determine which waters are subject to the law. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers sent their joint final rule for OMB pre-publication review April 6, and could issue the regulation as early as this week.
EPA and the Corps will likely address many of the suggested changes to the rule through their response to comments included with the final regulation, and through revisions to the proposed version of the regulation. The agencies proposed the rule in April 2014 and have received more then one million comments on it.
The rule is designed to resolve confusion about the law's scope following Supreme Court rulings that created competing tests for how to determine jurisdiction. EPA and its supporters say the rule will provide much-needed regulatory certainty, but critics say it broadens the law too far and will impose costly new regulatory mandates.
Sources say that the last-minute revisions to the policy are unlikely to fully satisfy any stakeholders' desired outcome, with some changes in line with advocates' calls and others easing the rule as sought by industry.
For example, one environmentalist says the final rule is expected to “focus less on ditches” and more on “how to better clarify tributaries,” changes called for by industry officials who charged that EPA's proposed definition did not clearly distinguish between jurisdictional tributaries and erosional features not governed by the CWA.
The agencies have sought to establish “[w]here do we draw that distinction between what is a jurisdictional tributary . . . and what is an erosional feature -- a feature that the Clean Water Act does not assert jurisdiction over today, and one that we do not intent to assert jurisdiction over in the rule,” EPA's de facto water chief Ken Kopocis told a May 14 American Law Institute-Continuing Legal Education event in Washington, D.C.
In the proposed rule, the agencies define “tributary” as "water physically characterized by the presence of a bed and banks and ordinary high water mark," and waters that "contribute flow, either directly or through another water" to a jurisdictional waterbody. But industry, local government advisers and others urged EPA to clarify the term, saying that the proposed definition could apply to stormwater systems, agricultural ditches and other features not intended to be covered by the CWA.
Tributary Concerns
The “tributary” definition is significant because the proposal said that all tributaries as well as wetlands and waters located in floodplains and riparian areas are connected with downstream waters in ways that affect the “physical, chemical and biological integrity,” of those waters making them automatically jurisdictional under the CWA.
And EPA chief Gina McCarthy and the Corps' Jo-Ellen Darcy, assistant secretary of the Army for civil works, wrote in an April 6 blog post, “We’ve heard feedback that our proposed definition of tributaries was confusing and ambiguous, and could be interpreted to pick up erosion in a farmer’s field, when that’s not our aim.”
But sources say EPA is also expected to expand categorical determinations for so-called “other waters,” or non-floodplain wetlands and open waters, possibly to include prairie potholes among those types of waters that would be considered jurisdictional -- which environmentalists argued should be covered under the CWA because of their importance to ecology and wildlife. In the proposed rule, the agencies suggest those features would be assessed on a case-by-case basis because there was a lack of scientific support for a blanket jurisdictional determination.
An industry source says that while they have not seen language, EPA officials have indicated they could clarify that prairie potholes are “in,” or jurisdictional, and the environmentalist says, they would like to see protections for prairie potholes “more clearly defined” in a final rule.
For example, in comments submitted on the proposed rule Nov. 14 and floated during a recent meeting between EPA and OMB officials, the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) wrote, “There is adequate scientific evidence to support a determination that certain subcategories and types of ‘other waters’ in particular regions of the United States (e.g., Carolina and Delmarva Bays, Texas coastal prairie wetlands, prairie potholes, pocosins, western vernal pools) are similarly situated (i.e., they have a similar influence on the physical, biological, and chemical integrity of downstream waters and are similarly situated on the landscape) and thus are waters of the United States.”
During a May 19 Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW) water panel hearing on a bill to force EPA and the Corps to scrap the final rule, EPW Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK) said he understands that “EPA plans to release a rule that goes further” that the proposal in expanding protections for “regional treasures.”
Inhofe's remarks appear to refer to statements made by McCarthy to the National Farmers' Union March 16 in Wichita, KS, where she said the agencies were “thinking through ways to be more specific about how we protect some of our nation’s regional treasures rather than what we do now, which is for the Army Corps to go through a long, costly, inconsistent process to decide whether waters are protected one by one,” according a transcript of the remarks. “We teed ideas up in the rule itself -- and we’re going to use our best judgment to set bright lines that folks can count on,” McCarthy said.
Possible Delays
While the final rule is widely expected to be released this week, the industry source says the rule could be delayed due to concerns among other federal agencies that release of a final rule could delay or hinder National Environmental Policy Act reviews for a host of key federal projects, including a liquified natural gas project in Maine, a light rail transit system in Minnesota and a Colorado interstate expansion.
Among the industry groups that have met with EPA, OMB, and other officials in recent weeks are the National Alliance of Forest Owners on April 23; the American Forest & Paper Association on April 24; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on May 5; the Clean Energy Group including Exelon, Dominion, and Entergy on May 6; the Portland Cement Association on May 7; the National Mining Association on May 11; and a separate May 11 meeting with the Federal Water Quality Coalition including Peabody Energy, DuPont, General Electric and others.
Many of the groups will have echoed their long-running concerns -- mirrored in criticisms of the rule from GOP lawmakers -- that it will unlawfully expand the scope of CWA far beyond what Congress intended.
For example, a handout floated during the chamber meeting on May 5 lists a number of potential permitting and other regulatory burdens for industry because of the proposed rule, including potential CWA section 402 requirements for weed control activities conducted near ditches and impoundments, more stringent permitting requirements for on-site storage of material that drip onto paved areas, and other concerns.
Environmental groups have also met with the administration, urging a strict, broad rule in order to adequately protect U.S. waters. Clean Water Action met with EPA, OMB and other officials April 28; NWF had a April 29 meeting; and the National Parks Conservation Association had a May 7 meeting. States and localities have also sought to influence the final rule, and OMB's website says that officials from Aurora, CO, met with the administration April 15; and Oklahoma representatives had a May 11 meeting.
-
Rail Safety Fact Check: Fires, Spills Up Despite Industry Claims
May 20, 2015 | The Huffington Post - Politics
By Isaiah Thompson
Despite the terrible derailment of an Amtrak train last week and a spate of other fiery accidents involving trains carrying flammable crude oil -- five so far this year -- railroad industry and government officials have taken pains to reassure the public of rail transportation safety.
Railroad safety in 2014, as the Association of American Railroads has boasted in web “advertorials” and statements to news organizations, was “the safest year on record for the railroad industry.”
But it’s a claim that, under scrutiny, doesn’t completely hold up to the numbers.
A review of federal reports and railroad safety data by the New England Center for Investigative Reporting suggests that while rail remains much safer than it was in recent decades, at least some indicators of safety have gotten worse, not better, over the past few years:Accidents involving fires have at least doubled in the past year.Hazardous materials releases have increased two years in a row.Projections buried in government reports indicate that the same agencies issuing new safety rules themselves expect derailments to more than double over the next few years.
NECIR’s findings come amid a media relations push by the railroad industry in the wake of increased concerns over recent accidents as well as new rules issued this May by the federal Department of Transportation release of new rules regulating the tank cars carrying crude and ethanol, and other flammable liquids transported by rail.
Those tank cars, so-called DOT-111s, have been known for decades to be prone to puncturing, and have been involved in at least 17 serious accidents and explosions since 2013, including the July, 2013 derailment of a train carrying crude that killed 47 people in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec.
Experts on the railroad industry asked to comment on NECIR’s findings said they weren’t surprised that the number of hazardous releases, fires, and major accidents is rising, but cautioned that those findings don’t mean the rate of such incidents has increased.
Flammable liquids traffic “has increased from nominal numbers to significant numbers in just two years,” says Allan Zarembski, a research professor and director of the University of Delaware’s Railroad Engineering and Safety Program. “If you increase traffic, even if the safety rates are going down, the number of accidents might go up.”
That seems to be the case now: While accident rates might not be increasing, the sudden rise in the transport of crude oil and ethanol -- from 30,000 carloads in 2004 to 800,000 in 2014, thanks to an oil boom in the Bakken Shale region of North Dakota -- has also lead to a rise in the number of fires, hazardous releases, and major derailments involving those substances.
That traffic is only expected to increase in coming years.
Fires, hazardous releases and monetary damage increase
Railroad safety in general has, indeed, steadily gotten better over the past few decades.
But even a “safe” year means hundreds of accidents and dozens of derailments. The railroad industry’s self-declared safest year on record -- 2014 -- included: 1,755 accidents; 1,241 derailments; 145 collisions; and dozens of fires. Most of those accidents are small, and relatively harmless.
An NECIR analysis of data collected by the Federal Railroad Administration, however, found that the number of more serious kinds of accidents -- fires, explosions, hazardous releases, and accidents causing damage -- has actually increased in recent years.
Accidents involving fire or “violent rupture” have doubled in three years. In 2011, railroads reported 23 such accidents. Last year, by contrast, saw 47 such accidents.
In a written statement to NECIR, American Association of Railroads spokesman Ed Greenberg emphasized that most of these incidents were small fires that caused little damage and were quickly extinguished. He also noted that even if the number of such accidents is rising, that’s because of increased traffic of crude -- the rates themselves are not rising.
Even so, more accidents are more accidents, and Greenberg said the AAR had called for stricter “thermal protection” for tank cars –- manufactured and usually supplied by the rail shipping industry -– than the federal government itself has asked for.
Accidents involving hazardous materials releases -- which includes everything from a leak the size of a teaspoon to major spills -- have increased two years in a row. Whereas 2012 represented one of the lowest years for hazardous releases since 2006, the number of such incidents had begun to climb again, rising by about 8 percent to 714 by 2014.
AAR spokesman Greenberg noted that hazmat incidents rose as a result of increased traffic of hazardous materials in general, and that the number of hazmat incidents in 2014 was still lower than in most years prior.
Major accidents on the rise, expected to continue that way
Most of the accidents, derailments, and hazardous materials releases that occur in a given year are relatively small incidents. But the number of major accidents, those involving big fires or spills, is also on the rise -- and, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s own analysis, expected to continue to grow.
An NECIR count of incidents of major spills and fires shows a stark increase in such incidents, like the April 30, 2014 derailment of a train in Lynchburg, Virginia which spilled 300,000 gallons of crude into the James River orthe Feb. 16 derailment of a crude train in West Virginia that resulted in 19 cars catching fire.
Records show one major accident per year for the years 2006 through 2009, none in 2010, and two each year in 2011 and 2012, all involving ethanol.
In 2013, by contrast, there were six major accidents, including the Lac-Mégantic disaster, all involving crude, five involving crude in 2014, and five so far this year involving major derailments of trains carrying flammable liquids resulting in fires.
That category doesn’t include the Amtrak disaster -- but Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf, who recently hired a special consultant on the dangers of crude-by-oil in Pennsylvania, noted the proximity of the Amtrak derailment to oil trains, calling it “an additional cause of concern.
What’s more, buried 300 pages into an “impact analysis” of the new rules as proposed by PHMSA, is “Table EB3: Predicted Crude and Ethanol Derailments,” which foresees derailments more than doubling in the next five years.
The one thing that everyone agrees on is the fact that more traffic of flammable liquids will inevitably result in more accidents involving them. And that’s where the new federal regulations governing tank cars come in.
The rules should make tank cars less prone in accidents. But they also allow the older, less-safe tank cars to remain in service for years to come.
Last week, a coalition of environmental groups, including Earthjustice, the
Sierra Club, and the Waterkeeper Alliance filed a challenge against the Department of Transportation’s new rule in a federal appeals court.“It doesn’t make sense for an agency to admit that there are sub-standard cars and then let them remain on the rails for up to 10 years,” says Kristen Boyles, an attorney for Earthjustice.
“We don’t do that when we regulate other products.”
-
CSX Employee Wins Industry Lifetime Achievement Award For Hazardous Material Safety
May 20, 2015 | Mil-Tech
CSX's ROmano DeSimone has been awarded the Association of American Railroad (AAR) Holden-Proefrock Award for his significant career achievements and contributions to the safe transportation of hazardous materials by rail.
"CSX puts safety at the forefront of everything we do, and ROmano has personified this commitment through his leadership and courage," said Skip Elliott, vice president, public safety, health and environment. "ROmano's achievements, especially his visionary leadership of safety training programs, have made a lasting impact on our culture and our relationships with the communities we serve."
Over the course of more than 30 combined years with CSX and Conrail, DeSimone developed significant response experience with hazardous materials, including his tenure as a Field Hazmat responder in New York and his first-response efforts at various rail incidents. He also led CSX's chemical safety team, where he focused on improving the safe loading and unloading of chemicals at customer sites.
Currently, DeSimone serves as director, hazardous materials, where he leads CSX's team of Hazardous Materials Managers and has maintained an injury free record for his team's response efforts over 25 years.
DeSimone has become a recognized leader for equipping emergency responders with the information and skills needed for safe and effective responses to rail-related incidents. While he was a Board Member of the Firefighters Education and Training Foundation, he spearheaded the development of Safety Train programs to bring hands-on training to local communities. Through the Safety Train, DeSimone and his team have provided thousands of first responders, law enforcement, short line railroads, and customers with information and experience to improve their readiness in case of an incident. Most recently, his team led the CSX Safety Train: Emergency Preparedness Program in 2014, which trained more than 2,000 emergency first responders in 18 cities along CSX's crude oil routes.
The award was presented on Tuesday morning in Addison, Texas at the 28th Hazmat Seminar hosted by the AAR and Bureau of Explosives. It is named for Roy Holden and Art Proefrock, pioneers in the safe rail transportation of hazardous materials, and is awarded annually to recognize lifetime achievement in this field. DeSimone is the fourth CSX employee to receive the Holden-Proefrock Award.
At the same ceremony, DeSimone and CSX employee Harry Hopes also received the TRANSCAER (Transportation Community Awareness and Emergency Response) Torch award, which is given to retiring members who have made a significant contribution to this voluntary national outreach effort focused on preparation and response for hazardous material transportation incidents.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested