Preview Newsletter
ACC AM July 23
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Urges EPA To Expand TSCA Work Plan Risk Analysis Program
Jul 22, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
Industry groups are applauding EPA’s decision to release planning and scoping documents for its ongoing assessment of the health risks of exposure to 1,4-dioxane under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), but are urging the agency to make the work plan risk analyses more comprehensive and allow more opportunities for public... -
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Urges Caution Over Formaldehyde-ALS Study
Jul 23, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) has urged caution in interpreting a US study suggesting a possible link between workplace formaldehyde exposure and the neurodegenerative disease amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Animal studies and in vitro experiments have suggested that formaldehyde exposure may have neurotoxic effects... -
(ACC Mentioned) Fond Of Bonds: Summer's Most Infamous Chemical
Jul 22, 2015 | Manufacturing.net
By Meagan Parrish
Ah yes… bright sun, warm temps, lazy rivers and the sweet smell of chlorine — that’s when you know it’s summer. But there’s more to the notorious CI #17 than just its role in disinfecting swimming pools. Chlorine chemistry is the building block for a staggering amount of manufactured goods including pesticides, paper, pharmaceuticals... -
EPA Receives Test Data On Flame Retardant Substance
Jul 22, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has received test data on the substance phosphorochloridothioic acid, O,O-diethyl in a response to a test rule. The data relates to aquatic toxicity. The substance is used in flame retardants, an intermediate for pesticides and as an oil and gasoline additive. -
To Protect the Public Health, New Chemicals Must Be Found Safe Before Use | Commentary
Jul 22, 2015 | Roll Call
By Lynn R. Goldman
Public health leaders have long understood the power of prevention to reduce the risk of chronic diseases, including those linked to exposure to chemicals. We know there are billions of pounds of chemicals used in common products sitting on retail shelves in every town in America today. -
Chemicals In Food: Top Chemical Food Myths Debunked…Naturally! [video]
Jul 23, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
By Ryan Baldwin
Chew on this: “Chemical-free” foods and drinks don’t exist. Natural chemicals in our food are not “naturally better” than manmade chemicals. And the word “detox” is too often used as a seal-the-deal marketing ploy to sell products to consumers that have already bought in to the first two myths. http://blog.americanchemistry.com/ -
Deadlocked Board Fails To Approve Report On Refinery Blast
Jul 22, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Sam Pearson
A divided U.S. Chemical Safety Board today failed to approve a final report on one of its oldest outstanding investigations, of a tank farm explosion in Bayamón, Puerto Rico, after its two members disagreed on the findings. The stalemate calls into question whether any reports will be published until the Senate confirms additional board... -
Advocates Sue EPA To Force Development Of Chemical Tank Spill Rules
Jul 22, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
Citing the need to prevent accidents like a massive West Virginia chemical spill in 2014, environmentalists are suing EPA under the Clean Water Act (CWA) to force the agency to develop regulations to prevent and contain spills from above-ground tanks at industrial facilities, following failed congressional efforts to create such a regulatory program. -
Lawmakers Press Obama Nominee On Pipeline Safety
Jul 22, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Hanna Krueger
President Obama's nominee to head the federal agency overseeing the safety of pipelines and hazardous materials faced tough questions from lawmakers on Wednesday. The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee pressed Marie Therese Dominguez on the record of the ... -
PHMSA Excavation Damage Rule to Be Published
Jul 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration will publish its final rule on preventing excavation damage to pipelines in the Federal Register July 23. The rule, which establishes a new process for assessing the adequacy of state programs on the issue, will take effect on Jan. 1, 2016. The agency released the final rule to the... -
(ACC Mentioned) Boiler Ruling Unlikely Before 2016 Compliance Date
Jul 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Litigation over the Environmental Protection Agency's air toxics standards for industrial boilers and incinerators likely will not be resolved until after a key compliance deadline for major source boilers, a pair of industry groups involved in the litigation told Bloomberg BNA July 22. -
(ACC Mentioned) D.C. Circuit Grants Industry Request For Stay In Waste Recovery Air Suit
Jul 23, 2015 | InsideEPA
A federal appeals court has granted chemical manufacturers' request for a temporary stay on their suit over EPA's air emissions rule that sets new requirements governing industrial waste and recovery operations, delaying further litigation until the agency acts on industry's pending petition to reconsider parts of the rule. -
Official: Colorado Drilling Rules Won't Harm Local Authority
Jul 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
A pending oil and gas rulemaking in Colorado will not diminish local government regulatory authority over siting of drilling facilities, a top state government official said. “Nothing will change your local authority,” Matt Lepore, director of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, said July 22, addressing a panel of municipal and county... -
Obama Gives Final Approval To Arctic Drilling
Jul 22, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Obama administration gave its final stamp of approval Wednesday to Shell Oil Company's application to drill in the Arctic Ocean. Under the approval, Shell can start drilling exploratory wells as soon as its fleet arrives at its prospect in the Chukchi Sea, about 140 miles off Alaska's northwest coast.But the two “application to drill”s ... -
Shell Gets Last Permits It Needs to Drill in Chukchi Sea
Jul 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
Royal Dutch Shell Plc received two conditional permits July 22 to drill in Arctic waters this summer off the north coast of Alaska. They were the last permits needed for the project. The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) approved the permits to allow for exploration drilling at the Burger prospect in the Chukchi Sea, where Shell... -
Shell Gets Permits For Limited Arctic Drilling
Jul 22, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
Shell won the Arctic drilling go-ahead it wanted from the Obama administration on Wednesday — but with conditions that again delayed the oil giant’s risky, multibillion-dollar push to tap the vast resources off the Alaskan coast. The decision is the latest sign that despite his efforts to combat climate change, President Barack Obama will allow... -
Obama Admin Clears Shell To Begin Drilling
Jul 22, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Phil Taylor
The Obama administration today gave Royal Dutch Shell PLC the green light to begin drilling for oil in the Arctic Ocean, but barred the company from penetrating oil-bearing rock until a key ice-breaking ship is repaired and arrives at the drill site. The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement issued two conditional... -
Natural Gas Exports Addressed in Senate Energy Bill
Jul 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Broad energy legislation crafted by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee would expedite liquefied natural gas exports but doesn't contain a measure repealing the 40-year-old ban on crude oil exports, according to legislative text of the bill made public July 22. -
House Bill Stokes Debate Over Climate, Crude Exports
Jul 23, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Daniel Bush
Climate change policy could become a sticking point for House Democrats in negotiations over a broad energy package that's headed to the House floor later this year. Lawmakers on the House Energy and Commerce Committee insist they're building bipartisan support for the legislation, starting with yesterday's approval of a stripped... -
Congress Taps The Oil Piggy Bank
Jul 22, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode and Elana Schor
For four decades, the U.S. has held onto its Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a hedge against disaster or war — but now Republicans in Congress want to sell off some of its 700 million barrels to pay for unrelated projects. The Senate’s proposed highway bill calls for unloading 101 million barrels to raise $9 billion for roadwork. -
County Blocks Survey for Pipeline Project
Jul 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas
Mercer County in New Jersey has announced it will ban the survey of county land for a 109-mile gas pipeline project unless the project receives approval from the federal government. In a statement on the county's website, Mercer County Executive Brian M. Hughes said the PennEast Pipeline Project ... -
Oklahoma Expands Areas of Seismic Well Scrutiny
Jul 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Stinson
An Oklahoma agency plans to place more oil and gas wastewater disposal wells under scrutiny for potential linkages to seismic activity. The Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) announced July 17 that its Oil and Gas Conservation Division (OGCD) will place more than 200 additional oil and natural gas wastewater disposal wells... -
EDF Action Ad Campaign Targets Oil Industry
Jul 22, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Peterka
The Environmental Defense Fund's advocacy arm today launched a digital ad campaign aimed at the oil industry's lobbying push on the national ozone standard. EDF Action's ads compare the American Petroleum Institute to Big Tobacco, accusing the oil industry trade group of distorting the science about ozone pollution. -
Oil, Gas VOC Control Guidelines Under Review
Jul 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
A set of draft guidelines for controlling emissions of ozone precursors from oil and gas operations in nonattainment areas is under review by the White House Office of Management and Budget, according to the OMB's website. The Environmental Protection Agency sent the control techniques guidelines (RIN 2060-ZA22), which are intended for... -
House Subcommittee Approves Energy Bill
Jul 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
A slimmed down House energy bill easily passed a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee July 22, but committee leaders said they expect to add more substantive provisions that will be contested this fall. The bill, approved by the Energy and Power Subcommittee on a voice vote and without amendment, clears the way ... -
Can Bipartisan Truce Hold On Energy Bills?
Jul 22, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode
House and Senate committee leaders moved ahead Wednesday with proposals that would represent the broadest update to energy law in nearly a decade. The bills unveiled this week emerged after months of intense public hearings and delicate backroom deal-making. -
Senate Energy Leaders Release Bipartisan Bill
Jul 22, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darren Goode
Senate Energy and Natural Resources leaders today unveiled bipartisan energy legislation that would aim to speed up liquefied natural gas exports, modernize the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and overhaul federal energy efficiency standards, among other initiatives. -
Senate Bill Arrives; Markups On Tap Next Week
Jul 22, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire Alert
By Geof Koss and Hannah Northey
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee this afternoon will introduce its long-awaited bipartisan energy package, with two markups slated to kick off next week. The "Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2015" marks the first aisle-crossing effort in years to break through a ... -
Don't Renege On Federal Energy Efficiency Commitments
Jul 22, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Elizabeth Chu Richter
Special interests are once again pushing proposals that would stifle any progress being made to reduce fossil fuel use in new and renovated federal buildings. During a mark-up of energy efficiency legislation that takes place tomorrow, the oil and gas lobby may seek to prevent the Department of Energy from implementing a provision ... -
Republicans Urge Delay in Clean Power Plan Start
Jul 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
States should not be required to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan until all legal challenges to the rule are resolved, congressional Republicans said. Given the “unprecedented nature of the rule and its legal vulnerabilities,” the EPA's rule, which would set carbon dioxide... -
Oklahoma Appeals Clean Power Plan Lawsuit
Jul 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Oklahoma filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit following a district court's dismissal of its challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed carbon dioxide standards for power plants (Pruitt v. McCarthy, 10th Cir., No. 15-5066, 7/21/15). -
Dozens Of Riders, But Will Any Become Law?
Jul 23, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Phil Taylor
Republican lawmakers have included dozens of environmental policy riders in their 2016 spending bills, setting up a major clash with Democrats and the White House as lawmakers seek to hammer out a deal to fund the government. While most of the policy riders likely will never become law, some could be bargaining chips for President Obama... -
House Again Passes McKinley Coal Ash Legislation
Jul 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Members of the House returned July 22 to a by-now familiar routine: They passed legislation from Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.) altering the Environmental Protection Agency's approach to regulating the management and disposal of coal ash. The vote on the Improving Coal Combustion Residuals Regulation Act (H.R. 1734) was 258-166. -
House Passes Bill To Fight Coal Ash Rule
Jul 22, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama and Cristina Marcos
The House voted Wednesday to roll back certain parts of the Obama administration’s first-ever regulations on the disposal of coal ash waste. Lawmakers voted 258-166 in support of the bill sponsored by Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.), who said he wants to ... -
Republicans Call For Further Review Of Obama Climate Rule
Jul 22, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Key congressional Republicans say the Obama administration should conduct a “full interagency review” of a major carbon rule for power plants before the rule goes public this summer. The Republicans, led by committee chairmen Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), said the Obama ... -
Environmental Groups Join Water Rule Challenges
Jul 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
Court challenges to the newly published clean water rule for allegedly failing to protect large bodies of water, such as Puget Sound, and waters vital for endangered species were filed July 22 by separate environmental coalitions in appellate courts on both coasts (Waterkeeper Alliance Inc. v. EPA, 9th Cir., No. 15-72226, petition for review ... -
Green Groups Challenge Obama Water Rule In Court
Jul 22, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The Obama administration’s new rule granting it regulatory power over certain bodies of water earned two new legal challenges on Wednesday, this time from green groups and conservationists. The Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity are among the groups that announced lawsuits against the ... -
House Panel Approves Energy Reform Bill
Jul 22, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A House subcommittee unanimously passed legislation Wednesday aimed at modernizing energy infrastructure, improving energy efficiency and taking other steps toward updating energy policies. The bill is the first step in the House’s efforts to pass a broad, bipartisan energy reform package, and lawmakers were hopeful that they could... -
PHMSA Nominee Vetted by Senate Committee
Jul 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Senators praised July 22 the managerial expertise—but questioned the lack of subject matter expertise—of the president's nominee to head the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. The lawmakers described PHMSA, of which Marie T. Dominguez has been nominated to lead... -
On Second Try, Senate Advances Long-Term Bill
Jul 23, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sean Reilly
The Senate voted 62-36 last night to move forward on a massive transportation package, breathing life into a gamble that looked like a loser the day before. But while backers were jubilant, they have barely a week to push the approximately 1,000-page measure through both chambers and on to President Obama. -
Smooth hearing sets up PHMSA nominee for committee vote
Jul 23, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sean Reilly
President Obama's choice to head the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration is in line for a prompt committee vote after a hearing yesterday in which she appeared to allay doubts about her qualifications.Marie Therese Dominguez "handled herself very well," said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), chairman of the Senate... -
FRA Warns of Oil-by-Rail Notification Enforcement
Jul 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The Federal Railroad Administration warned the railroad industry July 22 that it will be enforcing a requirement to notify certain state entities of Bakken crude oil train movements, a requirement that the Transportation Department briefly considered negating. “FRA will continue with random spot checks and regular compliance...
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Urges EPA To Expand TSCA Work Plan Risk Analysis Program
Jul 22, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
Industry groups are applauding EPA’s decision to release planning and scoping documents for its ongoing assessment of the health risks of exposure to 1,4-dioxane under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), but are urging the agency to make the work plan risk analyses more comprehensive and allow more opportunities for public comment.
“We applaud EPA for providing the public with a problem formulation and initial assessment document before beginning a full risk assessment of 1,4-dioxane,” writes Nancy Beck, a senior director at the American Chemistry Council (ACC), in the group’s June 29 comments. Doing so will allow stakeholders to provide EPA information it may not have, and assists EPA in conducting an assessment useful to its decision makers, Beck adds. Beck’s remarks are echoed by colleagues at the Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA).
EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) began the work plan risk assessment program in 2012, with the intent of assessing the human health risks of of various consumer uses of some 83 prioritized chemicals over the next several years until Congress reforms TSCA.
The OPPT program may continue in some form after that point, however, given that both TSCA reform bills reference the program. The latest version of H.R. 2576 allows EPA to continue assessing chemicals prioritized for the work plan risk assessments in its new framework for EPA, while the bipartisan Senate bill, S. 697, requires EPA to continue assessing the work plan chemicals as part of the group of priority chemicals for the agency to assess under its new format.
The planning and scoping document for 1,4-dioxane is the first work plan assessment where EPA has released such a document for public comment. The agency in April released the “TSCA Work Plan Chemical Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment” of 1,4-dioxane, saying it intends to develop similar documents for other chemicals that the program will assess moving forward.
EPA determined further review is warranted of potential risks to workers exposed to 1,4-dioxane during product formulation or while using it as a cleaning agent. The agency will also assess risks to workers and consumers from products that contain 1,4-dioxane as a contaminant, such as paints, varnishes, adhesives, cleansers and detergents.
EPA’s preliminary review concluded that risk to the general population through inhalation exposure to ambient air emissions is low. The agency says a drinking water assessment is not currently necessary because 1,4-dioxane is monitored, and the agency is considering whether regulation is needed under a different process.
Dioxane has long been a concern in drinking water and at Superfund sites, and more recently, environmentalists and public health groups have questioned its appearance in consumer products like soaps and shampoos
Additional Comment
The industry groups, however, are pressing EPA to make the work plan assessments more comprehensive and resource intensive. Both ACC and RMA urge EPA to add an additional comment period into the process. “RMA recommends that problem formulation and initial assessments for work plan chemicals should be first published as drafts, then following collection and consideration of public comments, EPA should publish a revised final problem formulation and initial assessment,” Sarah Amick, RMA’s senior counsel, writes in the group’s June 29 comments.
Both groups also question OPPT’s past practice of incorporating existing assessments into the work plan assessment, as EPA did in its work plan assessment of the solvent trichloroethylene (TCE), which borrows from the 2011 Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) hazard and dose-response assessment of TCE.
“In the initial assessment for 1,4-Dioxane, EPA specified that the agency may review currently available data and information, including but not limited to, assessments conducted by others (e.g. authorities in other countries), published or readily available reports and published scientific literature,” RMA writes. “Because EPA may consider data and information from any source, RMA has concern that EPA may consider data or information that is not scientifically sound.”
RMA asks that EPA revise its problem formulation and initial assessment if it receives information from public comments indicating that information it relied on is inaccurate, and it presses the agency to release a list of its sources for public comment as well.
The groups’ concern stems from EPA’s IRIS assessment of 1,4-dioxane, which in 2010 listed the chemical as a “likely” carcinogen and set a strict estimate of cancer risks by oral exposure that industry, the Defense Department, the National Aeronautics & Space Administration and the White House Office of Management and Budget have questioned. The cancer slope factor was 17 times more potent than the one in EPA’s 1990 IRIS assessment.
Industry critics recommended that the agency reconsider its assessment based on new toxicity studies, which they said raised questions about EPA’s calculation of dioxane’s oral cancer risks. The agency in 2013 finalized its assessment based on those new toxicity studies. The assessment included first-time inhalation risk estimates and maintained the controversial “likely” carcinogen finding.
Rigorous Review
More bluntly, ACC states that per “multiple recommendations from the National Academies of Science (NAS), the [OPPT] must conduct a rigorous review of all the scientific literature to ensure that the best information is used to inform Section 6 rulemaking. This includes seeking sources in addition to [IRIS] assessments to ensure that the best available science is considered . . . The 2013 1,4-dioxane IRIS assessment was finalized without fully implementing standardized approaches for evaluating studies, as well as other important NAS recommendations. As such the IRIS assessment for 1,4-dioxane should not be seen as representing the best available science.”
ACC also presses EPA to enhance review scrutiny of the TSCA assessments. “Based on the risk management options that may be considered, EPA should clearly articulate the type of risk assessment that will be conducted (i.e., screening level or robust assessment) and the plans for external peer review,” Beck writes. “Rigorous assessments that will be used to inform regulatory activities under TSCA Section 6 should be treated as Highly Influential Scientific Assessments and should undergo robust peer reviews consistent with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance.” And ACC urges OPPT to follow recommendations for risk assessment laid out in a 2014 publication from EPA’s Risk Assessment Forum, the Human Health Risk Assessment Framework, which provides advice on how best to plan and scope an assessment. ACC considers this to require that “Problem formulation documents must clearly articulate the potential policies and risk management options that may be informed by the work plan assessments.”
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Urges Caution Over Formaldehyde-ALS Study
Jul 23, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) has urged caution in interpreting a US study suggesting a possible link between workplace formaldehyde exposure and the neurodegenerative disease amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).
Animal studies and in vitro experiments have suggested that formaldehyde exposure may have neurotoxic effects that could also apply to ALS, which causes paralysis and is fatal.
A team, led by Andrea Roberts from the Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health in Boston, analysed data on over one million people in a National Longitudinal Mortality Study (NLMS).
For each occupation, the team calculated the intensity and probability of formaldehyde exposure.
They then matched NLMS results to the National Death index to obtain cause of death.
Few women in the NLMS had job-related formaldehyde exposure and there were no ALS deaths.
All of the 493 men likely to have high-intensity formaldehyde exposure worked as funeral directors. Two of the highly exposed men had died from ALS.
As a result, the researchers estimate that men with high formaldehyde exposure have “an almost three times greater rate of ALS mortality”.
Writing in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, the researchers say their results “should be interpreted cautiously”, because jobs involving high formaldehyde exposure are rare, and funeral directors are also exposed to other embalming chemicals.
They conclude that further study of the association of ALS with high levels of formaldehyde exposure and among funeral directors is needed.
The ACC's formaldehyde panel said it is important to note that "no previous studies have found an association between formaldehyde exposure and ALS, something the authors acknowledge.
"Further, inhaled formaldehyde is rapidly metabolised by the body and robust peer-reviewed research demonstrates that inhaled formaldehyde does not move past the nasal cavity to reach any distant tissues inside the body – therefore it is unlikely the analysis findings are biologically plausible.”
-
(ACC Mentioned) Fond Of Bonds: Summer's Most Infamous Chemical
Jul 22, 2015 | Manufacturing.net
By Meagan Parrish
Ah yes… bright sun, warm temps, lazy rivers and the sweet smell of chlorine — that’s when you know it’s summer. But there’s more to the notorious CI #17 than just its role in disinfecting swimming pools. Chlorine chemistry is the building block for a staggering amount of manufactured goods including pesticides, paper, pharmaceuticals, paints and more. Here’s more on our chemical of the week:
The 101:
On the periodic table, chlorine is in a group of halogens — or elements that form salts when combined with metal. It’s one of the most abundant chemicals on earth. At room temperature it’s a yellow-green gas that’s highly toxic to humans.Chlorine was formally discovered in 1774 when a Swedish scientist Carl Wilhelm Scheele accidentally produced it by releasing a few drops of hydrochloric acid onto a piece of manganese dioxide. But for decades scientists thought it was a compound of oxygen — until 1810 when an English chemist named Sir Humphry Davy recognized it as a pure element. By then the chemical was already making its way into mass manufacturing.
‘The Element of Surprise’
In the 18th century a French textile producer whipped up a bleaching agent by dissolving chlorine in water — a process he soon improved by adding the chlorine to a caustic potash solution, according to The Chlorine Institute.Pretty soon the bleaching solution was sweeping through the Western world and technology was evolving to produce it on a bigger scale.
Today chlorine is one of the most produced chemicals in the U.S. The American Chemistry Council calls it “the element of surprise” because of its wide-scale use in manufacturing. According to the ACC, chlorine chemistry is an essential building block for more than 90 percent of pharmaceuticals, and is used in everything from common painkillers to surgical stitches and medical devices.
Chlorine chemistry is also utilized in just about every major industry in too many products to list — from light-weight cars, to 80 percent of crop protection compounds, to paints, solar panels, household cleaners and even bullet-proof vests for the military.
Fun Facts: According to Live Science: “Some frogs have a chlorine compound in their skin that is a very strong painkiller, according to Los Alamos National Laboratory. The compound, called epibatidine, has no side effects in small doses, but in large doses, it is fatal to humans.”Chlorine can show up in chicken because many U.S. factory farms bathe chicken in the chemical to help decrease fecal contamination.The chlorine industry contributes more than $46 billion annually to the North American economy, according to the ACC.
Myth Busting at The Swimming Pool: When it comes to pools, chlorine gets a bad rep. Those zombie red eyes you sometimes have after taking a dip? They’re not just from chlorine. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, they’re actually caused by — prepare for an ick factor — pee, poop and other human grossness. When chlorine binds with nitrogen in urine it forms a derivative of ammonia called chloramine, which can cause red eyes, runny noses and coughing.That chemical aroma at the pool? It’s also not just chlorine, but chlorine reacting with other substances in the water. According to the CDC, the more pee, poop and dirt in the pool, the worse it smells. If you also believe that swimming in chlorinated pools can turn blonde hair into unflattering green locks, you’d be wrong again. The real culprit is copper, which is released into the water through old pipes or with other chemicals that are added to fight algae. An acid base imbalance can also be to blame. According to one local news report: “If the pool's pH is too high, the positively charged copper particles floating in the water look for anything that has a negative charge (opposites attract) and that includes your silky strands.”Too much chlorine, however, can wreak havoc. Just a few weeks ago about 25 kids at a North Carolina pool got sick with nausea and vomiting after too much chlorine was added to a public pool. And while that kind of news might make you want to stay out of the water or avoid drinking water disinfected with chlorine, consider this: Without it, bacteria such as E. coli can thrive. In 2000, seven people died and more than 2,300 fell ill after the water supply in a town in Ontario got contaminated by E. coli and other bacteria. Officials said that proper chlorine levels could have prevented the disaster.
Not-so-Fun Facts Like many chemicals, chlorine has a dark side. Some studies have attempted to show that drinking chlorinated water can lead to an increased risk for cancer. But the chemical has not been labeled a carcinogen by public health officials.Frequent trips to the pool have also been linked to higher asthma rates among children and some scientists believe that higher rates of exposure to chlorine in cleaning products are part of the catalyst behind increased allergies over the last 50 years.Worst of all, chlorine has been used in chemical weapons since World War I when Germans began producing a chlorine gas known as bertholite. Because chlorine can react with water in the mucosa of the lungs and form hydrochloric acid, the gas can be lethal. More recently, chlorine bombs were used by insurgents in the Iraq War and in the Syrian Civil War, and now many have alleged that ISIS has gotten its hands on ‘chlorine-filled rockets’ that they’re using to attack civilians. Days ago, reports emerged that ISIS also has “industrial grade” gas masks, which has many worrying that they’re readying themselves for large-scale chemical warefare.
-
EPA Receives Test Data On Flame Retardant Substance
Jul 22, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has received test data on the substance phosphorochloridothioic acid, O,O-diethyl in a response to a test rule. The data relates to aquatic toxicity.
The substance is used in flame retardants, an intermediate for pesticides and as an oil and gasoline additive.
-
To Protect the Public Health, New Chemicals Must Be Found Safe Before Use | Commentary
Jul 22, 2015 | Roll Call
By Lynn R. Goldman
Public health leaders have long understood the power of prevention to reduce the risk of chronic diseases, including those linked to exposure to chemicals. We know there are billions of pounds of chemicals used in common products sitting on retail shelves in every town in America today.
Most people assume the government makes sure such chemicals are safe before they go into such products. In fact, no one has the mandate to ensure the safety of new chemicals before they are allowed on the market. That is one reason why potentially dangerous chemicals are in your home right now — in everything from furniture to clothing to cosmetics. Commonly used chemicals are linked to certain cancers, Parkinson’s disease, developmental disabilities and other chronic and costly diseases.
Right now, members of Congress are considering legislation to update the chemical safety law and they should put strong measures in place to protect people from exposure to potential toxins. Congress should require new chemicals are found to be safe — before they are allowed on the market.
Legislation to update the flawed Toxic Substances Control Act is advancing through both chambers of Congress. The House recently passed a bill, and the Senate is poised to do the same within the next few weeks. But the bills differ in several important ways, including in their treatment of new chemicals. In fact, the House TSCA reform legislation would leave in place the current law’s weak approach to new chemicals. That would be a mistake and a missed opportunity.
Every year, 500 to 1,000 new chemicals come onto the market. Unlike many other countries, the United States does not require companies to submit a basic set of safety data before allowing a chemical on the market. Here in the U.S., the Environmental Protection Agency cannot even require testing without first showing potential risk or high exposure, a real Catch-22. TSCA puts the burden on the EPA to raise any red flags within 90 days of receiving a company’s “pre-manufacture notification” or the chemical can automatically enter the market and be produced and used by anyone as they see fit.
In the face of these constraints, resourceful staff at the EPA have done what they can with limited tools, using chemical structural information and computer modeling to try to predict hazards. Yet, those tools have significant limitations: They are largely reliant on the limited information available on chemicals with structures similar to the new chemical under scrutiny. They don’t work at all for some classes of chemicals. And there are no reliable tools for predicting more complex, chronic health problems tied to chemical exposure, such as reproductive or neurological toxicity.
The Senate’s “Lautenberg Act” would require the EPA to make an affirmation safety finding as a condition for market entry, rather than allowing manufacturing to begin by default if the EPA does not raise a concern during the 90-day review. In other words, the system shifts from a passive to an active one. If the EPA doesn’t have adequate information to make a safety finding, the bill authorizes the agency to suspend review, and importantly, it gives the EPA the ability to order testing in order to get the information it needs to make a sound decision.
-
Chemicals In Food: Top Chemical Food Myths Debunked…Naturally! [video]
Jul 23, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
By Ryan Baldwin
Chew on this: “Chemical-free” foods and drinks don’t exist. Natural chemicals in our food are not “naturally better” than manmade chemicals. And the word “detox” is too often used as a seal-the-deal marketing ploy to sell products to consumers that have already bought in to the first two myths.
“This is NOT Natural,” according to Mitchell Moffit and Gregory Brown at AsapSCIENCE. The YouTube duo with more than 4 million (!) subscribers published a video on July 15 to help clear up some of the confusion about chemicals in food. As of this writing, the video is well on its way to 1,000,000 views.
They aren’t the only ones helping to make sense of this chemicals-in-food debate. Recently, scientists weighed in on the safety of Mac & Cheese and pumpkin spice lattes, proving what we eat (and what’s in what we eat) is a complex topic. Evidently, people are tuning in.
Related: “6 chemical myths debunked: New guide helps consumers see through common misconceptions“
What are we to understand from all of this? From GMOs to common foods labeled “toxic,” questions about the safety of chemicals in food have clearly created a lot of fear and confusion – and people sick of living in fear are looking for some real answers. This video should help. “A little perspective can go a long way,” the narrator states.
Below, we summarize a few of the misconceptions about chemicals in food that we took from the video (but we recommend first watching the video above). Myth 1: Avoiding certain foods can help you lead a chemical free life.
Not even close. “You can’t lead a chemical free life like some brands would like you to think,” the video states. Everything around us is made up of chemicals, from the water we drink to the air we breathe. It’s the same with foods: chemical-free foods and drinks simply don’t exist. As Dr. Joe Schwarcz of McGill University said in an uproarious TEDx presentation, “If you buy something that claims to be chemical free, you’re not getting a very good deal.” Myth 2: Natural chemicals in food are less toxic than synthetic chemicals.
Not true, as the video explains: “We can’t just give blanket statements to natural versus synthetic. Natural chemicals aren’t always good for you and manmade chemicals are not inherently dangerous.” You may have seen some advertisements bemoaning the presence of unpronounceable chemical ingredients in a competitor’s product. However, “natural foods” like bananas and eggs have long and confusing lists of unpronounceable ingredients that can easily rival those of a piece of candy. As chemical mythbuster Sense About Science reminds us, “Whether a chemical is naturally occurring or man-made tells us nothing about its toxicity.” The dose makes the poison. Myth 3: You can detox your body as part of a chemical elimination diet.
“The word detox is strictly a marketing myth,” the video states. Companies market products to our belief in the previous two myths. If we believe we have done a bad job living chemical free, perhaps by consuming too many unnatural chemicals in food, we are more likely to buy detox products to get rid of those chemicals. These chemophobia-stirring claims aren’t just wrong, they can also be harmful.
More could be said here about individual food allergies and sensitivities. Not all of us will respond the same to different chemicals, natural or manmade, in our food. The key is to listen to your gut, so to speak — it’s the most natural thing you can do.
If you want to read a more comprehensive chemical mythbusting guide, check out: “6 chemical myths debunked: New guide helps consumers see through common misconceptions” and be sure to watch the TEDx Talk featuring Dr. Joe Schwarcz. - See more at: http://blog.americanchemistry.com/2015/07/chemicals-in-food-top-chemical-food-myths-debunkednaturally-video/#sthash.x54bDUd8.dpuf
-
Deadlocked Board Fails To Approve Report On Refinery Blast
Jul 22, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Sam Pearson
A divided U.S. Chemical Safety Board today failed to approve a final report on one of its oldest outstanding investigations, of a tank farm explosion in Bayamón, Puerto Rico, after its two members disagreed on the findings.
The stalemate calls into question whether any reports will be published until the Senate confirms additional board members for the struggling agency.
The board was considering a final report on the tank farm explosion on Oct. 23, 2009. It previously reviewed the report last month but was unable to approve it because one of its then-three members, Manuel Ehrlich, was absent for medical reasons.
Since then, board member Mark Griffon's term has expired, leaving Ehrlich and Rick Engler, who was designated temporary administrative authority, as the sole members of what was once a five-member board. Two additional nominees -- Vanessa Sutherland and Kristen Kulinowski -- have seen confirmation hearings before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee but no additional action.
Engler's motion to approve the report failed when Ehrlich did not second the motion. After the motion, Engler said he was "deeply disturbed" by the outcome.
The report found that the chemical tank facility operated by Caribbean Petroleum Corp. likely exploded and caught fire when a 5-million-gallon aboveground storage tank overflowed into a secondary containment dike, which caused the gasoline to form a large vapor cloud that ignited (E&ENews PM, June 10).
Ehrlich said he could not endorse the report's recommendations that U.S. EPA and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration adopt new regulations targeting aboveground fuel storage tanks.
While he agreed the risk of overfilling fuel tanks, like what occurred at the Caribbean Petroleum facility, was serious, Ehrlich disagreed that a regulatory crackdown was needed.
"I believe these recommendations would be burdensome to industry" and would not stop bad actors like Caribbean Petroleum, which would not comply, Ehrlich said.
It also was unrealistic to expect burdened agencies including EPA to expand already-stretched programs like the risk management program to encompass additional facilities, such as bulk aboveground storage facilities containing flammable materials, Ehrlich said.
His stance drew a rebuke from Engler, who said the claims showed a misunderstanding of CSB's role. CSB must make safety recommendations without regard to the stances of the other federal agencies that would implement the proposals, Engler said.
Ehrlich's argument "would actually be an argument for abolishing existing regulatory protections, because one bad actor didn't follow them," Engler said.
The matter will have to be taken up later, Engler said, when the Senate has confirmed additional board members.
-
Advocates Sue EPA To Force Development Of Chemical Tank Spill Rules
Jul 22, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
Citing the need to prevent accidents like a massive West Virginia chemical spill in 2014, environmentalists are suing EPA under the Clean Water Act (CWA) to force the agency to develop regulations to prevent and contain spills from above-ground tanks at industrial facilities, following failed congressional efforts to create such a regulatory program.
The groups Environmental Justice Health Alliance for Chemical Policy Reform, People Concerned About Chemical Safety, and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed suit July 21 against EPA in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, asking the court to order EPA to begin the rulemaking process to adopt mandatory regulations under section 311(j)(1) of CWA to prevent and contain discharges of hazardous substances from non-transportation-related onshore facilities, such as above-ground storage tanks.
The court should also declare EPA’s 40-plus year delay in issuing the regulations as “unreasonable and a violation of a non-discretionary duty” under CWA, the plaintiffs say.
They point to the 2014 above-ground storage tank spill in West Virginia as a “concrete example” of why such spill regulations are needed. A tank owned by Freedom Industries holding 4-methylcyclohexane methanol ruptured and spilled more than 5,000 gallons of the hazardous substance into the Elk River, contaminating the water supply and leaving 300,000 people without drinking water for nearly a week, the lawsuit says.
In the aftermath of that spill, EPA considered issuing hazardous substance spill regulations for above-ground storage tanks but did not do so, the suit says, citing information obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request made by NRDC -- one of the plaintiffs.
“Hazardous substance spills pose a significant public health threat, particularly to those who live in low-income communities and communities of color,” Pam Nixon, spokesperson for People Concerned About Chemical Safety, says in a press release announcing the suit. “Had this regulation been enacted in a timely manner, the Elk River spill could have been prevented.”
The suit cites Coast Guard data that the plaintiffs say show hazardous substance spills are more likely to occur in low-income communities or communities of color.
CWA Authority
CWA section 311(j)(1) directs the executive branch to issue regulations “as soon as practicable after October 17, 1972” to prevent and contain discharges of oil and hazardous substances from onshore facilities, the suit says. And in 1973, the president delegated EPA the authority to issue such regulations, it says.
The plaintiffs say EPA has only fulfilled half of Congress’ mandate under section 311(j)(1)(C), issuing spill prevention and containment regulations for oil spills from non-transportation-related onshore facilities, but not for hazardous substance spills. “As a result, onshore facilities that store hazardous substances are often left unregulated, exposing the public and the environment to serious harms from spills.”
The absence of regulations has left many hazardous substances facilities, including above-ground storage tanks, without state or federal regulation, the suit says. “This regulatory vacuum has grave environmental and social-justice ramifications,” it says.
In the immediate aftermath of the Elk River spill, both House and Senate lawmakers sought to address the regulatory gaps highlighted by the accident.
A Senate bill sponsored by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) last year would have given EPA new authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to create a program for states to regulate above-ground chemical storage facilities. The bill would have required the agency to create "a chemical storage facility source water protection program to provide for the protection of public water systems from a release of chemicals from a covered chemical storage facility." The program would have required the state to provide oversight and routine inspections of above-ground chemical storage facilities.
While many experts praised the Senate bill, some industry lawyers said it might be more prudent to explore existing regulatory and voluntary approaches rather than adding new requirements to the federal SDWA. And state drinking water regulators warned they do not have the resources or expertise to take on a new regulatory program for tanks.
In the House, Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) introduced legislation that would have created a similar program under CWA authority. But House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) dismissed calls for new regulations, and the legislation did not advance. While environmentalists have long maintained that EPA could use its existing CWA authority to create a chemical spill response program that is similar to its oil spill response program, and avoid federal legislation altogether, Boxer said during legislative hearings in 2014 that the agency's current CWA authority is “loosey goosey.”
-
Lawmakers Press Obama Nominee On Pipeline Safety
Jul 22, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Hanna Krueger
President Obama's nominee to head the federal agency overseeing the safety of pipelines and hazardous materials faced tough questions from lawmakers on Wednesday.
The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee pressed Marie Therese Dominguez on the record of the Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHSMA) after a number of high-profile safety incidents.
Senators said the administration had failed to make safety a top priority and highlighted a number of local issues in their states.Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) recalled a 2011 leak in the Trans-Alaskan pipeline system, which was successfully contained, but raised questions over which agency has jurisdiction over safety issues.
While EPA claimed the Trans-Alaskan pipeline was under their oversight, PHMSA actually controls the system.
Sullivan urged Dominguez to clarify PHSMA’s jurisdiction moving forward.
Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) cited the monumental 2010 Kalamazoo River oil spill which marks its fifth-anniversary next week. One million gallons of heavy crude oil contaminated the river in the spill, which went unnoticed for 17 hours.
Peters said that PHSMA had been slow to enact safety reforms passed by Congress.
“This committee played a major role in the 2011 Pipeline Safety Bill, which included really important safety provisions in the legislation,” Peters explained. “Unfortunately, many of those regulations have yet to be finalized by PHSMA and Department of Transportation."
He called it "Simply unacceptable.”
Dominguez promised to make safety and effective management top priorities.
“Our mission is really to protect people and the environment, to manage this hazardous material and transportation, and we take that very seriously,” Dominguez told lawmakers.
“With the increase in energy production in this country, we need to not only make sure that we use the money Congress have invested in us wisely, but also see how we can efficiently structure the organization so we can address current and future needs.”
Generally, lawmakers appeared receptive to Dominguez's responses and plans for the agency.
President Obama nominated Dominguez for the position in late May, and she received strong praise at the hearing from Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.).
Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.) expressed concerns about Dominguez’s lack of prior experience with hazardous materials, but praised her work as a leader at the Army Civil Works and Postal Service and time with the National Transportation Safety Board.
During the hearing, Dominguez spoke personally about her father, who served as a Secret Service agent for over four decades and helped protect President Reagan during an assassination attempt.
“From him, I learned how quickly a life can change—and how rewarding it can be to keep other’s safe. Safety is deeply personal for me, and it is at the heart of everything that PHMSA’s employees do each day,” said Dominguez with her father sitting in the front row of the hearing.
-
PHMSA Excavation Damage Rule to Be Published
Jul 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration will publish its final rule on preventing excavation damage to pipelines in the Federal Register July 23. The rule, which establishes a new process for assessing the adequacy of state programs on the issue, will take effect on Jan. 1, 2016. The agency released the final rule to the public on July 13 (134 DEN A-4, 7/14/15). Excavation damage is one of the main causes of serious pipeline incidents, which between 1988 and 2012 caused 188 fatalities, 723 injuries, 1,678 incidents and roughly $475 million in estimated property damages, according to the final rule. The rule (RIN 2137-AE43) is expected to cost approximately $2.1 million for states and the federal government over 10 years at a 3 percent discount and would be cost-beneficial if it prevents roughly one reportable pipeline incident per year, according to the rule. The rule is available at https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2015-17259.pdf.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Boiler Ruling Unlikely Before 2016 Compliance Date
Jul 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Litigation over the Environmental Protection Agency's air toxics standards for industrial boilers and incinerators likely will not be resolved until after a key compliance deadline for major source boilers, a pair of industry groups involved in the litigation told Bloomberg BNA July 22.
The Council of Industrial Boiler Owners and the American Chemistry Council agreed that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will not have enough time between scheduled Dec. 3 oral arguments and the Jan. 31, 2016, compliance deadline to issue its decision.
Robert Bessette, president of the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, said there is “no way in heck” that the appeals court will be able to issue a decision in the 59 days between oral arguments and the compliance deadline.
“We're going to have to comply,” Bessette said. “We have to comply with the rule as written regardless.”
The major source boiler standards (RIN 2060-AQ25; RIN 2060-AR13), issued in 2011 and revised in 2013, apply to more than 14,000 existing boilers found at chemical plants, petroleum refineries and other industrial facilities. The EPA has estimated that the rule could cost industry about $1.6 billion per year.
The D.C. Circuit announced July 21 that oral arguments over the major source boiler rule, as well as arguments on the EPA's area source boiler rule (RIN 2060-AM44; RIN 2060-AR14) and commercial and solid waste incinerators rule (RIN 2060-AO12; RIN 2060-AR15), will be held on Dec. 3 (U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 11-1108, order filed 7/21/15; Am. Forest & Paper Ass'n v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 11-1125, order filed 7/21/15; Am. Chemistry Council v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 11-1141, order filed 7/21/15).
Groups Asked for Earlier Argument
Petitioners had asked the D.C. Circuit to hold arguments before the court's 2014-2015 term ended in May, but the court denied that request (40 DEN A-13, 3/2/15).
The American Chemistry Council said in a July 22 e-mail statement that since the oral arguments are not until December, the court's ruling will not come until after the major source deadline. Industry also is already required to comply with the revised area source boiler standards, the industry group noted.
“We are disappointed that oral argument is not until Dec. 3, 2015, because we do continue to comply with these rules,” the ACC said. “Since the rules are not stayed, the regulated community is either in compliance or continues to work towards compliance.”
Major source boilers have the potential to emit more than 10 tons per year of a single hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons per year of a combination of pollutants, while area source boilers emit lower levels of pollution.
Reconsideration Pending
Bessette said he can understand “in a sense” the court's decision to set oral arguments in December, because the EPA is still reconsidering several aspects of the rules. However, the delayed argument means that major source boiler owners and operators will have to comply with the standards as written despite the pending litigation, he said.
The EPA in December 2014 proposed several amendments and technical corrections (RIN 2060-AS10) to the boiler and incinerator standards, including a definitions of startup and shutdown periods and a limit for carbon monoxide emissions from major source boilers (232 DEN A-4, 12/3/14).
The EPA projects its final reconsideration rule will be issued by November.
-
(ACC Mentioned) D.C. Circuit Grants Industry Request For Stay In Waste Recovery Air Suit
Jul 23, 2015 | InsideEPA
A federal appeals court has granted chemical manufacturers' request for a temporary stay on their suit over EPA's air emissions rule that sets new requirements governing industrial waste and recovery operations, delaying further litigation until the agency acts on industry's pending petition to reconsider parts of the rule.
In its July 20 order, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agrees to place American Chemistry Council (ACC) v. EPA in abeyance until as late as Dec. 8 -- although the case will restart sooner if EPA acts more quickly on ACC's petition. The order is available on InsideEPA.com. (Doc. ID: 183243)
"The parties are directed to file motions to govern future proceedings within 30 days of the completion of the agency proceedings, but no later than December 8, 2015," the order says.
At issue in the case is EPA's final national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) rule for Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operation, which the agency published in March. It covers a range of facilities, including hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities, some hazardous and non-hazardous wastewater treatment works, used solvent recovery plants, hazardous waste recycling plants and used oil re-refineries.
According to environmentalists' June 17 motion to intervene, the final NESHAP rule removes an exemption for periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction; requires electronic reporting of performance test results; bars emissions releases from pressure relief devices (PRDs); and strengthens requirements for certain valves and lines.
The petitioners in the case, ACC and Eastman Chemical Company, are objecting to the tighter standards, questioning their legality. ACC's statement of issues in the case lists a host of alleged improprieties in the final rule, including claiming that a bar on air emissions from PRDs is illegal; that EPA failed to base its standards on the "best performing sources" in the sector as required by section 112(d)(3) of the Clean Air Act; and that the agency acted improperly in mandating for connectors the use"Method 21," an EPA instrument monitoring standard for detecting leaks of volatile organic compounds.
Eastman's statement of issues, filed June 18, also questions whether the final rule is arbitrary and capricious or otherwise illegal, and cites some of the same issues.
But environmentalists, seeking to intervene in the case on EPA's behalf, have touted EPA's prediction that the rule will result in public health benefits by reducing 211 tons of toxic air emissions annually.
-
Official: Colorado Drilling Rules Won't Harm Local Authority
Jul 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
A pending oil and gas rulemaking in Colorado will not diminish local government regulatory authority over siting of drilling facilities, a top state government official said.
“Nothing will change your local authority,” Matt Lepore, director of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, said July 22, addressing a panel of municipal and county government officials in Broomfield.
“Currently, an oil and gas operator must get a state permit and a local permit” to drill and locate a wellpad or other drilling facility, he said. “That's not contemplated to change.”
Lepore's comments came in response to concerns that local government representatives voiced as to whether their authority will be respected when the new rules go forward.
In the past two years, local government officials and voters in several Colorado cities and counties have approved bans on hydraulic fracturing and other drilling activity. Many of the bans have been overturned by court rulings that the state Oil and Gas Conservation Act preempts local attempts to ban hydraulic fracturing.
Task Force Recommendations
In response to these conflicts between the state and local governments over the siting of oil and gas operations, Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) in September 2014 convened a task force to consider administrative and legislative recommendations to increase collaboration between municipal governing bodies and the state's regulatory agencies.
The task force in February issued two recommendations that the commission will take up in a rulemaking hearing in November. Lepore and commission staff are engaged in an outreach effort to hear from interested stakeholders about how the recommendations can be implemented most effectively.
The first outreach meeting with representatives of the oil and gas industry was held July 7 at the office of Encana Oil & Gas USA in Denver. The July 22 meeting in Broomfield focused on the input of local government officials.
Nine more meetings, including sessions with citizens' advocacy groups, will be held through Aug. 11, Lepore said.
Enhancing Local Participation
One of the task force's recommendation calls for the commission to adopt rules to enhance local government participation during the application for permit to drill process concerning the location of large-scale oil and gas facilities in urban mitigation areas.
COGCC rules define an urban mitigation area as one where at least 22 buildings or one high-occupancy building, such as a hospital or school, is located within a 1,000-foot radius of a proposed oil and gas facility. An urban mitigation area also exists where 11 buildings or one high-occupancy building lies within any semicircle of the 1,000-foot radius.
The task force said a local government's request concerning the siting of large oil and gas facilities must be based on “reasonable standards or criteria addressing land use and surface related issues resulting from the proposed oil and gas operation, balanced with consideration of responsible development.”
But Elise Jones, Boulder County commissioner, said the “burden of proof should be on operators to explain why they must locate near schools, homes” and other occupied buildings. “These facilities should be away” from where more people live, work and play, she said.
With respect to locating oil and gas facilities, the sites local governments prefer should be respected, said Tami Yellico, city attorney of Loveland.
“Local government's preferred locations should have to be considered by an operator,” she said. “The operator should have to give a technical or economic reason why it won't work.”
Another recommendation urged the commission to require oil and gas operators to provide a good faith estimate of the number of wells it intends to drill within a five-year period for purposes of inclusion in the local comprehensive planning process.
“Comprehensive planning is important so we can make appropriate decisions to accommodate these facilities,” said Matt Magley, town manager of Superior.
Definition of ‘Large-Scale.’
Lepore said the commission is using the meetings to discuss with stakeholders the metrics for determining what constitutes a “large scale oil and gas facility,” something not currently defined in COGCC rules, he said.
The task force's recommendation suggested four separate sets of metrics by which “large-scale” could be quantified, including the anticipated time required to drill and complete wells proposed for a multiwell location, and the total volume of on-site storage capacity necessary to support initial production.
Local government representatives urged the commission to consider impacts in the definition as well. “We absolutely think it should be defined in terms of impacts, not just number of wells,” said Suzanne Jones, mayor pro tem of Boulder.
In response, Lepore suggested “impacts” might be too subjective.
“I have to have some way of quantifying this,” he said. “Bright lines are easier to enforce. I need some objective criteria where I can say, ‘That's a large facility.’ ”
-
Obama Gives Final Approval To Arctic Drilling
Jul 22, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Obama administration gave its final stamp of approval Wednesday to Shell Oil Company's application to drill in the Arctic Ocean.
Under the approval, Shell can start drilling exploratory wells as soon as its fleet arrives at its prospect in the Chukchi Sea, about 140 miles off Alaska's northwest coast.But the two “application to drill”s approved by the Interior Department’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) included key restrictions that bar Shell from drilling in areas known to contain oil, since its safety equipment is not yet fully ready.
The decision is a major loss for environmentalists, who have tried various efforts through courts, federal agencies, protests and other means to stop Shell from drilling the first wells in the United States’ portion of the Arctic in years.
The issue has quickly become a top rallying point for green groups, while the oil industry has stepped up its efforts to open drilling in one of the best prospective offshore areas in the world.
“Without question, activities conducted offshore Alaska must be held to the highest safety, environmental protection and emergency response standards,” BSEE Director Brian Salerno said in a statement.
“Without the required well-control system in place, Shell will not be allowed to drill into oil-bearing zones. As Shell conducts exploratory activities, we will be monitoring their work around the clock to ensure the utmost safety and environmental stewardship.”
To drill in oil-bearing areas, Shell must have a capping stack available, a key piece of equipment meant to contain well blowouts. But its capping stack is on the MSV Fennica, an ice-breaking ship that is heading to Oregon for a repair to its hull.
Until that ship is at the drilling site, Shell’s operations will be restricted.
Shell has stated that it aims to start drilling this month.
The federal approvals carry numerous restrictions on the drilling. The company can only drill one well at a time in order to protect endangered walruses, among other strict wildlife restrictions.
BSEE inspectors will be on the two rigs constantly, and Shell will be limited in its drilling timeframe, its well being subject to specific safety, equipment and operational requirements.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, another Interior Department agency, first approved Shell’s drilling plans in May. But the company had to obtain numerous other approvals, including those from the Fish and Wildlife Service and Wednesday’s BSEE permits.
Environmentalists were disappointed with BSEE’s approval and said that Arctic drilling brings safety, pollution, climate, wildlife and other risks that were ignored.
“President Obama and his administration made the wrong decision today for our Arctic and our climate,” Cindy Shogan, director of the Alaska Wilderness League, said in a statement.
“This decision puts the fate of the fragile Arctic Ocean, and our climate future, in the hands of Shell Oil. The Obama administration may have given Shell the go-ahead for risky and reckless drilling in the Arctic Ocean, but this is only the beginning.”
Greens have pledged to keep fighting against Arctic drilling. As part of that, they are keeping a close eye on every aspect of Shell’s activity to spot any mishaps or violations.
Shell tried to drill exploratory wells in 2012, leading to a string of mishaps that culminated in the grounding of its drilling rig on an Alaska island.
-
Shell Gets Last Permits It Needs to Drill in Chukchi Sea
Jul 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
Royal Dutch Shell Plc received two conditional permits July 22 to drill in Arctic waters this summer off the north coast of Alaska. They were the last permits needed for the project.
The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) approved the permits to allow for exploration drilling at the Burger prospect in the Chukchi Sea, where Shell acquired several leases at the site in 2008 and began drilling on one of the leases in 2012. Shell has spent more than $6 billion on the effort so far.
The permits limit Shell to drilling only the top sections of wells and prohibit the company from drilling into oil-bearing zones, if any exist.
The prohibition on drilling into oil-bearing zones was included because the BSEE requires a capping stack be on hand and deployable within 24 hours to shut in a leaking well. Shell's capping stack is carried on the icebreaker Fennica, currently en route to Portland, Ore., for repairs.
“If and when the M/V Fennica is capable of being deployed in the Chukchi Sea and Shell is able to satisfy the capping stack requirement, the company may submit an Application for Permit to Modify the APDs and request to have this restriction reconsidered,” the BSEE said in announcing the conditional permit approvals.
Vessels on Their Way
The two drilling rigs and many of the support vessels Shell has organized for the project have been sailing north from their temporary anchorage in the Aleutians in anticipation of receiving the drilling permits (140 DEN A-4, 7/22/15).
The Fennica may follow in a matter of weeks, after repair of a gash in the hull of the ship, leaving the possibility of drilling into an oil reservoir this summer.
“The Fennica's primary mission is as host to the capping stack and we expect it to be repaired and back in Alaska before we begin drilling into hydrocarbon zones,” a Shell spokesman said July 21.
At the Burger prospect, the floating rig Polar Pioneer and the drillship Noble Discoverer will have BSEE safety inspectors aboard them 24 hours a day, seven days a week, the Interior Department agency said.
The Burger prospect is located in about 140 feet of water, 70 miles northwest of Wainwright, Alaska. Shell would be opening up a new frontier if it found enough oil to justify development there. No commercial quantities of oil have ever been discovered in the Chukchi Sea.
Can't Drill Two Wells at Once
The permits from BSEE also take into account the limitations imposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to limit disturbance of marine mammals. Shell must maintain a minimum spacing of 15 miles between active drill rigs during exploration activities.
“Under the limited permits granted today, Shell may proceed with drilling the top sections of two wells at the Burger Prospect, Burger J and V,” the BSEE said.
But because those two sites are less than 15 miles apart, Shell must halt work and plug the first well it drills before proceeding with any drilling at the second well site.
BSEE's review of Shell's applications for permits to drill included an analysis of well casing design, equipment design, testing procedures, safety protocol and third-party certifications of equipment and rig information. Shell was required to address any inadequacies identified by BSEE before the permits were approved.
“As Shell conducts exploratory activities, we will be monitoring their work around the clock to ensure the utmost safety and environmental stewardship,” BSEE Director Brian Salerno said in the announcement of the permits.
-
Shell Gets Permits For Limited Arctic Drilling
Jul 22, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
Shell won the Arctic drilling go-ahead it wanted from the Obama administration on Wednesday — but with conditions that again delayed the oil giant’s risky, multibillion-dollar push to tap the vast resources off the Alaskan coast.
The decision is the latest sign that despite his efforts to combat climate change, President Barack Obama will allow the oil and gas industry to explore in new regions, but only under strict regulations on that activity.
The Interior Department’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement approved two drilling permits for Shell but said the company must stop before it reaches the oil reservoir beneath the Chukchi Sea until a damaged icebreaker that contained safety equipment returns from repairs in Portland, Ore.
Shell will have to reapply for permits to extend its exploratory wells into the oil zones once that icebreaker is fixed, a hurdle that could again delay it from reaching the potentially rich resources in the Arctic during the short summer drilling season there.
“Without question, activities conducted offshore Alaska must be held to the highest safety, environmental protection, and emergency response standards,” BSEE Director Brian Salerno said in a statement on the limited approvals, which also prohibit Shell from drilling its two planned wells at the same time due to wildlife-protection guidelines.
Arctic drilling advocate Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said it was “critical that the United States set the standard for responsible development in the Arctic. America will only truly assume that role when it actively engages in developing its resources.”
Shell spokeswoman Kelly op de Weegh said by email that “this is an important approval today, and we look forward to advancing exploration in the weeks ahead.”
The company expects its icebreaker to be repaired and on site in time to proceed with further drilling, she added. “We remain committed to operating in a safe, environmentally responsible manner and look forward to evaluating what could potentially become a national energy resource base.”
Earlier this year, the administration angered environmental groups by opening the door in the coming years to oil exploration in the waters off the southeast coast of the U.S., even as it put off limits some sensitive areas around Alaska.
Interior’s partial green light to Shell kept alive the hopes of environmentalists and liberal Democrats who have fiercely battled the company over Arctic land they want to see off-limits to the oil industry, fearing devastating impacts on climate change and protected species. But green activists were hardly celebrating in wake of the announcement, and they vowed to keep pushing the administration for a total halt to Shell’s operations.
“It is not too late for President Obama to finally come to terms with the disaster in the Arctic that could happen on his watch,” Greenpeace senior research specialist Tim Donaghy said.
Alaska Wilderness League Executive Director Cindy Shogan said in a statement that “this is only the beginning” of the campaign that has sent scores of “kayaktivists” into Pacific Northwest harbors to protest the drilling effort — and put mounting pressure on Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton to oppose Arctic development.
“Whether or not Shell is successful in drilling this season, the fight is hardly over,” she said.
Green activists view Arctic drilling as a symbolic milestone in the battle for federal action against global warming, and they say that oil companies are ill-prepared for the harsh conditions that could trigger a huge spill in a region with few maritime resources to clean it up.
While Obama has gone further than any president to limit greenhouse gas emissions, most famously through EPA’s power-plant regulations, environmentalists want him put the Arctic off-limits.
In addition to delaying Shell from reaching oil beneath the Chukchi, the administration’s approvals block the company from simultaneously drilling two wells it has planned for the hydrocarbon-rich Burger Prospect off the Alaskan coast. That constraint stems from wildlife-protection rules highlighted by environmentalists that set a 15-mile minimum buffer between wells that was established to protect walrus habitats.
BSEE plans to have a full-time inspection presence on board Shell’s two rigs, the Noble Discoverer and the Transocean Polar Pioneer, as the company begins drilling in shallow waters about 70 miles northwest of Wainwright, Alaska.
Shell’s quest to tap the Arctic has run into repeated troubles in recent years. The company postponed drilling last year amid a legal battle over data used to estimate the amount of recoverable oil in its 2008 leases and held off on work in 2013 as Interior conducted a review of its disastrous 2012 season.
That 2012 drilling campaign also began with an administration approval of limited drilling in the Chukchi, due to a containment dome damaged during testing, and ended with the New Year’s Eve grounding of one of its massive rigs.
“We saw in 2012 that Shell made a lot of mistakes, even with limitations on their permits,” Rebecca Noblin, Alaska director for the green group Center for Biological Diversity, said in an interview. “Just having the company there is a big risk to the environment.”
-
Obama Admin Clears Shell To Begin Drilling
Jul 22, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Phil Taylor
The Obama administration today gave Royal Dutch Shell PLC the green light to begin drilling for oil in the Arctic Ocean, but barred the company from penetrating oil-bearing rock until a key ice-breaking ship is repaired and arrives at the drill site.
The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement issued two conditional drilling permits allowing the company to drill the top sections of two wells in shallow Chukchi Sea waters about 70 miles from the Alaska coast.
The move -- which allows Shell to resume drilling in the Arctic for the first time in three years -- is a sign of the administration's continued commitment to exploring the frontier oil-rich region over the strong objections of its green allies.
"As Shell conducts exploratory activities, we will be monitoring their work around the clock to ensure the utmost safety and environmental stewardship," said BSEE Director Brian Salerno.
Shell's icebreaker, the Fennica, is traveling to Portland, Ore., to repair a gash in its hull that occurred July 3. The vessel is carrying Shell's capping stack, a key piece of equipment Shell is required to have on hand to stanch any unexpected oil spills.
Shell spokesman Curtis Smith this morning said the vessel should be repaired and returned to the Arctic arena by the time the company is ready to drill down to oil-bearing depths. The company will drill the two wells sequentially, rather than its original plan to drill simultaneously, Smith said, in order to comply with a Fish and Wildlife Service rule requiring drilling activities to be spaced at least 15 miles apart to protect walruses.
"The ice conditions are very favorable," Smith added. "If that continues to be the case, we will have a significant buffer zone in the days ahead."
Full drilling rights, if granted, would offer Shell its first opportunity in decades to tap oil in an area believed to contain 15 billion barrels of crude.
-
Natural Gas Exports Addressed in Senate Energy Bill
Jul 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Broad energy legislation crafted by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee would expedite liquefied natural gas exports but doesn't contain a measure repealing the 40-year-old ban on crude oil exports, according to legislative text of the bill made public July 22.
The bill, the Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2015, would require the Energy Department to expedite its decision process for application to export LNG and repeals a section of law that requires federal buildings to phase out fossil fuels by 2030, according to a bill summary.
Specifically, the 357-page legislation would require the Energy Department to issue a final decision on applications to export LNG within 45 days after projects have won approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
The language is similar to legislation (S. 33) by Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) that was supported by groups representing companies such as Range Resources Corp., while opposed by industrial consumers of natural gas such as Dow Chemical Co. (20 DEN A-19, 1/30/15).
The Senate Energy Committee has plans to hold markups on the bill July 28 and July 30, the committee said in a statement.
The bill also would extend the Energy Department's Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) loan program to boats, authorizes new funding for the nascent marine and hydrokinetic power industry and makes changes to FERC's hydropower licensing process, the summary said.
Other provisions in the bill would give FERC and the DOE more authority to protect the grid from cybersecurity threats and reasserts that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve should only be used in emergencies.
Senate legislation to fund highways and other transportation programs would be partially funded by a $9 billion sale of crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the latest attempt by Congress to use the emergency stockpile as a funding mechanism (140 DEN A-12, 7/22/15)
Murkowski Pursuing Other Priorities
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the committee's chairman, “continues to pursue her other priorities, including revenue sharing and ending the oil export ban, but they are not in the bill released today,” Robert Dillon, a spokesman for Murkowski and other committee Republicans, told Bloomberg BNA.
The legislation, which is the product of weeks of bipartisan negotiations between Murkowski and her Democratic counterpart on the committee, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), and their staffs “represents the universe of where there is bipartisan agreement,” Dillon said.
-
House Bill Stokes Debate Over Climate, Crude Exports
Jul 23, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Daniel Bush
Climate change policy could become a sticking point for House Democrats in negotiations over a broad energy package that's headed to the House floor later this year.
Lawmakers on the House Energy and Commerce Committee insist they're building bipartisan support for the legislation, starting with yesterday's approval of a stripped-down bill that left out provisions on crude oil exports and other controversial policy riders (Greenwire, July 22).
"This isn't just a message bill," Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.) said at the Energy and Power Subcommittee markup yesterday, where the legislation easily advanced to the full committee less than 48 hours after it was introduced Monday night.
But with the ink barely dry on the 95-page bill, Democrats are already raising concerns that it doesn't include policies to address the impacts of climate change, a top priority for the party and Obama administration.
"Maybe, just maybe, there is some common ground on renewable energy and energy efficiency," said Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, in a brief interview.
"But I don't sense from my Republican colleagues that they're willing to tackle the changing climate" in negotiations over the energy package, she said.
Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas), another member of the energy panel, put it more bluntly. "I don't expect the Republicans to help on climate," he said.
Speaking after the markup, subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) said the four-part bill, which has titles on modernizing the electrical grid and promoting efficiency, was never intended to focus explicitly on climate change.
"This is about energy policies that take into consideration the changing energy situation in America," Whitfield told E&E Daily. "We've got climate change policies all over the place. So it's not a priority for us, but we look forward to continuing discussing that with [Democrats]."
Yet Democrats and their allies in the environmental movement have seized on the bill to highlight Republican opposition to renewable energy development and other policies and regulations, like U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, designed to curb carbon emissions.
"The American people are demanding clean energy and climate action, and yet there are no steps taken to cut dangerous carbon pollution or meaningfully increase energy efficiency in this bill," Sierra Club Legislative Director Melinda Pierce said in a statement.
Pierce added, "As this bill progresses, the Energy and Commerce Committee must get serious about growing the clean energy economy and tackling the climate crisis."
Democrats echoed the message at the markup yesterday.
"The bill virtually ignores the relationship between energy and climate," Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) said.
Industry groups are lining up quickly on the other side of the debate, signaling that the energy package could get swept up in a broader political fight over climate and energy policies.
Louis Finkel, executive vice president of the American Petroleum Institute, urged the Energy and Commerce Committee to include an amendment lifting the 1970s-era ban on crude oil exports, one of several divisive amendments that could be attached to the bill down the line.
"We're disappointed that the first draft of this bill doesn't yet include important bipartisan proposals to lift outdated restrictions on exports, expand access to domestic resources, and reform bureaucratic hurdles that stand in the way of infrastructure investments," Finkel said in a statement.
-
Congress Taps The Oil Piggy Bank
Jul 22, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode and Elana Schor
For four decades, the U.S. has held onto its Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a hedge against disaster or war — but now Republicans in Congress want to sell off some of its 700 million barrels to pay for unrelated projects.
The Senate’s proposed highway bill calls for unloading 101 million barrels to raise $9 billion for roadwork. Two weeks ago, the House voted to sell 64 million barrels over eight years to help pay for an overhaul of the federal drug-approval process.
It’s yet another sign of how much the U.S. energy boom has eased the fears of scarcity that inspired the reserve’s creation during the oil-shock 1970s. Until now, the government has approved large sales from the reserve only three times, including during the first Gulf War and after the fuel price spikes that followed Hurricane Katrina.
The new trend has raised objections from the Obama administration and alarmed some lawmakers — among them, Senate energy Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who joined Democrats on Tuesday in voting to block the highway bill after she objected to selling oil to pay for it. That measure later cleared a procedural hurdle Wednesday evening.
“A shortsighted sale that undermines our emergency preparedness could have real and lasting impacts on our security,” Murkowski warned.
Another oil-patch Republican, Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, expressed the same misgivings. “We need to look at the SPR, but it shouldn’t be the pay-for of choice for everything that comes down the pike,” the former House energy chairman said.
But Congress is scrambling for money, and with tax hikes off the table, the oil reserve is too big a piggy bank for lawmakers to pass up.
“It’s just difficult to fund things,” said Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), a senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, who believes that booming domestic production should offset concerns over tapping into the reserve. “I don’t begrudge people trying to look under every cushion for any nickel and dime they can find to move public policy.”
Supporters of the sales include Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has proposed using the proceeds to help pay for the six-year highway and transit bill, and House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), whose panel approved selling oil to raise $5.2 billion for a streamlined Food and Drug Administration approval process. Upton notes that oil supplies held in the reserve and private U.S. storage facilities “far exceed” the 90-day supply that the International Energy Agency says developed countries should hold.
Meanwhile, Upton saw a need for his panel to claim a share of the oil revenue. The reserve has been “looked at as prey by other committees in the last couple of weeks,” he told POLITICO in May. “And we said, ‘No, it’s ours.’”
Still, it’s an about-face for Upton, who had bashed Obama for opening the reserve’s taps in 2011 to calm the energy markets during the Libyan turmoil that toppled Moammar Gadhafi. Republicans at the time accused the president of seeking to lower the price of gasoline for domestic political reasons, and Upton likened the 30-million-barrel sale to “a couple pawning their wedding rings for cash.”
Tapping the reserve allows the Republican-controlled Congress to stick to its pay-as-you-go budgeting rule — even though the measure in the transportation bill assumes the oil sales would reap $90 a barrel, nearly double the current U.S. price.
Independent budget experts say Congress is setting a worrisome precedent by attempting to use the reserve to cover shortfalls.
“Decisions about whether or not to sell oil from the SPR should be based on our assessment of the value of SPR in protecting the country from shortages in the availability of oil and should not be based on the desire to offset some unrelated addition to spending,” said Douglas Elmendorf, who left the Congressional Budget Office in March after six years as director.
But with fracking ushering in a new domestic oil boom that has lifted the U.S. production to its highest level since the 1980s, it is easier for many Republicans to justify selling off some of the SPR.
Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), who chairs an energy subcommittee with jurisdiction over the reserve, acknowledged the shortage of funding sources could justify looking to the reserve, in the right circumstances. As for the volume of oil the Senate would sell to pay for highway and transit projects, Whitfield said, that is “something I don’t know that we’ve really thought through adequately at this point.”
Murkowski joined 10 other Republicans on Tuesday in filibustering the six-year highway and transit bill that would tap the oil reserve, and the Alaskan sounded ready to fight to keep her party from using the fuel stockpile to pay for a growing array of unrelated spending proposals.
The Obama administration isn’t dead-set against using the oil reserve to help pay for a long-term transportation bill, but Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz has resisted the idea. White House spokesman Josh Earnest on Monday stopped short of opposing the sale of stockpiled oil as an alternate way to pay for transportation projects.
“Well, at the risk of unintentionally suggesting to some people who are closely watching the energy markets that this may be telegraphing a decision about a sale, I don’t have a specific comment on that,” Earnest told reporters on Monday.
Moniz has been far more outspoken, however, about his distaste for selling oil from the reserve. His department’s massive Quadrennial Energy Review has projected that it would cost upwards of $1.5 billion to maintain and modernize the reserve, which keeps its oil in artificial underground salt domes that are cheaper than above-ground storage.
Moniz told POLITICO on Wednesday that “my position on the SPR and it being dedicated to energy security purposes is very well known and remains the case.”
Murkowski said she and Moniz “were completing one another’s sentences” in a Friday conversation about the reserve, calling for the proceeds from any sale to go toward upgrades and upkeep.
David Goldwyn, the State Department’s international energy envoy under Hillary Clinton, joined energy analyst Robert McNally in arguing that sales from the reserve are “misguided” given the ongoing potential for global oil supply disruptions driven by unrest in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.
Among the concerns of those opposed to selling SPR oil is that profits could be slim, particularly since the U.S. crude benchmark traded around $50 a barrel on Tuesday, its lowest level in three months. The Senate highway bill projects an average of $89 per barrel earned from its stockpiled oil sales, which would run for eight years starting in fiscal 2018.
“So who are they gonna sell it to that they’re getting an additional $30 a barrel?” Murkowski asked. “What are they thinking?”
Moniz pointed out that the highway bill’s sales were “extremely backloaded” to later years, when the Energy Information Administration projects crude prices would eventually rise to “not far from $90.” But EIA forecasts have proved unreliable in the past, and the oil-price estimate is rosier than NYMEX futures markets, which includes a range of estimates but overall show that market participants currently don’t expect a price above $65 per barrel before the end of the decade.
-
County Blocks Survey for Pipeline Project
Jul 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas
Mercer County in New Jersey has announced it will ban the survey of county land for a 109-mile gas pipeline project unless the project receives approval from the federal government.
In a statement on the county's website, Mercer County Executive Brian M. Hughes said the PennEast Pipeline Project would no longer be given access to perform soil borings on county-owned land on Baldpate Mountain because of potential harm to the environment.
“Unless this project receives federal approval, the county will no longer permit any soil borings to occur on Baldpate Mountain,” the statement said.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission announced in January that it intended to create an environmental impact statement on the project, which, if approved, would begin construction in the spring of 2017 and would serve Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
The proposed pipeline is a project of PennEast Pipeline Co. LLC, a partnership of six companies: AGL Resources, New Jersey Resources Pipeline Co., Public Service Electric and Gas Co. Power LLC, South Jersey Industries, Spectra Energy Partners and UGI Energy Services.
-
Oklahoma Expands Areas of Seismic Well Scrutiny
Jul 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Stinson
An Oklahoma agency plans to place more oil and gas wastewater disposal wells under scrutiny for potential linkages to seismic activity.
The Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) announced July 17 that its Oil and Gas Conservation Division (OGCD) will place more than 200 additional oil and natural gas wastewater disposal wells under such scrutiny.
However, Oklahoma's Sierra Club president told Bloomberg BNA that while the activity is welcome, it is “not nearly enough.”
Funded by a $200,000 grant from the Oklahoma Secretary of Energy and Environment at the direction of Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R), the OCC's Oil and Gas Conservation Division “is taking action on more oil and gas wastewater disposal wells in response to induced seismicity concerns.”
In March, the state's Oil and Gas Conservation Division issued a directive covering more than 300 disposal wells that inject into the state's Arbuckle formation, informing disposal well operators conducting operations in “areas of interest” that they had 30 days to prove that their wells aren't releasing wastewater below the state's deepest geologic formation(60 DEN A-13, 3/30/15).
The updated commission directive applies to 211 more disposal wells, giving operators until Aug. 14 to prove they are not injecting below the Arbuckle, according to a July 17 statement issued by the OCC.
Sierra Club Raises Concerns
Oklahoma Sierra Club Director Johnson Bridgwater said the organization is “certainly glad” to see the state's “area of interest” to expand to 21 counties, but “we still feel not nearly enough is being done to actually reverse the earthquake situation.”
“In fact, at this point more earthquakes are occurring within Oklahoma than ever before,” Johnson said in a July 22 e-mail.
The state is projected to experience 941 earthquakes of magnitude 3.0 or greater in 2015—up from 2014 figures of 584, according to April data released by the U.S. Geological Survey.
“Expanding the Area of Interest is the right thing to do at this point,” said Secretary of Energy and Environment Michael Teague in a statement from his office provided to Bloomberg BNA July 22.
Chad Warmington, president of the Oklahoma Oil & Gas Association, praised the Commission's latest effort to address the state's earthquakes, adding that “early results” from the OCC's actions “are encouraging.”
“We believe this new directive will have a positive impact as well,” Warmington said in a July 17 statement.
“Though it's too soon to know the results of the first directive, seismologists agree that injection into or in communication with the basement poses a high risk for seismicity, so this expansion makes sense,” Teague said.
Follows Study on Seismic Activity
A Stanford University study released in June linked Oklahoma's rise in seismicity to oil and gas drilling, concluding that large volumes of highly saline water injected into the Arbuckle formation have led to rising pore pressure, which can penetrate already stressed basement faults and trigger earthquakes (118 DEN A-9, 6/19/15).
Johnson expressed concern about recent admissions by the OCC that many of the new earthquakes “are not fitting their basic assumptive model,” pointing to the commission's July 17 statement in which it said that some recent earthquakes “are not conforming to their expected patterns.”
“[W]e have had recent seismicity in some areas that don't have any of the high-volume, deep disposal wells considered of highest potential risk, most notably in the northern Oklahoma county and southern Logan county area,” OGCD Director Tim Baker said in a release.
“[W]e see this as strong evidence to support a moratorium on continuing injection well operations until they have fully analyzed the situation,” Johnson said, referring to the earthquakes occurring outside of expected patterns.
“They are putting a band aid on a broken limb, and the earthquakes are not only NOT slowing, they are increasing in both size and frequency,” he said.
Council to Look at Next Steps
Teague said the state's Coordinating Council on Seismic Activity will continue to evaluate next steps, including additional OCC directives, supporting Oklahoma Geological Survey efforts to map the Arbuckle formation and the development of a system to better analyze and manage the water volume data that operators are submitting to the Oklahoma Corporation Commission.
“The Coordinating Council recently discussed the possibility of reducing injection volumes in the near future, as recommended by recent scientific studies, as a potential next step,” Teague said.
The OGCD's Baker said that the directive issued in March “allowed some of the disposal wells to continue to operate if they reduced volume by 50 percent.”
“Those operators are now being told they must reduce their depth if they are currently below the Arbuckle,” he said.
-
EDF Action Ad Campaign Targets Oil Industry
Jul 22, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Peterka
The Environmental Defense Fund's advocacy arm today launched a digital ad campaign aimed at the oil industry's lobbying push on the national ozone standard.
EDF Action's ads compare the American Petroleum Institute to Big Tobacco, accusing the oil industry trade group of distorting the science about ozone pollution. Ozone is a key component of smog and has been linked to public health effects such as reduced lung function.
"Decades ago, Big Tobacco spent millions trying to convince Americans that smoking was nothing to worry about," Elizabeth Thompson, president of EDF Action, said in a statement. "Now we're seeing a massive effort by API to downplay the dangers of smog."
The first phase of EDF Action's multiweek campaign is targeted at Washington, D.C., but spokesman Keith Gaby said the group would likely expand it to beyond the Beltway.
The campaign comes as U.S. EPA is working toward an Oct. 1 court-ordered deadline to finalize a proposal to tighten the national ozone standard from 75 parts per billion to between 65 and 70 ppb.
API earlier this year launched what it called a "major" advertising campaign against the proposal, touting past progress in cleaning up air quality and arguing that EPA should retain the 75-ppb standard (E&ENews PM, May 14). API did not respond to a request for comment on EDF Action's ads before publication time.
EDF and other environmental groups are calling on EPA to set a new standard no higher than 60 ppb, pointing to studies that have found negative health effects at ozone concentrations above that level.
-
Oil, Gas VOC Control Guidelines Under Review
Jul 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
A set of draft guidelines for controlling emissions of ozone precursors from oil and gas operations in nonattainment areas is under review by the White House Office of Management and Budget, according to the OMB's website.
The Environmental Protection Agency sent the control techniques guidelines (RIN 2060-ZA22), which are intended for use by states to meet volatile organic compound control requirements in certain ozone nonattainment areas, to the OMB for interagency review on July 21. Those volatile organic compound requirements apply to areas classified as being in moderate or above nonattainment and in states throughout the ozone transport region, a group of states in the Northeast U.S. that are required to install a certain level of controls for ozone precursors, even in areas that meet national ambient air quality standards for ozone.
The oil and gas industry is the largest industrial source of emissions of volatile organic compounds, a class of air pollutants that contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone, according to the EPA.
The EPA told Bloomberg BNA in a July 22 e-mail that the agency intends to release the draft guidelines at the same time the agency proposes new source performance standards covering methane and volatile organic compound emissions from the oil and natural gas industry. Those standards (RIN 2060-AS30), which are part of President Barack Obama's strategy for reducing methane emissions, have been under the OMB review since June 23 and are expected to be released sometime in August (122 DEN A-8, 6/25/15).
While the OMB website lists the draft guidelines as a proposed rule, the EPA said that the control techniques guidelines technically won't be classified as a proposed regulation when they are released. However, the agency still plants to put the draft guidelines out for public comment, it said.
-
House Subcommittee Approves Energy Bill
Jul 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
A slimmed down House energy bill easily passed a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee July 22, but committee leaders said they expect to add more substantive provisions that will be contested this fall.
The bill, approved by the Energy and Power Subcommittee on a voice vote and without amendment, clears the way for consideration by the full committee, but Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) said the committee probably wouldn't consider the bill until September.
The timing means the legislation won't come to the House floor for a vote this month, as House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) had said he expected.
The delay will give Whitfield, chairman of the subcommittee, and Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), chairman of the full committee, more time to negotiate with their Democratic counterparts on the committee over thorny issues that had been removed in the latest draft.
Among the issues Whitfield and Upton said may return to the bill is a provision expediting the Energy Department's consideration of applications to export liquefied natural gas supported by organizations representing natural gas producers such as Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. and Range Resources Corp.
Others provisions that could return to the bill, Upton said, include language that would eliminate the requirement for presidential permits for cross-border energy projects such as pipelines and transmission projects, expedite the licensing process for hydroelectricity projects and repeal a federal requirement that all new and significantly renovated federal buildings phase out the use of fossil energy sources by 2030.
“I'm hopeful we can bring this all together in a more comprehensive way in September,” Whitfield added.
Crude Oil Exports?
Upton also hinted legislation to repeal the 40-year-old ban on crude oil exports may be on the table as well, noting that it is among issues committee members “want to see addressed.”
But Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), author of House legislation (H.R. 702) that would repeal the ban, said during the markup that committee leaders “counseled against putting it in this package, and I agree with that.”
Sean Brown, a Barton spokesman, told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail that “we haven't given up hope that it could be included later.”
A committee aide said Barton was referring to the package that was considered by the subcommittee. “Everything is on the table at full [committee],” the aide said.
The ban, which was put in place in the wake of the Arab oil embargo in the 1970s, is opposed by major oil producers such as ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP and Shell, while supported by a coalition of independent refiners comprising Alon USA, PBF Energy Inc, Philadelphia Energy Solutions and Delta Air Lines’ Monroe Energy LLC.
Would Streamline Pipeline Siting
The draft version of the bill approved by the committee, unveiled July 20 after weeks of negotiations between minority and majority staffers, includes measures that would streamline the federal siting process for interstate natural gas pipelines and allow the Energy Department to take certain steps during “grid security emergencies.”
It also includes compromise language that would delay, but not block, Energy Department residential furnace energy efficiency standards (RIN 1904-AD20) estimated to cost $11.6 billion and opposed by natural gas distributors (see related story).
While Republicans expressed optimism they would be able to move forward with what could be the first major energy policy update since 2007, committee Democrats, such as Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), took a more cautious tone.
“Much work remains,” said Rush, the top Democrat on the Energy and Power Subcommittee, “and a final product is far from assured.”
-
Can Bipartisan Truce Hold On Energy Bills?
Jul 22, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode
House and Senate committee leaders moved ahead Wednesday with proposals that would represent the broadest update to energy law in nearly a decade.
The bills unveiled this week emerged after months of intense public hearings and delicate backroom deal-making.
That was the easy part.
Now, lawmakers on both sides of the Capitol will have to decide whether they can set aside some of the most controversial fights of the Obama era — over hot-button controversies such as energy exports, the Keystone XL pipeline and tough climate change regulations — in order to find consensus on narrower policy overhauls that experts say are long overdue.
That will take a level of restraint rarely seen in recent years on Capitol Hill, where comprehensive energy legislation has not been enacted since 2007.
“I’m not saying they can’t get a bill done but an energy bill is a big thing to do,” said Bud Albright, who has served as Under Secretary of Energy for George W. Bush and as the GOP staff director for the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
The best precedent for what Congress is trying to accomplish with the new energy bill came a decade ago, when the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was enacted. At the time, the question of whether to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling symbolized the broader partisan divide over the future of energy policy. But that year’s energy bill did not propose opening ANWR, and it went on to pass with broad bipartisan support.
“I left a lot of stuff on the table,” said Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), who chaired the House Energy and Commerce Committee pushed for ANWR drilling to be included in the 2005 bill.
Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), who now chairs the energy panel, is similarly willing to make concessions, and he is asking his Democratic counterparts to do the same. The four-part bill Upton and Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) drew up unanimously cleared a subcommittee markup on Tuesday, and lawmakers on both sides expressed optimism over negotiations expected to stretch through the August recess.
“This really was a déjà vu moment,” Barton said after the markup. “So this is a good thing today and it will work. … There’s enough good will on both sides.”
Energy and Commerce ranking member Frank Pallone said he and Upton have agreed new provisions must be acceptable to lawmakers on both sides of the aisle before they could be added to the bill in committee.
Whitfield acknowledged it would be difficult for such an agreement to hold.“We are motivated to do that but we do have some deep philosophical differences,” he told reporters.
The proposals so far are hewing to areas of widespread agreement, but lawmakers from both parties have floated ideas they would like to see included before the process is done. For example, in the House some Republicans are angling to lift the ban on crude oil exports, and Democrats have called for the bill to provide additional funding for low-income communities.
The oil industry was also left wanting more.
“We’re disappointed that the first draft of this bill doesn’t yet include important bipartisan proposals to lift outdated restrictions on exports, expand access to domestic resources, and reform bureaucratic hurdles that stand in the way of infrastructure investments and trade with our North American neighbors,” Louis Finkel, executive vice president of the American Petroleum Institute, said Wednesday about the House bill.
Meanwhile, Senate energy leaders Wednesday unveiled their own bipartisan five-section energy bill that also demonstrated a commitment to compromise. The bill would not open ANWR or lift the crude export ban, despite those being two of the top legislative priorities for Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).
ENR plans to mark up the bill next Tuesday and Thursday, and it may add another session in the first week of August.
“By focusing on areas where agreement was possible, we have assembled a robust bill with priorities from many senators that will promote our economic growth, national security, and global competitiveness,” Murkowski said in a joint press release with Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) the panel’s top Democrat.
Still, the Murkowski-Cantwell bill is not free of potential thorny ground.
The measure includes a provision to expedite LNG export permits, which most environmental groups oppose. And it takes aim at Republicans on both sides of the Capitol who have attempted to sell off oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to pay for unrelated spending, such as for highways and the Food and Drug Administration, by reaffirming that proceeds of any sales should only be used for modernizing and otherwise improving the reserve.
Overall it aims for consensus. Many efficiency provisions come from a popular bill authored by Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) that stalled last Congress over unrelated fights over amendments and floor procedure. And the bill includes provisions aimed at reforming DOE’s loan guarantee program, modernizing the electric grid, codifying DOE’s role in cybersecurity and bolstering FERC’s role in hydropower permitting. Conservation measures included in the bill include permanently reauthorizing the popular Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Murkowski and Cantwell aides most closely involved in crafting the bill say they share a desire to see it clear the Senate, and several of them are veterans of the 2005 energy bill negotiations.
“So that’s an interesting dynamic right there,” said Frank Macchiarola, a Republican counsel on the Senate panel during the 2005 talks and now an executive vice president at America’s Natural Gas Alliance. “That’s a positive for the committee being able to get something done.”
-
Senate Energy Leaders Release Bipartisan Bill
Jul 22, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darren Goode
Senate Energy and Natural Resources leaders today unveiled bipartisan energy legislation that would aim to speed up liquefied natural gas exports, modernize the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and overhaul federal energy efficiency standards, among other initiatives.
The panel will take up the five-part bill from Chairman Lisa Murkowski and ranking member Maria Cantwell next Tuesday and Thursday, with additional markups possible during the first week of August, Murkowski spokesman Robert Dillon said. The committee released a one-page overview, and more detailed summary and full text of the bill.
The bill would require the Department of Energy to decide on LNG export permits within 45 days of completed environmental reviews from FERC or the Maritime Administration. It also aims to modernize the SPR, in part by requiring DOE to conduct a “strategic review” of the reserve and make recommendations, and it reaffirms that proceeds of any sales from the emergency stockpile should only be used for improving the reserve.
Several efficiency provisions are drawn from an earlier bipartisan efficiency bill from Sens. Rob Portman and Jeanne Shaheen. The Murkowski-Cantwell measure also would expand on existing DOE reforms of the loan guarantee program; address electricity grid modernization and cybersecurity; permanently reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund; and boosts hydropower permits by putting FERC in the lead.
Murkowski and Cantwell aides considered 114 bills for inclusion in the five sections — efficiency, infrastructure, supply, accountability and conservation reauthorization.
-
Senate Bill Arrives; Markups On Tap Next Week
Jul 22, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire Alert
By Geof Koss and Hannah Northey
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee this afternoon will introduce its long-awaited bipartisan energy package, with two markups slated to kick off next week.
The "Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2015" marks the first aisle-crossing effort in years to break through a legislative stalemate on energy policy. It has a heavy emphasis on modernizing energy infrastructure, encouraging efficiency, and increasing supplies of renewables and traditional energy sources, while also looking to boost the security of the electric grid from cyberattacks.
The measure also addresses the "resources" component of the panel's jurisdiction by permanently reauthorizing the Land and Water Conservation Fund and establishing a National Park Maintenance and Revitalization Fund.
"There's a lot in the bill," a GOP aide told reporters this afternoon of the more than 350-page bill.
As expected, the legislation heavily borrows from the efficiency bill sponsored by Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.). The committee's bill would repeal a contentious provision from a 2007 energy law that requires new or renovated federal buildings to phase out fossil fuel energy by 2030, according to a section-by-section summary.
The efficiency title includes numerous provisions to boost energy savings across the government, including the codification of an executive order that requires federal agencies to reduce energy intensity in buildings by 2.5 percent over 10 years.
The infrastructure title aims to boost the security of the grid from cyberattacks, notably by providing the Energy Department with first-time emergency authority to protect the bulk-power system from cybersecurity threats. The bill also would codify DOE as the "sector-specific agency" for cybersecurity for the energy sector.
The bill also would take steps to modernize the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, while prescribing what aides call "narrow" criteria for "acceptable uses" of oil sales from the reserves, which have to be related to energy security.
Under the bill, DOE would be required to make final decisions on natural gas export applications within 45 days of the completion of National Environmental Policy Act reviews by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or Maritime Administration.
The "supply" title includes extensive provisions for expediting the permitting process for hydropower, a favored energy source for Energy Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.).
Geothermal, marine hydrokinetic and biomass also would get a boost in the supply title, which also would reauthorize research programs on methane hydrates. When it comes to coal, the bill has a section promoting DOE research and development associated with trapping and storing fossil fuel power plant carbon emissions.
The legislation includes another long-standing Murkowski priority -- securing the supply and research associated with minerals necessary for energy development and economic growth, including rare earth elements. Provisions mirror those in her S. 883.
The accountability title would require applicants to DOE's loan guarantee program to pay at least one-quarter of the credit subsidy fee that the administration assigns to cover the financial risks to taxpayers.
GOP aides said markups on the measure are planned for Tuesday and July 30, with the possibility of additional sessions during the first week of August if needed.
-
Don't Renege On Federal Energy Efficiency Commitments
Jul 22, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Elizabeth Chu Richter
Special interests are once again pushing proposals that would stifle any progress being made to reduce fossil fuel use in new and renovated federal buildings. During a mark-up of energy efficiency legislation that takes place tomorrow, the oil and gas lobby may seek to prevent the Department of Energy from implementing a provision from the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 known as Section 433, which requires that federal buildings be designed to reduce their energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Stakeholders from varying industries have been working with DOE to implement this rule in a way that is smart, efficient, and effective.
According to the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration, the building sector accounts for 39 percent of total U.S. energy consumption, more than both the transportation and industry sectors. The EIA found that buildings are responsible for 71 percent of U.S. electricity consumption; they alone account for almost 10 percent of carbon dioxide emissions worldwide. Requiring significant energy reduction targets in new and majorly renovated federal buildings demonstrates to the private sector that the federal government is leading by example. It is helping spur the development of new materials, construction techniques, and technologies to make buildings more energy efficient. And it is showing that significant energy reductions are both practical and cost-effective.
The special interests continue to argue that these requirements are not achievable. The facts tell a different story. Building professionals are already succeeding in making federal facilities meet sustainability targets, including the retrofit of the Wayne N. Aspinall Federal Building in Grand Junction, Colo., which will be the federal government’s first site net-zero energy building on the National Register of Historic Places. The result is better energy performance for federal agencies and lower overall costs for taxpayers. More importantly, private sector owners are increasingly adopting these technologies and strategies for their buildings.
Despite these facts, opponents of the provision continue to claim that Section 433 is actually bad for our energy policy and want to throw it away. Such a move would dramatically harm the federal government’s ability to design and build facilities that use less energy, save taxpayers money, and protect the environment. That’s why not only architects, but more than 300 other groups oppose efforts to weaken these energy-saving policies. -
Republicans Urge Delay in Clean Power Plan Start
Jul 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
States should not be required to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan until all legal challenges to the rule are resolved, congressional Republicans said.
Given the “unprecedented nature of the rule and its legal vulnerabilities,” the EPA's rule, which would set carbon dioxide emissions limits on existing power plants, should not go into effect until it can be reviewed by the courts, 18 House and Senate Republicans said in a July 22 letter to Howard Shelanski, administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the White House Office of Management and Budget.
“As proposed, the rule is not tailored to minimize the burdens on state and local governmental entities or to avoid unreasonable regulatory costs,” the Republicans said. “To the contrary, states and affected entities would be required to make decisions to shut down existing facilities, begin developing new infrastructure and make other potentially expensive and irreversible decisions even if the rule is ultimately struck down or modified.”
The Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33), expected in August, is undergoing interagency review at the Office of Management and Budget (106 DEN A-4, 6/3/15).
The Clean Power Plan, issued under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, would establish unique carbon dioxide emissions rates for the power sector in each state. The EPA rule would be implemented by states, which would determine how best to achieve the emissions targets using four “building blocks” to achieve reductions: heat rate improvements at power plants, shifting dispatch from coal to natural gas, investment in renewable or nuclear generation and energy efficiency programs.
Republicans Seek to Delay, Kill Rule
Among the letter's signatories were Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) and Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), who have sponsored bills that would delay or eliminate the Clean Power Plan.
The House on June 24 passed Whitfield's Ratepayer Protection Act (H.R. 2042), which would allow states to opt out of compliance with the Clean Power Plan. The White House has threatened to veto the bill. Capito's bill, the Affordable Reliable Electricity Now (ARENA) Act (S. 1324), would immediately kill off the regulation and set strict requirements for any future rules. Capito has said she hopes her bill will be heard by the full Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing before Congress's August recess (137 DEN A-18, 7/17/15).
The letter was also signed by Sens. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee; Roy Blunt (R-Mo.); John Cornyn (R-Texas); Deb Fischer (R-Neb.); Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska); Mike Rounds (R-S.D.); and David Vitter (R-La.), and by Reps. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee; Morgan Griffith (R-Va.); Robert Latta (R-Ohio); Gregg Harper (R-Miss.); David McKinley (R-W.Va.); Pete Olson (R-Texas); Joseph Pitts (R-Pa.); Steve Scalise (R-La.); and John Shimkus (R-Ill.).
-
Oklahoma Appeals Clean Power Plan Lawsuit
Jul 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Oklahoma filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit following a district court's dismissal of its challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed carbon dioxide standards for power plants (Pruitt v. McCarthy, 10th Cir., No. 15-5066, 7/21/15).
The appeal, filed July 21 by Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, came after Judge Claire Eagan of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma dismissed the state's lawsuit due to lack of jurisdiction (Oklahoma v. McCarthy, N.D. Okla., No. 4:15-cv-00369, 7/15/15; 138 DEN A-1, 7/20/15).
Pruitt had vowed to “use all available avenues to fight this unlawful rule” when the state's District Court challenge was dismissed.
Oklahoma had argued that the EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33), which would regulate carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants, exceeds the agency's Clean Air Act authority. The state said Section 111(d) of the act bars the agency from regulating industrial sources under that section that already are subject to hazardous air pollutant emissions standards under Section 112, as are power plants.
The state had sought an injunction barring the EPA from issuing the carbon dioxide standards.
D.C. Circuit as Recommended Venue
In a July 17 order dismissing Oklahoma's lawsuit, Eagan said the kinds of statutory interpretation questions presented by Oklahoma would be better addressed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which already has dismissed challenges to the proposed rule as premature.
Oklahoma had joined two other challenges to the proposed Clean Power Plan, which is expected to be finalized in August, in the D.C. Circuit, but both were dismissed as untimely (In re: Murray Energy Corp., 2015 BL 180996, D.C. Cir., No. 14-1112, 6/16/15; West Virginia v. EPA, 2015 BL 180996, D.C. Cir., No. 14-1146, 4/16/15).
The Clean Power Plan would set a unique carbon dioxide emissions rate for the power sector in each state, and state regulators would develop their own plans on how best to achieve those emissions goals. The EPA would issue federal plans for states that choose not to develop their own plans.
Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R) has said the state won't comply with the rule (95 DEN A-6, 5/18/15).
-
Dozens Of Riders, But Will Any Become Law?
Jul 23, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Phil Taylor
Republican lawmakers have included dozens of environmental policy riders in their 2016 spending bills, setting up a major clash with Democrats and the White House as lawmakers seek to hammer out a deal to fund the government.
While most of the policy riders likely will never become law, some could be bargaining chips for President Obama and Democrats in their pleas for the GOP to raise discretionary spending levels.
Republicans now have control of both chambers, giving them increased leverage to challenge the administration's efforts to confront climate change, protect waterways and conserve imperiled wildlife.
Green groups are wary.
"These bills are used to play a game of 'chicken' with the president, and to make it easier to slip unpopular measures through the Congress," wrote Scott Slesinger, of the Natural Resources Defense Council, in a blog post last month. "It shouldn't work, and it won't. The president has repeatedly stood up to this maneuver."
NRDC has tallied a list of dozens of policy provisions that have hitched rides on a handful of spending bills for the Interior Department and U.S. EPA as well as the Energy, Commerce and Justice departments.
The most controversial bills funding Interior and EPA have stalled in both chambers and there's little chance they'll pass under regular order.
Whether Democrats and Republicans can agree on a budget deal that would replace sequester cuts and clear the way for an omnibus spending package -- and an earnest debate on riders -- remains to be seen.
Until, and if, that happens, Congress will have to rely on short-term continuing resolutions to keep the government's lights on. Such spending patches typically maintain the status quo -- free of most riders.
"The administration is telling Democratic senators to not allow appropriations bills to get to the Senate floor -- with or without different amendments or riders," said Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.).
But if Democrats are able to extract spending concessions from Republicans, it might cost them some policy blood.
While Obama's big-ticket environmental initiatives -- including curbs on global warming gases and ozone pollution and his ability to designate new national monuments -- are likely off the table, the president in the past has shown a willingness to compromise on certain wildlife, land and energy policies.
If Congress does pass an omnibus spending bill -- a big if -- here are some of the policy riders that might make it into law. Gray wolves
Both the House and Senate spending bills for Interior would force Fish and Wildlife Service to reissue rules to remove Endangered Species Act protections for wolves in the western Great Lakes and Wyoming.
This rider -- which would also exempt the delistings from judicial reviews -- would seem a likely candidate to get Obama's signature, given that the president signed a spending bill in 2011 doing essentially the same thing for wolves in Montana and Idaho.
Wildlife advocates panned the 2011 rider -- pushed by Montana's Democratic Sens. Jon Tester and Max Baucus -- as opening a Pandora's box for future congressional fiddling in ESA decisions.
While the White House has opposed moves in both bills to "undercut" ESA, the fact is Fish and Wildlife scientists believe wolves are recovered in Wyoming and the Great Lakes. Some environmentalists insist the agency privately supports the wolf riders.
FWS delisted wolves in the Great Lakes in 2011 and Wyoming in 2012, but a pair of federal district court rulings invalidated both rules. Those rulings are also getting in the way of FWS plans to delist wolves nationwide.
Rep. Reid Ribble (R-Wis.) in February introduced H.R. 884 to undo the court decisions, a measure that carries four Democratic co-sponsors in the affected states. Lead ammunition and fishing tackle
Spending bills in both chambers would impose a one-year ban on federal regulations of lead in ammunition or fishing tackle.
The language -- which is identical to a rider that was included in Congress' fiscal 2015 omnibus spending bill last December -- would probably make the cut in any spending deal given that it passed last year while Democrats controlled the Senate and was signed by the president. Such language carries support from key pro-hunting and fishing Democrats.
The rider is also a key priority for gun rights and hunting advocacy groups including the National Rifle Association, Safari Club International and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, as well as recreational fisherman -- constituencies that carry heavy clout on Capitol Hill.
Certain liberal Democrats and environmental groups have pushed hard against bills to bar EPA from regulating lead ammo, arguing that the neurotoxin can be ingested by scavenger birds and can be ingested by humans who consume game meat.
But the Obama administration has shown no interest in regulating lead in ammo or tackle, and it has not opposed past legislation to block the executive branch from doing so. Sage grouse
Both the House and Senate bills would temporarily block the Fish and Wildlife Service from writing a proposed rule to protect the greater sage grouse under ESA.
The language would probably be a lock in an omnibus spending bill or a CR, given that a nearly identical provision slipped through in the 2015 omnibus package (signed by Obama, but not without objections from Interior officials).
This year the language might be moot, since Fish and Wildlife by Sept. 30 must decide if grouse deserve ESA protections. All signs suggest the administration is prepared to declare grouse "not warranted," thanks in large part to sweeping new grouse habitat protections proposed by the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service covering well over 50 million acres of the West.
But the BLM protections themselves -- set to be finalized next month in resource management plans spanning 10 states -- could also be blocked or rolled back in a spending bill.
Western Republicans say BLM restrictions would unduly harm industry. They've sought to roll back the plans in standalone bills, a rider on the House's defense authorization package and as an amendment to the House spending bill.
But the administration -- backed by a bevy of conservation and sportsmen's groups - would likely vigorously fight such language given that the BLM plans are the linchpin in its efforts to avoid listing grouse. Izembek road
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) has made building a 10-mile, gravel road through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska a top priority in her public lands platform, warning that residents in the remote community of King Cove need more reliable access to medical care in emergencies.
As chairwoman of the Senate panel that funds Interior, Murkowski was able to insert policy language into the Senate bill green-lighting the road. It's not in the House bill, but such a proposal would presumably clear the lower chamber.
Signing a spending bill authorizing a road through Izembek -- a designated wilderness that serves as a major haven for migratory birds, grizzlies and salmon -- would be a major concession for the president, given that Interior Secretary Sally Jewell has emphatically rejected the proposal.
The road is also strongly opposed by conservation groups and has drawn criticism from former Interior officials from Republican administrations.
But don't underestimate Murkowski's ability to get Alaska priorities across the finish line in spending bills. In late 2011, Murkowski successfully inserted a rider into a spending bill transferring EPA's air quality oversight for Arctic offshore drilling to Interior, a move designed to streamline the permitting of drilling in her oil-dependent state.
In addition, Obama has not taken ownership of the Izembek issue in the same way he has other Alaska policy issues, including drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Beaufort and Chukchi seas.
And while conservation groups have strongly opposed the Izembek road -- warning its construction would set a bad precedent for wilderness protections nationwide -- the issue hasn't garnered universal attention from green groups in the same way as climate change or other national issues. BLM oil and gas rules
BLM's newly finalized hydraulic fracturing rules for drilling on public lands have been a top target of Republicans, the oil and gas industry and drilling-heavy Western states, so it's no surprise that language was included in both the House and Senate spending bills to roll back the rule.
The frack rule -- while tepidly embraced by green groups who would like it to be stronger -- has been stayed by a federal district court in Wyoming, and BLM recently asked for an extension to its deadline to file the administrative record. Industry groups that are challenging the rule said it was a sign the agency is in no hurry and may be ill equipped to enforce the new rule.
However, green groups are likely to go to the mat for the frack rule. And signing such a rider would mark a major concession for an Obama administration that has worked on the regulation for years, calling it critical to allay public concerns over the safety of fracking.
The House also voted along party lines earlier this month for an amendment by Rep. Steve Pearce (R-N.M.) to its Interior spending bill to block any moves by BLM to raise royalties on oil and gas drillers.
While the administration has been eying a hike in royalties for a few years -- under pressure from conservation groups -- BLM appears in no hurry to advance the politically contentious proposal given the pushback from industry. BLM issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking in April, but that merely started a public discussion on the merits of higher royalties. It did not commit to a royalty hike.
While Pearce's amendment may be a long shot for passage, the White House may see bigger policy fish to fry as it seeks to hammer out a spending bill with Republicans. Water rule
Republicans' bid to kill the Obama administration's controversial Waters of the U.S. rule was one of the final issues to be dealt with in negotiations during last December's spending bill showdown. Now, the issue is poised to come down to the wire again.
With riders targeting Obama's signature climate rules widely viewed as a no-go with the administration, pressure for a high-profile win from critics of the administration's environmental agenda could fall on the water rule, which has sparked an intense outcry from farming, construction and mining industry groups.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) mentioned the water rule second, behind the climate rules, in an op-ed earlier this month touting policy riders in the EPA spending bill.
Opponents of the rule enter negotiations with some strong numbers on their side: The House, which has repeatedly voted to kill the rule, most recently approving a measure to do so (H.R. 1732) 261-155 in May.
More than half the Senate is also on record opposing the rule, although efforts to move S. 1140 from Sens. Barrasso and Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) to kill the rule have stalled at the moment, with neither side certain whether the 60 votes needed for passage are there.
But since the administration has vowed to veto such stand-alone measures to block the rule should they reach the president's desk, the appropriations process appears to be critics' likeliest path to success.
Last year, they won language underscoring existing exemptions for normal farming practices and ditch maintenance, and scrapping a widely panned interpretive rule for agriculture. That appears to leave the Obama administration with less to bargain with on the water rule go-round. Coal mining waste
A prohibition on the administration changing the definition of fill material under the Clean Water Act, which could restrict coal and non-coal mining, is likely to make it into whatever vehicle lawmakers develop to keep the government funded.
Pro-mining lawmakers describe the rider as a preventative measure because the administration has not publicly committed to a new definition for waste. Environmentalists have for decades favored a change.
Yet, the main reason it may find itself in a final spending bill this year is because Democrats and Obama have agreed to it in previous measures. It has become the status quo.
Another proposed rider would block the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement's stream protection rule. But Interior chief Jewell and many Democrats in Congress have spoken strongly in its defense.
Similarly, previous efforts at including a rider to prevent EPA from developing new financial assurance requirements from hardrock mines -- backed by Murkowski -- have failed to stick in the past.
-
House Again Passes McKinley Coal Ash Legislation
Jul 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Members of the House returned July 22 to a by-now familiar routine: They passed legislation from Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.) altering the Environmental Protection Agency's approach to regulating the management and disposal of coal ash.
The vote on the Improving Coal Combustion Residuals Regulation Act (H.R. 1734) was 258-166.
The Obama administration threw cold water on the bill's chances a day earlier by threatening a veto of the measure should it reach the president's desk. It hadn't threatened a veto of previous efforts from McKinley (140 DEN A-1, 7/22/15).
McKinley's bill would permanently bar the EPA from ever regulating the residue from coal-fired power generation as a hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The agency decided against doing that in its final rule (80 Fed. Reg. 21,302), but coal ash recyclers have expressed concern the EPA could some day backtrack from that decision.
The legislation also would allow states to craft their own permitting programs for regulating coal ash—incorporating the minimum federal requirements from the EPA rule—but would permit states to directly enforce the standards, something not currently included in the final rule that goes into effect Oct. 19.
“This bill ensures the EPA will not be able to retroactively reverse its decision,” McKinley said on the House floor. “The bill also addresses the regulatory uncertainty by guaranteeing every state will have a coal ash permitting program in concert with EPA.”
According to the Congressional Budget Office, implementing the McKinley legislation would cost $2 million between 2016 and 2020.
Lobbying Remained Intense
House lawmakers passed the legislation after 69 groups reported lobbying on coal ash issues during the second quarter of 2015, according to lobbying disclosure documents.
That total is virtually identical to the number of entities—ranging from large electric utilities to environmental advocacy groups to publicly traded coal companies—that reported lobbying on the issue during the first quarter of 2015 (81 DEN A-4, 4/28/15).
Groups interested in the issue were identified through a keyword search of “H.R. 1734,” “coal ash” and “coal combustion.”
Among the groups lobbying on coal ash issues were Alliant Energy Corp., Arch Coal Inc., CMS Energy, Entergy Corp., Lafarge North America Inc., WEC Energy Group Inc., Waste Management Inc. and Republic Services Inc.
Major industry groups that disclosed lobbying on the issue include the Portland Cement Association, National Waste and Recycling Association, American Forest & Paper Association and National Mining Association.
Environmental groups, including the League of Conservation Voters, Natural Resources Defense Council and Earthjustice, also reported lobbying Congress on coal ash.
Amendments Voted Down
In considering the McKinley legislation, the House approved a technical amendment from Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), whose subcommittee first advanced the legislation, by voice vote.
The chamber also approved an amendment from Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) by voice vote that she said would preserve certain cleanup requirements from the final EPA rule (RIN 2050-AE81) not found in McKinley's bill, but then rejected four additional Democratic amendments.
One, from Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), would have required all inactive coal ash impoundments to follow post-closure groundwater monitoring requirements under 40 C.F.R. Section 257.104.
Another measure from Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) would have required certain transparency requirements to be met and a further amendment from Rep. Alma Adams (D-N.C.) would have required a survey of all drinking water supplies within half-a-mile of coal ash impoundments.
Other Democratic Amendment Rejected
The chamber also voted down an amendment from five Democrats that would have allowed the EPA administrator to opt out of the legislation if it were found to have a negative impact on vulnerable populations such as infants, children, adolescents, pregnant women, the elderly and individuals with pre-existing medical conditions.
“Of course, the rule ... is not perfect,” Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) said on the House floor. “But, I believe this legislation—in fact—any legislation is premature. Changes in regulation or in law take a long time. And, hitting the restart button now will only lead to continued uncertainty and continued risk. We have had far too much of those already.”
-
House Passes Bill To Fight Coal Ash Rule
Jul 22, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama and Cristina Marcos
The House voted Wednesday to roll back certain parts of the Obama administration’s first-ever regulations on the disposal of coal ash waste.
Lawmakers voted 258-166 in support of the bill sponsored by Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.), who said he wants to provide businesses more certainty than the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) sweeping rule issued in December.
“The way the rule is currently written, oversight will occur only through lawsuits, not through regulators,” McKinley said.The GOP says the legislation, strongly supported by coal and energy interests, maintains the health and safety standards in the EPA’s rule.
But the bill would delay parts of the December rule that aimed to protect waterways, the environment and human health from coal ash, a waste product from burning coal that contains toxic substances like arsenic, chromium and mercury. Some of the provisions would be pushed back by up to a decade.
Other provisions of the rule would be weakened or eliminated altogether in the GOP-backed bill, like mandated public postings by utilities about their coal ash ponds, and the EPA would be banned from strengthening the disposal standards in the future by designating coal ash as a hazardous substance.
The legislation would also direct states to enforce coal ash standards, something the EPA did not have the authority to do.
Democrats warned that the bill would undermine the public health prevention measures in the regulation.
“The bottom line is that legislation is not warranted, and even if it were, this bill would not be the vehicle because it dangerously eliminates or undermines necessary protections,” said Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), the top Democrat on the House Energy & Commerce Committee.
The White House threatened to veto the measure, calling it an attempt to significantly undermine the progress in the EPA’s rule.
“EPA’s rule articulates clear and consistent national standards to protect public health and the environment, prevent contamination of drinking water and minimize the risk of catastrophic failure at coal ash surface impoundments,” the White House said Tuesday. “H.R. 1734 would, however, substantially weaken these protections.”
And while environmental groups were disappointed that the EPA did not take stronger steps in its December rule, they blasted the House’s bill.
“Big utilities and coal companies want the new rule gutted, and McKinley and the House majority are eager to oblige,” Lisa Evans, an attorney at Earthjustice, wrote in a blog post about the bill.
The National Association of Manufacturers urged lawmakers to vote for the bill and said it would include the bill in its legislative scorecard.
“Manufacturers support H.R. 1734, which would promote the continued use of coal ash in transportation, agriculture, housing and building construction, while ensuring that the minimum federal requirements for the disposal of [coal ash] are implemented through enforceable, state-issued permits,” Aric Newhouse, the manufacturing group’s Senior Vice President, said in a statement.
Coal ash is usually stored in sprawling ponds or landfills that are located near waterways and not always lined.
The EPA’s bill fulfilled one of the earliest environmental pledges from President Obama, who took office weeks after a massive coal ash spill near Kingston, Tenn., that sent more than a billion gallons of the substance flooding into the nearby community.
Since then there have been a number of other high-profile coal ash spills, including one in February in North Carolina.
The EPA’s rule is due to take effect this fall.
Sens. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) introduced similar coal ash legislation in the Senate last week.
-
Republicans Call For Further Review Of Obama Climate Rule
Jul 22, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Key congressional Republicans say the Obama administration should conduct a “full interagency review” of a major carbon rule for power plants before the rule goes public this summer.
The Republicans, led by committee chairmen Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), said the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan is likely to run into legal challenges and have a larger impact on the energy sector than officials have projected. They said the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which is conducting a final review of the plan, should send the rule back to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for a deeper analysis rather than releasing it this summer as planned.
The plan has “serious and extraordinary legal and economic aspects … that violate core principles of regulatory decision-making,” the members wrote in a letter to OIRA Administrator Howard Shelanski.
“Federal agencies such as the EPA have an obligation to comply with applicable law and to adhere to core regulatory principles that result in the least burdensome regulatory outcomes and avoid unreasonable costs,” the members wrote.
The Clean Power Plan is designed to reduce carbon emissions from power plants by up to 30 percent by 2030. It’s a central component of President Obama’s climate change agenda.
Congressional Republicans have long hammered the rule on Capitol Hill, holding hearings on its impact on states and the energy industry and raising questions about its legality, especially in light of a Supreme Court decision against a separate EPA rule in June.
“The rule is widely expected to be challenged on constitutional, statutory, jurisdictional and regulatory grounds,” Republicans wrote in their letter. “The critical legal and economic issues raised by the proposed rule have been the subject of thousands of pages of substantive comments submitted by states and other affected entities to the EPA.”
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has called the June ruling narrow and said it won’t affect the Clean Power Plan. The rule is scheduled to be released publicly before the end of the summer.
The House voted in June to weaken the rule, and key senators, including Inhofe, have coalesced around a Senate bill that would do the same. The White House has said Obama would veto efforts to diminish the rule.
-
Environmental Groups Join Water Rule Challenges
Jul 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
Court challenges to the newly published clean water rule for allegedly failing to protect large bodies of water, such as Puget Sound, and waters vital for endangered species were filed July 22 by separate environmental coalitions in appellate courts on both coasts (Waterkeeper Alliance Inc. v. EPA, 9th Cir., No. 15-72226, petition for review filed 7/22/15);(Puget Soundkeeper Alliance v. EPA, 9th Cir., No. 15-72227, petition for review filed 7/22/15); Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 2nd Cir., No. 15-02313, petition for review filed 7/22/15).
The coalition headed by the Waterkeeper Alliance filed its petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. A separate challenge also was filed in the Ninth Circuit by the Puget Soundkeeper Alliance and Sierra Club, while the Natural Resources Defense Council submitted its petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
All three petitions for review mark the first time environmental groups are entering the legal fray surrounding the clean water rule (RIN 2040–AF30), which was published June 29 by the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to clarify the scope of Clean Water Act jurisdiction.
The rule takes effect Aug. 25 (80 Fed. Reg. 37,054).
Questioning Arbitrary Boundary
In its petition, the Waterkeeper Alliance coalition questioned the Obama administration's “arbitrary” use of the 4,000-foot boundary to serve as the outer limit for protecting small streams and wetlands that have no direct surface connection to downstream navigable waters. They accused the Obama administration of acting contrary to scientific evidence.
“In their drive to placate industry interests, the [Environmental Protection Agency] and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers failed to ensure that these types of exemptions do not jeopardize the survival of hundreds of endangered species as required by the Endangered Species Act,” the coalition said in a July 22 statement announcing the challenge.
The final rule could affect the survival of endangered salmon and sturgeon on both coasts as well as the California red-legged frogs and bog turtles, according to the Waterkeeper Alliance coalition.
The corps and the EPA said they will evaluate the significance of the impact of playa lakes and other such isolated waters on downstream navigable waters if they are located within a distance of 4,000 feet. The evaluation would then serve as a prelude to establishing Clean Water Act jurisdiction over the isolated waters.
Protecting ‘Iconic' Watersheds
The Puget Soundkeeper and Sierra Club in their July 22 statement said their petition is seeking to protect watersheds that are part of the sound, the Great Lakes and the Colorado and Columbia rivers, among others.
“These iconic watersheds are at risk because the agencies themselves in the preamble to the rule said that fewer waterways are protected now than they were before the new rule was issued,” Chris Wilke, executive director for the Puget Soundkeeper Alliance, told Bloomberg BNA July 22.
Jon Devine, NRDC senior water attorney, told Bloomberg BNA in a July 22 e-mail that the clean water rule is “a good rule that could, and should, be even better.”
“Although it is a big step forward,” Devine said, “we believe the rule, as written, leaves some waters inadequately protected without justification, and we are suing to make sure the rule protects the waters it should and treats like waters in a like manner.”
While pledging to work to “thwart” efforts in Congress and in courts to weaken or kill the rule, Devine said, “We will also seek to intervene in lawsuits that challenge the rule as too strong.”
Since the publication of the rule, it has been challenged by 29 states, Indiana being the latest to join in a lawsuit led by Texas (80 Fed. Reg. 37,054; 125 DEN A-4, 6/30/15).
Business, manufacturing and agriculture groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce also have filed separate challenges in different courts across the country (134 DEN A-1, 7/14/15).
The Earthrise Law Center, Lewis & Clark Law School's environmental litigation clinic and Stanford Law School's Environmental Law Clinic are representing the coalition, which includes Waterkeeper Alliance, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Center for Food Safety and others.
Earthjustice is representing Puget Soundkeeper Alliance and Sierra Club in their petition.
-
Green Groups Challenge Obama Water Rule In Court
Jul 22, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The Obama administration’s new rule granting it regulatory power over certain bodies of water earned two new legal challenges on Wednesday, this time from green groups and conservationists.
The Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity are among the groups that announced lawsuits against the "Waters of the United States" rule, arguing it gives away too much to industry groups that looked to minimize the rule’s reach.The Center for Biological Diversity’s lawsuit centers around a rule provision that protects small water bodies if they are within 4,000 feet of a stream or river. Water beyond that limit is not protected, and the group argued that could put some endangered species at risk.
“Freshwater species in the United States are already going extinct hundreds of times faster than terrestrial species, and these loopholes will make survival even harder for them,” said Brett Hartl, endangered species policy director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “There’s no question that eliminating protection for thousands of wetlands waters will hurt people and wildlife for generations to come.”
The Center — along with the Waterkeeper Alliance, the Center for Food Safety and the Turtle Island Restoration Network — also said the rule doesn’t do enough to protect streams and ponds used in farming or ranching operations.
The Sierra Club’s lawsuit, filed with Earthjustice and the Puget Soundkeeper Alliance, contends that the rule doesn’t protect streams and waterways that have been covered by EPA rules since the 1970s. The rule, they said, would put waterways like the Puget Sound and Great Lakes at risk of pollution.
“Congress designated EPA as the protector of our nation’s waters in our Clean Water Act and EPA must not shirk its duty to protect the cleanliness and health of all our nation’s waters, based on what science has been telling us for years regarding the connectedness of ecosystems and water,” Sierra Club’s Nicholas Jimenez said.
Wednesday’s lawsuits come after a flurry of challenges to the water rule from businesses, agriculture groups and states that oppose the rule. More than two dozen state attorneys general have sued the EPA over the regulation, which they call overly-broad, and industry associations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Farm Bureau Federation have challenged it as well.
Unlike those lawsuits, the green groups challenging the rule today said they generally support the underlying regulations, although they think there are ways to improve them.
In a press release, the Sierra Club and its co-plaintiffs said the rule contains “essential protections” for water and vowed to “vigorously defend the rule’s basic protections from polluter attacks and challenges.”
-
House Panel Approves Energy Reform Bill
Jul 22, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A House subcommittee unanimously passed legislation Wednesday aimed at modernizing energy infrastructure, improving energy efficiency and taking other steps toward updating energy policies.
The bill is the first step in the House’s efforts to pass a broad, bipartisan energy reform package, and lawmakers were hopeful that they could have controversial policy debates as part of consideration of the bill.The initial bill’s provisions are mostly minor, however, and do little to answer the larger, more controversial energy debates.
But lawmakers on both sides of the aisle argued it was still important for members to work together in moving forward with the initial bill.
“This committee print before us today is reflective of the accomplishments and compromises agreed upon at this stage,” Rep. Ed Whitfield, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s subpanel on energy and power, said at the beginning of the Wednesday meeting.
“Some issues that are so important they’ve got to be addressed, but they’re not in this bill yet,” he added.
Whitfield hopes that future work on the bill would repeal the mandate to cut fossil fuel use in new federal buildings, better account for renewable energy in the electricity grid and improve permitting for hydroelectric projects.
Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) had a similar take on the bill.
“The discussion draft that we are marking up today is an improvement over the legislation that was initially unveiled,” he said. “But there remains much work to be done as we move forward through this legislative process.”
Rush said he’d like the bill to do more to protect low-income energy consumers from the costs of modernizing the grid, beef up energy efficiency and other provisions.
Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) wished that the panel could vote on his legislation to allow crude oil exports, but admitted that it would not be appropriate when lawmakers are trying to pass a bipartisan bill.
“It has the votes to pass the committee, the subcommittee, the House and the Senate and the president will sign it,” Barton said.
Some of the panel’s Democrats lamented that the bill does nothing to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
“The bill virtually ignores the relationship between energy and climate,” said Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.), echoing comments from Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.).
“And, it appears to define energy security primarily in terms of benefits of expanding markets for oil and gas,” Tonko said.
The full Energy and Commerce Committee plans to take up the bill after the August recess, when more lawmakers may be willing to offer amendments.
But the panel’s leaders have agreed that only bipartisan amendments will be considered.
-
PHMSA Nominee Vetted by Senate Committee
Jul 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Senators praised July 22 the managerial expertise—but questioned the lack of subject matter expertise—of the president's nominee to head the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
The lawmakers described PHMSA, of which Marie T. Dominguez has been nominated to lead, as an obscure but essential agency that oversees the movement of hazardous materials from crude oil to lithium batteries.
Dominguez, PHMSA's deputy administrator, told the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee of her goals for making PHMSA more effective. The nominee also addressed senators' individual concerns, for example, saying that PHMSA is updating liquefied natural gas facility siting rules.
“We need to examine our processes and structure so we can be responsive and drive innovation that enhances our safety mission,” Dominguez said in her opening statement. “In doing so, we will be better positioned to leverage data, research and development, and other predictive capabilities to manage risk.”
The agency Dominguez has been nominated to join as administrator is charged with ensuring that transportation modes from pipelines to planes move hazardous materials safely. The agency has come under fire by Congress and others for its pace in addressing and enforcing evolving energy transportation problems such as recent crude oil train derailments.
PHMSA has been without a permanent administrator since October 2014, when Cynthia Quarterman resigned. Quarterman was replaced by then-deputy administrator Timothy Butters in an acting capacity. Butters left the agency soon after Dominguez's nomination was announced.
None of the senators questioned Dominguez's managerial experience, which included working with Congress to make the U.S. Postal Service financially stable.
However, Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) questioned whether she has the necessary expertise in areas under the jurisdiction of her potential agency.
Dominguez Outlines Priorities
Dominguez told the senators she has several priorities, some of which include:
• working to build up the agency's data abilities to bolster its use as a predictive tool;
• assessing PHMSA's existing structure and processes to ensure it's working as effectively and efficiently as possible;
• competing with industry to boost hiring and attract quality talent to be inspectors; and
• working with Congress to identify agency goals and tasks in the upcoming pipeline safety reauthorization.
These goals are similar to what Dominguez had already highlighted in her nomination filing, which also touted boosting enforcement as a priority.
But PHMSA also can be driven largely by responding to trends and incidents, and senators cited for Dominguez several pending issues and concerns that need to be addressed.
Nominee Questioned on Transportation Mode
For example, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) questioned Dominguez on whether the pipeline agency should consider which transportation mode will be used to move the gas in siting liquefied natural gas small facilities.
Dominguez replied that the agency is working to update its rules on this issue and would work with Blunt to address those concerns.
“I do recognize that the United States is ... changing basically from an importer to an exporter and, in doing so, we need to make sure that the siting facilities for both small, as well as large, LNG facilities are as robust as they can be and [to make] sure that they're complying with PHMSA regulations,” Dominguez said.
No committee vote has been announced for Dominguez.
-
On Second Try, Senate Advances Long-Term Bill
Jul 23, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sean Reilly
The Senate voted 62-36 last night to move forward on a massive transportation package, breathing life into a gamble that looked like a loser the day before.
But while backers were jubilant, they have barely a week to push the approximately 1,000-page measure through both chambers and on to President Obama.
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.), a leading force behind the legislation, insisted the job was possible. The bill is the sixth long-term road and transit funding measure he's worked on since the 1980s, Inhofe told reporters after the vote.
"There's always trauma, there's always people exploiting it for other reasons, but in the final analysis, I think we can get it done in a short period of time," he said.
But Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) saw little, if any, chance of the bill making it to Obama's desk.
"I think this is largely a symbolic exercise," Murphy said, predicting that lawmakers will ultimately have to pass another stopgap extension to keep federal transportation dollars flowing after next week.
The bill, unveiled in its current form only two days ago, would assure federal funding for transportation programs through fiscal 2018. It would replace an existing short-term measure that expires July 31. The House has already approved a rival extension that would run through mid-December, with the hope of then passing a longer-term bill.
The margin on last night's Senate cloture motion was two more than the 60 needed for approval. The results represented a decisive reversal from the day before, when an identical bid failed 41-56. Democrats, then furious at having to vote on legislation made public only hours before, offered lockstep opposition (E&E Daily, July 22). In last night's rematch, 16 -- including the two independents who caucus with the Democrats -- voted "yes."
"I think we got the truth out about the bill," Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the EPW Committee's ranking member, said afterward, citing what she called "false rumors" about the level of transit funding. Also contributing to the turnaround, Boxer said, was lawmakers' decision to strike one financing mechanism that would have helped cover the bill's pricetag by stripping Social Security benefits from people with felony arrest warrants.
Critics said the proposal would disproportionately affect the elderly and disabled. The provision, which would have covered about $2.3 billion of the bill's estimated $47 billion cost to the general Treasury, was not needed, Boxer said. While agreeing with Inhofe that final passage was possible by next week, Boxer said that "it will be hard" and require the Senate to stay in session this weekend.
The vote was a win for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who is eager to pass a funding bill that will run at least past the November 2016 elections. McConnell plans to keep working today on moving the bill to the Senate floor. Critics are promising a torrent of amendments.
"The safety provisions are a problem," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.).
A half-dozen Republicans opposed cloture, including Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Richard Shelby of Alabama, who objects to a proposal to cover about one-third of the legislation's cost by sharply cutting the Federal Reserve's dividend rate to some member banks. The proposal is a "back-door" tax that will be passed on to consumers, Shelby said.
"Wrong-headed" is how Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), has described a separate provision that would raise an estimated $9 billion through the sale of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Murkowski did not vote on last night's cloture motion.
If signed into law, the Senate bill would be the longest-lasting road and transit funding authorization since 2005. Influential business and labor groups have long been lobbying Congress to break the cycle of short-term extensions. For many lawmakers, the underlying purpose remains a potent draw.
"The bill still needs some fixing, but tonight it was a question of whether or not we even have a bill to fix," said Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), the ranking member on the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, in a statement immediately after the vote. "If we don't have a long-term highway funding bill, we won't have the money we need to repair and build roads and bridges."
House Republicans have so far given largely negative reviews to the Senate effort.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) yesterday took a neutral stance. While the House took a responsible approach, "obviously, the Senate feels otherwise," Boehner told reporters. "They've got a process underway and we'll see what happens."
-
Smooth hearing sets up PHMSA nominee for committee vote
Jul 23, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sean Reilly
President Obama's choice to head the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration is in line for a prompt committee vote after a hearing yesterday in which she appeared to allay doubts about her qualifications.
Marie Therese Dominguez "handled herself very well," said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, adding that the panel will vote on her nomination in the next two weeks.
Formally nominated last month, Dominguez said a top priority would be to complete a series of rulemakings required by the 2011 Pipeline Safety Act. In response to written committee questions, she said she wanted to improve PHMSA's data collection and analysis "to better inform" risk management, as well as improve partnerships with industry and state and local governments.
"If confirmed, I will bring strong leadership and vision to make PHMSA synonymous with safety, trust and innovation," she said.
PHMSA, which is otherwise enjoying a growth spurt, has been without a Senate-confirmed head since last October. Interim Executive Director Stacy Cummings is currently heading the agency; Dominguez became deputy administrator last month.
Her résumé includes stints with the Army Corps of Engineers, the Postal Service and the Federal Aviation Administration. She has also served as an outside adviser to Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), who introduced her yesterday as a strong leader and manager.
But at the hearing's outset, Thune voiced concerns that Dominguez lacked "specific expertise" in pipeline and hazardous materials safety issues. In response, she stressed her experience managing people in large complex organizations such as the FAA and would use those skills "to lead PHMSA in a positive direction."
PHMSA, a branch of the Department of Transportation created barely a decade ago, has found itself repeatedly under the congressional microscope, both for its role in setting standards for oil train tank cars and because of recent oil spills. Asked about recent pipeline ruptures in Illinois and California, Dominguez said both accidents are still under investigation, but that PHMSA is working closely with the owner, Plains All American Pipeline LP, to develop a culture of "long-term safety management practices." Against stiff competition from the energy industry, she said.
The hearing lasted little more than an hour. Questions from other lawmakers were generally cordial. Dominguez's answers were equally conciliatory.
If confirmed, Dominguez told Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) that she would continue pursuing efforts to strengthen rail car design standards. In response to questions from Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), she said PHMSA "works aggressively" with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which has responsibility for permitting new natural gas pipelines. She agreed to visit New Hampshire if she's confirmed to hear directly from residents concerned about a proposed Kinder Morgan project. Against stiff competition from the energy industry, PHMSA has filled almost half of about 120 newly funded positions in pipeline inspection and other areas, she told Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.).
PHMSA is one of several DOT agencies operating under temporary leadership. While it's not unusual for second-term presidential administrations to have trouble filling top-level vacancies, the number of empty chairs at DOT has alarmed some members of Congress. Lately, however, the holdups have been on Capitol Hill.
The Commerce Committee, for example, has yet to hold a hearing on the nomination of Sarah Feinberg to lead the Federal Railroad Administration. Feinberg has been the agency's acting head since January; Obama announced plans in late May to choose her for the permanent job.
Nominated a few weeks earlier was acting Federal Highway Administration Chief Gregory Nadeau, who has effectively been running that agency since late 2013. Following a confirmation hearing last week, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has not publicly set a vote on advancing Nadeau's candidacy to the full Senate.
Also waiting is Therese McMillan, the Federal Transit Administration's acting head for well over a year. Although Obama again nominated her in January to get the job permanently, the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee has yet to hold a hearing. A committee spokeswoman did not reply to an email yesterday seeking an explanation for the delay.
-
FRA Warns of Oil-by-Rail Notification Enforcement
Jul 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The Federal Railroad Administration warned the railroad industry July 22 that it will be enforcing a requirement to notify certain state entities of Bakken crude oil train movements, a requirement that the Transportation Department briefly considered negating.
“FRA will continue with random spot checks and regular compliance audits to ensure that states, local communities and first responders have the information necessary to respond to a possible accident,” the letter signed by Sarah Feinberg, the nominee for administrator and acting head of the rail agency, said. “FRA will take enforcement actions as necessary to ensure compliance.”
Matthew Lehner, a spokesman for the rail agency, told Bloomberg BNA that the letter was intended to highlight this issue as a priority of the agency and to remind railroads that until told otherwise they must comply with the requirement. The letter didn't come in response to a lack of compliance by railroads or concerns from the public but addresses an issue where there is still ongoing litigation, Lehner said.
Railroads must, as initially established under a May 2014 emergency order, notify and update state and tribal emergency response commissions when they expect to move 1 million gallons or more of Bakken crude oil in one train through a state (89 DEN A-8, 5/8/14).
First responders have said this notification improves their ability to prepare for incidents, but the railroad industry has warned that there are potential security concerns with making this information available to the public.
The 2014 order would have been superseded by a May 2015 Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration final rule (RIN 2137-AE91) with separate notification requirements; however, the department made an about-face the same month the rule was released and reinstated the order until further notice due to complaints from first responders and others.
Meanwhile, two court cases are ongoing where the railroads sued Maryland's Department of the Environment related to the notification order. CSX Corp. and Norfolk Southern Corp. separately sued the state agency to block it from giving to news organizations the companies' crude oil train information that was given to the state under the 2014 order (Norfolk S. Corp. v. Md. Dep't of the Env't, Md. Cir.Ct., No. 24C14004367, pre-trial conference scheduled 7/7/15; CSX Corp. Md. Dep't of the Env't, Md. Cir. Ct., No. 24C14004378, pre-trial conference scheduled 7/7/15).
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested