Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
Groups Sue US EPA Over Antimicrobial Nanosilver Approval
Aug 10, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Three NGOs have mounted a legal challenge to the US EPA's decision to conditionally approve the use of the antimicrobial nanosilver pesticide product Nanosilva in plastics and textiles. -
Anger Rises as E.P.A. Increases Estimate of Toxic Water Spill at Colorado Mine
Aug 10, 2015 | The New York Times
By Julie Turkewitz
Anger over a spill of toxic water from a mine that turned this community’s river into a yellow-orange ribbon rose on Sunday when the Environmental Protection Agency announced that the spill was three times larger than previously stated — and that the agency was still unsure if the polluted water posed a health threat to humans or animals. -
What the EPA was Doing When it Sent Yellow Sludge Spilling into a Colorado Creek
Aug 10, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Sarah Kaplan
The whole point of the project was to make Colorado’s water safer. -
EPA Triples Colo River Spill Estimate
Aug 10, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) believes it spilled 3 million gallons of mine waste containing heavy metals into a Colorado river, it said. -
Industry, States Set to Fight Climate Rules — Energy Journal
Aug 10, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Christopher Harder
U.S. industry and states are getting ready to file lawsuits in the coming weeks, challenging White House regulations requiring big cuts in power-plant carbon emissions, Brent Kendall and Amy Harder report. -
Court Won't Reconsider Greenhouse Gas Judgment
Aug 10, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jeremy P. Jacobs
Federal judges on Friday declined an industry request to reconsider their interpretation of a Supreme Court ruling that trimmed U.S. EPA's greenhouse gas regulations. -
NRDC's Doniger Pushes Back on Legal Arguments Against Rule
Aug 10, 2015 | E&E - TV
With a shift in strategy on natural gas in its final Clean Power Plan, is the Obama administration retracting on its support for the fuel? -
Mobile Personal Air Quality Monitors Present Benefits, Challenges For EPA
Aug 10, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
A new generation of small, personal mobile air quality monitors is set to revolutionize the collection and sharing of air quality data, several sources say, which presents EPA and other air regulators with new opportunities to better track emissions but also creates challenges in how to manage an expected deluge of data from the monitors. -
Move to Allow U.S. Oil Exports Accelerates
Aug 9, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Amy Harder
Big voices in the oil industry and Congress now support a move that would have been unthinkable not long ago: opening the U.S. oil industry to exports. -
Pitching Divestment as a “Moral” Crusade is Misguided
Aug 10, 2015 | The New York Times
By Robert Stavins
Students are right to be concerned about climate change, but the focus of the divestment movement is fundamentally misguided. -
TransCanada Mulls Options as Pipeline Decision Looms
Aug 10, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
TransCanada Corp., the Canadian company behind the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, is working on a next move as the White House signals both privately and publicly a rejection of the project's permit is imminent, according to a source close to the deal. -
Keystone Builder Quietly Making Plans for Obama Rejection
Aug 10, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The company hoping to build the Keystone XL Pipeline is quietly planning for President Obama to deny the permit it needs. -
House GOP 'Lease' Plan Seeks To Ease CWA Mitigation Project Obligations
Aug 10, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
A pending House GOP bill seeks to ease Clean Water Act (CWA) permit holders' obligations to create mitigation banks used to offset damage to waters from permitted activities by establishing a novel "lease" program to terminate the obligations after the permitted activity on the project that they are designed to mitigate is complete.
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 - There are no clips to report at this time
-
Groups Sue US EPA Over Antimicrobial Nanosilver Approval
Aug 10, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Three NGOs have mounted a legal challenge to the US EPA's decision to conditionally approve the use of the antimicrobial nanosilver pesticide product Nanosilva in plastics and textiles.
The groups are:the Natural Resources Defense Fund (NRDC);the Center for Food Safety (CFS); andthe International Center for Technology Assessment (Icta).
They have filed petitions urging the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to set aside the EPA's order granting Nanosilva conditional registration.
The NRDC contends that the agency granted the registration without having all the toxicity data it needed to assess the product's potential harm to humans and the environment.
Saying that the EPA's continued reliance on conditional registration to allow substances into the market is problematic, the group added there is no evidence that Nanosilva “provides any actual consumer benefit”.
The CFS and Icta – who filed a joint petition – say that the EPA allowed the product into the market without the “legally required analysis” on its effects on human, wildlife and the environment.
“EPA's approval of this nanotechnology pesticide product is irresponsible and contrary to law,” said George Kimbrell, senior attorney for CFS.
“Novel nanomaterials like this need comprehensive and rigorous analysis; instead EPA has allowed this product on the market while acknowledging it is missing safety data,” he added.
The EPA agreed to regulate novel nanomaterial pesticides following a lawsuit the CFS filed last December (CW 8 January 2015). After that the agency moved to stop the sale of two nanosilver based products.
-
Anger Rises as E.P.A. Increases Estimate of Toxic Water Spill at Colorado Mine
Aug 10, 2015 | The New York Times
By Julie Turkewitz
Anger over a spill of toxic water from a mine that turned this community’s river into a yellow-orange ribbon rose on Sunday when the Environmental Protection Agency announced that the spill was three times larger than previously stated — and that the agency was still unsure if the polluted water posed a health threat to humans or animals.
The agency, typically charged with responding to toxic disasters, has claimed responsibility for the spill, which unleashed a chemical brew that caused levels of arsenic, lead and other metals to spike in the Animas River, a tributary that plays a vital role in the culture and economy in this patch of southwestern Colorado.
Agency officials said on Sunday that the size of the spill was larger than originally estimated: more than three million gallons rather than one million.
La Plata County and the City of Durango have declared states of emergency, and the county estimates that about 1,000 residential water wells could be contaminated. The river is closed indefinitely, and the La Plata sheriff has hastily recast his campaign signs into posters warning river visitors to stay out of the water.
The yellow plume has traveled down to New Mexico, where it is being tracked, but it is starting to dissipate, officials said.
On Sunday night, residents packed a school auditorium in Durango for a meeting with the agency’s regional director, Shaun McGrath. During a public comment session that lasted more than two hours, residents flouted a sign on the wall that instructed the auditorium’s typical patrons — middle schoolers — to refrain from calling out, jumping up or insulting others during assemblies.
Shouts rang out. A few people cried. One resident questioned whether the agency had refashioned itself into the “Environmental Pollution Agency.” Others demanded to know what would happen to wildlife, livestock, water wells, sediment and river-based jobs.
“When — when can we be open again?” said David Moler, 35, the owner of a river-rafting company who had approached a microphone. “All I hear is a handful of ‘gonna-dos,’ ” he added. “What should I tell my employees?”
Mr. McGrath and his colleagues urged patience and assured residents that they would provide information about health risks once they had it. The agency, he said, is awaiting test results to determine whether the water poses a risk.
“We’re going to continue to work until this is cleaned up,” Mr. McGrath said, “and hold ourselves to the same standards that we would anyone that would have created this situation.”
On Aug. 5, a team from the Environmental Protection Agency was investigating an abandoned mine about 50 miles north of here. Called the Gold King, it was last active in the 1920s, but it had been leaking toxic water at a rate of 50 to 250 gallons a minute for years. It is owned by a group called the San Juan Corporation.
A call to the company’s lawyer was not returned.
The agency had planned to find the source of the leak in the hope of one day stanching it. Instead, as workers used machinery to hack at loose material, a surprise deluge of orange water ripped through, spilling into Cement Creek and flowing into the Animas. The burst did not injure workers.
The next day, as the neon water slid into Durango, masses of community members watched from the riverbanks. Some called it a painful procession: The Animas River is considered the cultural soul of this region, a sort of moving Main Street that hosts multiple floating parades a year and is typically bustling with rafters and kayakers.
Children study the river. Sweethearts marry on its banks. Its former name, given by Spaniards, is Río de las Ánimas, coincidentally, “River of Souls.”
On Sunday, State Senator Ellen Roberts, a Republican who lives near the river, cried softly as she considered the pollution, adding that she had dropped her father’s ashes in its depths.
“It is not just a scenic destination,” Ms. Roberts said. “It is where people literally raise their children. It is where the farmers and ranchers feed their livestock, which in turn feeds the people. We’re isolated from Denver through the mountains. And we are pretty resourceful people. But if you take away our water supply, we’re left with virtually no way to move forward.”
There are about 200 abandoned mines in the Animas watershed, the last of which closed in the early 1990s. Colorado has about 23,000 abandoned mines; the United States has an estimated 500,000. Since the 1870s, metal mining has both enriched and poisoned this region, turning the earth under portions of southwest Colorado into a maze of tunnels and leaving behind shuttered sites oozing with chemicals.
The Animas region is distinct in that it has an organization called theAnimas River Stakeholders Group, a loose coalition of mining companies; environmental groups; property owners; and local, state and federal government entities that have worked together since 1994 to clean up some of these sites.
In recent years, the group had identified the Gold King as one of the two most polluted mine sites, and some have pushed to figure out the sources of its chemical bleed, believing that a cleanup was necessary. The Environmental Protection Agency was moving ahead with that project — without its partners — when the spill occurred.
-
What the EPA was Doing When it Sent Yellow Sludge Spilling into a Colorado Creek
Aug 10, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Sarah Kaplan
The whole point of the project was to make Colorado’s water safer.
Instead, while working to clean a mine in the San Juan mountains last Wednesday, workers with the Environmental Protection Agency unintentionally made the problem worse. A plug at the Gold King Mine site failed, the mine’s owners told the Denver Post, releasing 3 million gallons of toxic yellow sludge into Colorado’s waterways. By Sunday night, the plume had reached Farmington, N.M., more than 100 miles to the south.
[EPA triples estimate of mine waste spilled into Colo. river]
The sight of the wastewater, long pent up in a mine that hasn’t been operational since 1923, shocked the state and put the EPA in the hot seat. Why was the agency using heavy machinery at a site known to be full of toxins?
The answer, like the wastewater itself, is a part of Colorado’s history.
Burrowed into the state’s craggy mountains are thousands of mines like Gold King, built during the mining bonanza that marked Colorado’s beginnings. Though most of them have been closed for decades, they continue to make their presence known through the acids that slowly leach — and occasionally violently burst — into the water around them.
“The great news is that modern mining does not allow the release of these waters,” Elizabeth Holley, assistant professor of mining engineering at the Colorado School of Mines, told the Denver Post. “The bad news is we owe our statehood to mining prior to any environmental regulations.”
The documented gold discovery in Colorado is attributed to a Georgia prospector named Lewis Ralston, who was part of a wagon train bound for the already famous mines of California. According to lore, members of the train were resting for a day and Ralston, on a whim, decided to dip his gold pan into an unnamed mountain stream. It emerged with $5 worth of gold, a sizable sum for the time.
A fellow traveler noted in a brusque June 22, 1850, diary entry, “Lay bye. Gold found.”
Members of the wagon train lingered only a few days to examine the find, but Ralston would return eight years later with a team of prospectors. Those men soon found rich gold deposits in the mountains nearby, setting off the gold rush that would turn Colorado from an unexplored frontier of Kansas territory into its own booming state. Colorado was admitted to the Union in 1876.
The towering San Juan mountains around Silverton, Colo., were opened to prospectors in 1874. By the 1880s, more than half a dozen mines were operating in the area, including Gold King, most of them run by the Sunnyside Gold Corp.
Rich with veins of silver, gold and other precious metals, the mines drew thousands of people to the area. The nearby towns — Silverton, Telluride, the aptly named Eureka — were built on the estimated $150 million in minerals that were extracted from the mountains. But the wealth came at a cost.
When underground water runs through a mine, it picks up traces of the minerals that are buried there, explains Colorado Public Radio stationKUNC. When it mixes with mineral pyrite, it reacts with air to form sulfuric acid and dissolved iron. It also picks up other heavy metals, like copper and lead, as well as any of the chemicals that miners have been using to extract the resources. By the time it trickles out of the mountain and into nearby waterways, it’s an acidic, often-toxic brew.
In mineral-rich mountains like the site of the Gold King mine, this process can happen even before prospectors start digging in. Cement Creek, the waterway that was first flooded with sludge last week, had been declared undrinkable in 1876, before mining in the area became widespread, according to the Denver Post. But drilling into the mountain sped things up quite a bit.
Ginny Brannon, director of the Colorado Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety, told the Denver Post that until 1977, Colorado had few laws requiring mining companies to deal with the wastewater they created.
“Folks could go out and do what they want and walk away from the sites, and this is one of them,” she said.
The Gold King mine hasn’t been operational since 1923, but several other sites in the same network of mines remained open for decades after. For more than 100 years, the mines were the lifeblood of the surrounding community. They provided the bulk of the jobs and one-third of the county’s annual tax revenue, according to the Durango Herald.
Even two major disasters in the 1970s — a breach in a “tailing pond” (the basins that store contaminated water for processing) that sent tons of wastewater into the local watershed and a 1978 lake collapse that flooded the mine with water and a million tons of mud — didn’t dampen support for the operation.
The multimillion-dollar cleanup costs did. In 1991, Sunnyside shut down its last mine in the area. And much of San Juan County was shut down with it.
“We lost half our population,” Beverly Rich, the county treasurer and chairwoman of the San Juan County Historical Society, told Westword magazine in 2005. “We went from about 200 children to 43 kids in our school. We lost one-third of our county tax revenue. We lost a lot of our volunteer firemen — and good-paying jobs. Mining pays well, and tourism jobs don’t quite cut the mustard.”
The effects of more than a century of mining didn’t disappear along with them. They’re easily visible in the histories of local community, which often glorify their mining past. Silverton’s motto, after all, is “The mining town that never quit.”
“Did mining kill people? Of course, it killed people. Driving cars kills people, too. Do you want to get rid of cars?” Historian Duane Smith, a Durango resident and Fort Lewis College professor who has written several books about Silverton, told the Durango Herald in 2013. “Silverton owes its existence to mining, that’s the truth.”
The lingering effects are also noticeable in the area’s waterways, which were suffering even before this latest breach. According to the Herald, three of the four fish species in the Upper Animas water basin (which includes Cement Creek and drains into the Animas River) disappeared between 2005 and 2010. Five years after that, the river was completely devoid of fish.
Insects and bird species have also fared poorly. And tests of the water flowing into Bakers Bridge, about three dozen miles south of Silverton, found that it carried concentrations of zinc toxic to animals. U.S. Geological Survey Scientists told the paper that the area was the largest untreated drainage site in the state.
The Animas River Stakeholders Group that was set up to deal with the issue after the mines were closed, which includes Sunnyside Gold Corp., didn’t have the estimated $12 million to $15 million it would take to treat the contaminated runoff. And for years, Silverton residents resisted EPA involvement out of fear that the “Superfund” label given to the nation’s worst hazardous waste sites would jeopardize the tourism industry — the only source of income that could replace the vanished mines. A few even hoped that the mines would reopen one day.
Meanwhile supporters of EPA intervention accused Sunnyside of stonewalling the cleanup attempt to avoid liability.
The two sides reached an agreement of sorts this year. The mines would not be designated a Superfund site, and the EPA would provide $1.5 billion to plug the problematic Red and Bonita mine, where polluted water drained at a rate of 500 gallons per minute, according to the Durango Herald.
But water has a habit of finding its way downhill, and plugging one mine often means it simply leaks from others, so the agency had to excavate and stabilize the Gold King mine upstream.
That’s what they were up to on Aug. 5, when the loose material holding the mine together finally gave way. The water that had accumulated in the mine’s long-abandoned tunnels went tumbling into Cement Creek.
“It was known that there was a pool of water back in the mine, and EPA had a plan to remove that water and treat it, you know, slowly,” Peter Butler, who serves as a co-coordinator of the stakeholders group, told KUNC. “But things didn’t go quite the way they planned and there was a lot more water in there than they thought, and it just kind of burst out of the mine.”
The EPA has taken a lot of flak for the way it handled the incident — residents weren’t notified for 24 hours after the breach. But agency officials said that the toxic flood just highlights the need to deal with the rest of the state’s 22,000 abandoned mines.
“It’s very unfortunate,” Bruce Stover, the Colorado Department of Mining official in charge of dealing with abandoned mine sites, told the Associated Press. “We’ve been fighting this war for years, and we’ve lost a battle. But we’re going to win the war.”
-
EPA Triples Colo River Spill Estimate
Aug 10, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) believes it spilled 3 million gallons of mine waste containing heavy metals into a Colorado river, it said.
The latest estimate of the spill came out Sunday, and it’s triple the EPA's initial estimate regarding its release of mine waste from the Gold King Mine into the Animas River at Silverton, Colo., TheDurango Herald reported.
The agency has been under harsh criticism from political and environmental leaders in the days following the spill, which turned the river bright orange and caused officials downstream to restrict water intake, recreation, fishing and other activities.
The waste, which EPA crews accidentally released when removing backfill from the abandoned mine, is believed to contain metals like cadmium, copper, zinc and manganese.
The spill has caused declarations of a state of emergency, and the EPA is considering declaring some areas Superfund sites.
“This is critical information for us,” Shaun McGrath, the EPA’s regional administrator, told residents Sunday about the new spill estimate, the Herald said. “Now we have a much more reliable estimate of the volume that will help us with our work on modeling how this behaved and will continue to behave over the coming weeks and months.”
The new estimate was based mostly on river flow readings from the United States Geological Survey, according to the Herald.
Local and state officials are angry that the EPA has still not released analysis of the tests it has conducted on the river. It has only released basic information about the metals it has found, and promised more information in coming days.
-
Industry, States Set to Fight Climate Rules — Energy Journal
Aug 10, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Christopher Harder
LAWSUITS COULD CHALLENGE EMISSION RULES
U.S. industry and states are getting ready to file lawsuits in the coming weeks, challenging White House regulations requiring big cuts in power-plant carbon emissions, Brent Kendall and Amy Harder report. Grounds for legal action may include differently worded House and Senate amendments relevant to the Environmental Protection Agency’s carbon rules and whether the agency exceeded its powers by pushing utilities to shift to cleaner forms of energy, instead of focusing on pollution controls at fossil-fuel-fired power plants.
The lawsuits could contest the authority of the EPA in areas little explored by the courts. “There are definitely novel issues in this case,” said Tim Profeta, director of Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions.
MOVES TO ALLOW U.S. OIL EXPORTS ACCELERATE
The U.S. has long urged liberalized trade, but U.S. crude oil exports were a major exception. Now, the oil industry and Congress are backing moves to open the U.S. oil industry to exports, Amy Harder reports. The House is likely to vote as early as next month to lift a ban, and the Senate is expected to follow suit early next year.
“Go back seven years, you would not have imagined that there would be a debate about U.S. exporting oil,” said Daniel Yergin, vice chairman of research firm IHS. A major factor in spurring the change is hydraulic fracturing, which has contributed to U.S. oil production soaring more than 80% since 2007.
That increased output has played a large role in current low oil prices, but oil futures are signaling that prices could stay lower for years to come, Nicole Friedman reports. Prices for 2016 and 2017 already are trading below their March lows. Later-dated contracts are now too cheap for many producers to justify locking in prices, which means producers are likely to enter next year with fewer price hedges than usual. That could force them to cut back further on new drilling if prices remain below their break-even costs.
Countries should aim to lower prices paid to oil producers and raise prices paid by consumers to help pay for infrastructure, Harvard University professor Jeffrey Frankel writes in the Guardian.
MARKETS
Oil prices rose on Monday but remained under pressure by mixed Chinese economic data and widening concerns about the global glut of oil. Over the weekend, China released disappointing export and factory numbers, clouding the economic outlook for the world’s second-biggest oil consumer. It reported healthy oil imports data but analysts said the uptick was because China was taking advantage of the low prices, not due to rising demand. Meanwhile, the number of oil drilling rigs in the U.S. rose last week, underscoring concerns that the supply glut is unlikely to abate soon.
Brent crude, the global oil benchmark, rose 0.6% to $48.92 a barrel on London’s ICE Futures exchange. On the New York Mercantile Exchange, West Texas Intermediate futures were trading broadly flat at $43.88 a barrel. The contract lost about 7% last week and fell within less than a dollar from its March lows. Read our latest market report atwsj.com.
-
Court Won't Reconsider Greenhouse Gas Judgment
Aug 10, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jeremy P. Jacobs
Federal judges on Friday declined an industry request to reconsider their interpretation of a Supreme Court ruling that trimmed U.S. EPA's greenhouse gas regulations.
More than two dozen industry groups and energy companies in May asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to reconsider its implementation of a June 2014 Supreme Court decision.
The Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling said EPA could not require stationary sources of carbon emissions to apply for permits and install pollution controls if they emit only greenhouse gases and not other, more conventional pollutants.
However, the high court upheld EPA's authority to mandate that sources install best available control technology, or BACT, for carbon emissions at sources that otherwise qualify for the permitting regime (Greenwire, June 23, 2014).
The Supreme Court remanded several issues to the D.C. Circuit, which in turn took a narrow view of the high court's ruling.
Industry groups, however, challenged that interpretation. They contended that the D.C. Circuit should have thrown out EPA's BACT regulations for greenhouse gas emissions based on the Supreme Court's ruling.
They asked the D.C. Circuit for a rehearing of its "amended judgment" by either a three-judge panel or en banc, meaning by all of the circuit's judges.
Specifically, they contended that EPA's BACT regulations for greenhouse gases lacked a de minimis level, meaning an emission limit for carbon below which a facility that already qualifies for the permitting program would not have to install greenhouse gas emissions controls.
"While the Court held that, as a general matter, BACT rules for [sources already qualifying for the permitting program] might be lawful, it also held that EPA's current GHG BACT Rules are not," the groups wrote in their rehearing petition (Greenwire, May 28).
The D.C. Circuit denied both requests in customary short orders without explanation Friday.
-
NRDC's Doniger Pushes Back on Legal Arguments Against Rule
Aug 10, 2015 | E&E - TV
With a shift in strategy on natural gas in its final Clean Power Plan, is the Obama administration retracting on its support for the fuel? During today's OnPoint, David Doniger, director of the climate and clean air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, discusses changes made in the final rule and the impact they could have on the rule's legal defensibility. He also previews NRDC's plans for defending the rule in the courts and in Congress.Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello, and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is David Doniger, director of the climate and clean air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. David, thanks for coming on the show.
David Doniger: Sure, thank you.
Monica Trauzzi: So David, when EPA's draft Clean Power Plan was released, there were many who drew parallels between NRDC's pitch on what the rule should look like and what the agency actually included in their draft. The final rule is quite different from both of those documents. Were you surprised with how aggressive the agency was with the changes that it made?
David Doniger: Well, this is an historic step by the agency. First time we have carbon limits on power plants, the largest source. They do phase in over time. They do go eventually to a stronger level, and under the proposal it's welcome. The many aspects of the proposal are very clear improvements of the -- sorry, of the final are very clear improvements over the proposal. The targets have become much more consistent and fair, like power plants are treated alike, like states are treated alike, and much less variation, a lot of sound improvements over the proposal.
Monica Trauzzi: Where do you think the agency perhaps bent too much to stakeholder concerns?
David Doniger: Well, it's clear that those who wanted more time got a very generous time schedule, but it's doable, and it will make a big difference starting in '20s, and it will make a big difference in the long term, too.
Monica Trauzzi: Is the Obama administration retracting from its strong support on natural gas? I mean, how would you qualify sort of the state of play on natural gas, because I think many people were surprised with the direction they took in this rule?
David Doniger: Well, one of the concerns we had was that the compliance pathway under the proposal involved sort of a temporary bulge in natural gas use, and not enough pickup of the potential for renewable energy and energy efficiency. So with respect to renewables, they have updated all the cost information and reflected reality and the real potential for renewables, and they play a much bigger role. Energy efficiency is not in the target-setting block, but it still is a prominent part of the compliance pathways, which actually is what the power companies wanted. They wanted energy efficiency out of the target setting, but still a compliance technique. So the upshot is you have less reliance on coal, and not an increase on reliance on gas, and much more renewable power and energy efficiency. It's the right direction.
Monica Trauzzi: But we have such an abundance of natural gas in this country. I mean, how much of this was about fracking and methane and other concerns relating to natural gas?
David Doniger: I just would say that the cleanest possible pathways are those which rely on renewable and efficiency, and it's possible to achieve these goals without an increase in natural gas, but even by 2030, of course both natural gas and even coal are still playing an important role in the electricity mix.
Monica Trauzzi: So everyone waits now for the rule to be published to the Federal Register. That will mark the start of legal action. What is NRDC gearing up for? How aggressively do you think this is going to be hit?
David Doniger: Well, it's interesting to note that the litigants seem ready to wait for the package to reach the Federal Register, which is the right approach. Maybe this is the end of all these premature litigation games. NRDC and other environmental groups will be ready to intervene in these cases when they're filed on the government side to defend the rule. If some group of them seeks a stay, we'll be there to oppose a stay, and we'll be there to defend the rule in the long run.
Monica Trauzzi: Industry attorney and former EPA general counsel Roger Martella said on this show that EPA did address some legal issues in the final rule, but at the same time it is even further unhinged from the statutory text. The fundamental approach under Section 111(d), which is pre-empted by Section 112, and the beyond-the-fence-line approach, which goes beyond a specific source, and for the first time in the 45-year history, the Clean Air Act sets standards for a source beyond what's achievable from that source. Those are fundamental inherent flaws that, with the legal approach, that cannot be reconciled. How will that argument be countered in court?
David Doniger: I think that what's unhinged is some of the reaction to the plan. The plan is totally hinged to the Clean Air Act. We've had 30 or 40 years of using these same sorts of technique throughout the Clean Air Act on power plant regulations. The acid rain program, for example, the limits that Congress set were based on the availability of emission trading credits from one plant to another; the cross-state rule, same thing, even the Bush administration mercury proposals, the same concept. So this is nothing new that the limits would be set taking into account both what factory plants can do on their own, and what they can do through emission trading mechanisms to get access to emission reductions that can be made more cheaply outside of the plant; nothing new there.
Monica Trauzzi: So you're not concerned about this argument showing up before the courts?
David Doniger: I'm sure it'll show up, but I'm not concerned about it.
Monica Trauzzi: How many states do you think will choose to comply sooner than the 2022 deadline?
David Doniger: Well, a number of states already have their own programs, and are beefing up their programs, and will probably run earlier and way ahead of the limits that EPA has set for them. The incentive program that the administration has added in will encourage states to complete their plans early, and not wait until the last minute in 2018, because the projects that qualify for the incentives are those which get started after the states admit a complete plan. So that's a positive incentive for states to go ahead, but the main incentive for states to write their own plans is that states know best what the circumstances are in their states, and the opportunities and constraints. That's why most power companies want states to write the plans, not leave it to the federal government. The federal plan is totally practical. It's a good plan, but state plans can be even better.
Monica Trauzzi: Let's talk about Congress for a moment. Senate EPW has already taken a step against the rule. We're expecting several different avenues to derail the rule to emerge once Congress returns in September. How damaging could those efforts be, whether they have the votes to pass or not to what the public perception of the rule is, and also how confident the international community feels?
David Doniger: I think the public is solidly behind taking action on climate change, and this Clean Power Plan in particular. There are opponents, primarily congressional Republicans, who are playing to a base slice. Maybe we'll see some of that in the debate, and it doesn't play well with the broad public. They don't have the votes to get these measures through. The president has made very clear that he would veto things that do get through, and they don't have the votes to override.
So I think we're in a turning point in public opinion where even the Republican opponents are realizing you can't just deny climate change anymore, and deny the need for action anymore. You have to have a plan, and they have no plan. You can't be against the president's plan, the Clean Power Plan, and have no plan.
Monica Trauzzi: This is a big, significant rule. How much of it is about having something in hand when the U.S. negotiating team shows up to Paris?
David Doniger: Well, the question hanging over climate negotiations for a couple of decades, is the United States a serious player? Can we be counted on? The Obama administration's domestic actions, Clean Power Plan, the vehicle standards, a bunch of other things has gone a tremendous distance of convincing other countries that we are a partner, that we are ready to lead, ready to partner with other countries in this effort. It's why the Chinese were willing to agree by that early last November, and other countries since then: Brazil, Mexico and so on. It's shaping up to be a very successful meeting in Paris.
Most foreign leaders have the same assessment of Congress that I've just portrayed that they can't pass the things that would derail things. The court, they're all trying to get their arms around the judicial risk. I think the risk is low and manageable, and EPA usually wins, and they will win again in this case. So it's quite remarkable the Republicans spent the last couple of decades saying we should take action at home, because other countries were unreliable. Now they argue that other countries shouldn't act because the United States is unreliable. I think actually most other countries are willing to take the bet that we are serious and can follow through.
Monica Trauzzi: All right, we'll end it there on that note. Thank you for coming on the show.
David Doniger: Thank you very much.
David Doniger: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
[End of Audio]
-
Mobile Personal Air Quality Monitors Present Benefits, Challenges For EPA
Aug 10, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
A new generation of small, personal mobile air quality monitors is set to revolutionize the collection and sharing of air quality data, several sources say, which presents EPA and other air regulators with new opportunities to better track emissions but also creates challenges in how to manage an expected deluge of data from the monitors.
EPA and other organizations are studying the impact of new technologies that are already providing information on air quality from devices small enough to be carried by individuals. These efforts are aimed at testing the accuracy of the new wave of monitors relative to large, fixed monitors that are EPA-approved to determine air quality for regulatory compliance purposes, such as attainment of its national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).
How the agency handles new data from personal monitors could influence whether it considers the data for regulatory purposes, such as using the information in part to justify revisions to air regulations.
Sources with EPA and with state and private-sector research groups say that in addition to testing how well new devices read air quality, air regulators will have to contend with how they will treat data that the monitors collect. The new monitors provide information direct to the public, much of which is posted to the internet, setting up a possible clash with air quality readings from traditional monitors using officially-sanctioned federal reference methods (FRMs).
One Northeastern air monitoring expert says the "sensor revolution" of personal monitoring devices to track localized air pollution is "promising; technologies only get better over time."
However, "characterizing data quality and communicating that to the end users of air pollution sensors is very challenging," the source says. This is because "most of the 'sensor' data is qualitative or at best semi-quantitative, and not of regulatory quality," compared to traditional data collected by larger monitoring stations.
Typically, new generation monitors measure air quality in very short time scales -- over seconds or minutes -- putting them out of step with how regulators measure NAAQS compliance. NAAQS use averaging times of hours, days or a year, and NAAQS "attainment" is determined using data collated over a three-year period.
Mobile Monitors
EPA has addressed the monitoring issue in recent months. For example, at an April 22 meeting of EPA's Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) agency air official Chet Wayland noted the similarity between data produced by new, mobile monitors and those produced by air monitors known as "buckets", operated by citizen groups concerned over local air quality. The Louisiana Bucket Brigade, a citizen group, derives its name from this type of monitors.
"I call this bucket brigade on steroids," Wayland said of the new monitors, as the volumes of data being produced by small, personal air quality monitors will be much larger, and the sources more diverse.
Communication to the public to manage perceptions of the data produced by new devices will be key to their successful use, Wayland said, noting that these devices do not meet FRM standards.
The new monitors are, however, getting better and some are becoming very accurate for certain pollutants, Wayland said. For particulate matter -- one of the six criteria pollutants for which EPA sets a NAAQS -- the new generation of monitors work well, and for gases including ozone they are also not bad, Wayland said. So far, their performance in measuring air toxics is not very good, at least for the cheaper devices, but "toxics won't be far away."
EPA air staffer David Hindin, with the agency's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, at the CAAAC meeting said the new monitors will result in a "democratization of monitoring," changing how regulators interact with the public. The new monitors report data in real time or near real-time, avoiding the need for time-consuming laboratory analysis of test results -- and the results will reach the public directly, without any filter of official interpretation.
High pollution readings produced by inexpensive, personal monitors could drive demand for tougher EPA rules, although the accuracy of the devices is sometimes inadequate, some attendees at the CAAAC meeting noted.
Wayland therefore said EPA sees the need to educate the public on the strengths and weaknesses of the new monitors, and how to interpret the results.
EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) continues to evaluate the accuracy of new monitoring technologies. Other organizations undertaking similar research include the South Coast Air Quality Management District, which regulates air quality in the greater Los Angeles area, and also the Health Effects Institute (HEI), a research body jointly funded by EPA and industry.
Monitoring Station
ORD has developed a pilot monitoring program known as the "Village Green Project," that uses a bench-like monitoring station to measure concentrations of fine particulate and ozone that reports data collected over one minute to a website. So far, there are 5 such sites, operated by state air regulators. The monitors are, however, relatively expensive.
The Northeastern air expert notes that "right now, there's no messaging associated with the website data." The one-minute data is difficult to translate into a health messaging context, because exposures of very short duration are not known to produce health effects, and NAAQS are measured over much longer periods, the source says.
At HEI's annual meeting in Philadelphia on May 5, Dutch air quality researcher Gerard Hoek, of the University of Utrecht, discussed the application of personal air quality monitoring to the measurement of ultrafine particulate (UFP), a class of particles with a diameter of less than 100 nanometers. UFP has long been suspected of producing more harm to health than other pollutants, but research into its effects is still a relatively new field.
Hoek advocated the usefulness of personal air quality monitors for estimating exposures to UFP, in combination with computer modeling techniques such as "land use regression." Personal air quality monitors are especially useful for measuring UFP because of the pollutant's highly variable nature, Hoek said.
Their low cost means they can be deployed in larger numbers than traditional monitors, making for more accurate estimation of pollution levels, and their mobility helps to mitigate the highly variable spatial distribution of UFP, Hoek said.
Hoek did, however, acknowledge the limitations of personal monitoring devices. For example, the devices tend to be worn by volunteers during the working week and during the day, resulting in data gaps at weekends and at night.
-
Move to Allow U.S. Oil Exports Accelerates
Aug 9, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Amy Harder
Big voices in the oil industry and Congress now support a move that would have been unthinkable not long ago: opening the U.S. oil industry to exports.
The U.S. has long pushed for liberalized trade, with U.S.-produced crude being the biggest exception since the shock of the 1973 Arab oil embargo led Congress to ban oil exports under nearly all circumstances. The only other U.S. products banned under the same regulations are a type of tree found in Western North Americacalled Western red cedar and live horses for slaughter shipped by sea.
The House now looks likely to vote as early as September to lift the oil-export ban, with Senate action anticipated early next year, which would mark a milestone few saw coming.
“Go back seven years, you would not have imagined that there would be a debate about U.S. exporting oil,” said Daniel Yergin, vice chairman of research firm IHS.
But while freely exporting U.S. oil may come as a shock to some Americans, it probably won’t cause much of an economic stir, especially with global oil prices hovering below $50 a barrel.ENLARGE
Thanks to the fracking revolution, the U.S. is no longer the energy-dependent nation it was for most of the past 50 years. Oil production since 2007 has shot up more than 80% to 9.5 million barrels a day. The U.S. still imports a lot of oil, but the share of petroleumfrom foreign sources, 27%, is at its lowest level since 1985, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
The U.S. is already exporting more than a half-million barrels of crude a day to Canada, the biggest exemption under the ban. That is 14 times as much as in 2007, but still just 5.2% of U.S. oil produced a day.
More than a dozen oil companies, including Continental Resources Inc.,ConocoPhillips Co. and Marathon Oil Corp., and several top lawmakers, including Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R., Alaska) and House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio), contend that allowing unfettered domestic oil exports would eliminate market distortions and streamline U.S. petroleum production. The Obama administration hasn’t taken a public position on the issue.
Many U.S. refineries, heavily concentrated along the Gulf Coast, are best tooled to handle medium- and heavy-grade oil imported from the Middle East and elsewhere. The oil that companies are extracting in the U.S. is lighter and best refined with different equipment. Many U.S. refineries can refine the lighter oil but only at an additional cost.
Because of this mismatch and the export ban, U.S.-based refineries have been buying domestic crude at a discount compared with oil elsewhere in the world and still selling their refined products, like gasoline and diesel, at higher prices on the world market. The U.S. government doesn’t limit exports of refined petroleum products, and these exports have more than doubled since 2007.RELATEDNo Relief in Sight for Crude
A few Democrats in Congress, including Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Robert Menendez of New Jersey, worry that exporting oil could raise the price of gasoline for U.S. consumers.
But most economists say allowing oil exports would likely prompt a chain of market interactions that could result in bringing down the price of gasoline, whose national monthly average last month—$2.88 a gallon—was the lowest July level since 2010.
A small group of refineries whose businesses are largely or entirely in the U.S., including Philadelphia Energy Solutions and PBF Energy, are urging Congress to keep the oil-export ban in place largely because of the relative benefits they reap now.
The thinking goes like this: Exporting oil would encourage more U.S. drilling, which would boost supplies, putting downward pressure on the global price of oil. That, in turn, would ease the price of gasoline traded in world markets. Eventually, that could cut U.S. pump prices by up to 12 cents a gallon, according to several recent studies.
Mr. Yergin’s IHS, along with other nonpartisan research organizations, including the Brookings Institution, Resources for the Future and Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, have published reports over the past year that all concluded the same thing: Exporting oil would be, on balance, good for the U.S. economy.
“I do think there are strong economic benefits to easing restrictions on oil exports, but the timing and magnitude of those are highly uncertain,” saidJason Bordoff, founding director of Columbia’s energy center. His own study earlier this year found the range of increase in U.S. crude-oil production could be from not at all to up to 1.2 million barrels a day on average between now and 2025.
Mr. Bordoff, a former Obama White House energy adviser, attributes the wide range in possible outcomes in part to the collapse in global oil prices over the past year, which was brought on by increased U.S. oil production and slow economic growth in Asia. The oil-price drop is lessening the economic urgency of exporting oil because U.S. production is slowing. But cheap oil increases the political urgency for the oil industry and states that depend on it for their economies.
“Lower oil prices mean that oil companies and oil-producing states are now more motivated to make a push to get rid of the ban because at this point, every dollar they can get is a bigger deal to them,” said Michael Plante, a senior research economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
Harder to predict is how U.S. oil exports would affect the overall U.S. trade balance and the value of the dollar. A large jump in oil exports could put more upward pressure on the currency because more foreigners using dollars to buy oil leads to more demand for dollars, which boosts its value. This additional pressure would come at a time when the dollar is already being pushed up by other factors, including the prospect of higher interest rates in the U.S.
If Congress or the Obama administration lifted the ban tomorrow, the amount of oil companies would export would be much lower than if oil prices were high, and the corresponding effects on the broader economy less.
-
Pitching Divestment as a “Moral” Crusade is Misguided
Aug 10, 2015 | The New York Times
By Robert Stavins
Students are right to be concerned about climate change, but the focus of the divestment movement is fundamentally misguided. Students, faculty and staff can be effective by acting in ways that will make a real difference, but the symbolic action of divestment — and the fight to convince universities to do so — has opportunity costs: It diverts us from focusing on what really matters.
Divestment doesn't affect the ability of fossil fuel companies to raise capital: For each institution that divests, there are other investors that take its place. As long as the world still continues to rely on fossil fuels, and consumes them at current rates, the companies that supply them will have a ready market for their products.Don't exacerbate the ideological divide and political polarization that has paralyzed Washington on climate change.
What really matters for addressing climate change is enlightened public policy at the international, national and sub-national levels. In particular, it will take serious, economy-wide, carbon-pricing regimes – either carbon taxes or cap-and-trade systems – to bring about meaningful reductions in carbon dioxide emissions.
At Harvard, where I teach, the student leaders of the divestment movement themselves acknowledge that divestment would not have a financial impact on fossil fuel companies. For them, divestment is a “moral strategy.” This, to me, presents another problem.
Pitching divestment as a moral crusade will play into and exacerbate the ideological divide and political polarization that has paralyzed Washington on climate change (and other issues), diminishing even further the prospects for effective climate policy in the United States. Whatever moral statement divestment might make is not worth risking further disintegration of the climate-policy process.
The real contributions of Harvard and other great research universities to climate change policies will be through our products: our research, teaching and outreach to policy makers. That is how great universities have made a difference on other societal challenges for decades and centuries, and it is how we will make a real difference on this one.
-
TransCanada Mulls Options as Pipeline Decision Looms
Aug 10, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
TransCanada Corp., the Canadian company behind the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, is working on a next move as the White House signals both privately and publicly a rejection of the project's permit is imminent, according to a source close to the deal.
TransCanada is considering the legal and political implications of various reactions, including a challenge under the North American Free Trade Agreement or refiling for a permit before the 2016 presidential election, according to the source (Greenwire, Aug. 5).
"The rumor is that the decision to deny has been made, and they're just waiting for the right time and venue," the source said.
He said the company will likely wait for a while after an announcement to launch its plan.
David Gantz, who teaches trade law at the University of Arizona, called a NAFTA challenge "an expensive way to do a long shot" while potentially antagonizing the United States, which has never lost any of the 14 NAFTA appeals filed against it.
"They can talk about doing it, but my guess is once they have consulted with counsel ... they will decide it's -- if not a long shot, then well under a 50-50 chance," he said, arguing the company should hope for a friendlier administration in 2017.
Advertisement
Debra Steger, the first director of the World Trade Organization's appellate body and now a law professor at the University of Ottawa, said TransCanada should try, citing a Nova Scotia quarry that recently prevailed over the Canadian government in the Bilcon case.
Another application for a pipeline permit could make Keystone XL a key election issue as Republicans blast President Obama for stalling and Democrats pressure party front-runner Hillary Clinton to come out against the project.
"No matter what they try, not an ounce of TransCanada's toxic pipeline will touch Nebraska's soil," activist Jane Kleeb said. "At some point, TransCanada's investors are going to fire the CEO for wasting billions of dollars and years on a pipeline going nowhere."
TransCanada chief executive Russ Girling has said the company will do everything it can to protect shareholders but is focusing on getting a permit approved by Obama's administration (Alexander Panetta, Canadian Press/CBC News, Aug. 9). -- DTB
-
Keystone Builder Quietly Making Plans for Obama Rejection
Aug 10, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The company hoping to build the Keystone XL Pipeline is quietly planning for President Obama to deny the permit it needs.
TransCanada Corporation has been publicly bullish about the Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline’s chances, but internally is expecting a rejection and plotting its next steps, the Canadian Press reported, citing people close to the project.
Based on signals sent both privately and publicly from the White House, TransCanada officials are all but certain it won’t get the presidential permit.
“There’s a broad acceptance that the decision’s been made,” a person close to the project told the Canadian Press, saying that multiple administration employees have indicated that it will be rejected.
“The rumour is that the decision to deny has been made, and they’re just waiting for the right time and venue,” he said.
TransCanada would probably wait a while after the decision to announce its next steps.
One of the top strategies TransCanada is considering is to sue the United States through the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Canadian Press said. It is likely to use provisions that protect companies from discrimination, unfair or arbitrary treatment and expropriation.
But any challenge would be a long shot, since the United States has never lost a case in NAFTA arbitration.
The White House has been mum on how Obama will rule on the pipeline’s permit to cross the border. But Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) recently said Obama will reject it in August, citing unnamed sources.
-
House GOP 'Lease' Plan Seeks To Ease CWA Mitigation Project Obligations
Aug 10, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
A pending House GOP bill seeks to ease Clean Water Act (CWA) permit holders' obligations to create mitigation banks used to offset damage to waters from permitted activities by establishing a novel "lease" program to terminate the obligations after the permitted activity on the project that they are designed to mitigate is complete.
The legislation could gain attention in the coming weeks and months given expectations that EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers' joint CWA jurisdiction rule could boost creation of mitigation banks, because the rule is likely to drive more CWA permitting in regions that have previously seen scant mitigation.
H.R. 3271, introduced July 28 by Rep. Don Young (R-AK), would amend the water law to establish a "preservation leasing" program, under which permit holders could agree to pay for state or tribal lands to be preserved for compensatory mitigation only until permitted activity on the project they are designed to mitigate is complete.
The bill would require water permit holders to complete "a restoration and rehabilitation plan" incorporated into their CWA permit terms when their project activity ceases. The plans would require restoring both "the hydrological functions and fish and wildlife habitat of the area impacted by the permitted activity." When the plan is fulfilled, "the land subject to the lease shall revert back to the State or Indian tribe, as appropriate, without restriction," according to the legislative text.
When builders seek a CWA section 404 permit that involves the destruction of wetlands or streams, they have to include in their application mitigation measures, which demonstrate what the applicant intends to do to offset the destruction. Mitigation of wetland damage is most often done through banking, under which property owners can build, enhance or restore wetlands to counter the destruction of wetlands elsewhere.
But Young -- chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee's Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs subcommittee -- is arguing that the requirement for land to be permanently set aside for mitigation is too harsh and discourages the use of the section 404 permits. He claims in a statement on the bill that mitigation leasing would remedy the problem while rewarding permittees for restoring water quality.
In the statement, Young's office said "Projects typically have a lifespan, and require rehabilitation and reclamation as a condition of the permit. However, current regulations offer options to offset the impacts of the project that permanently lock up lands through preservation easements. Congressman Young believes locking up land into perpetuity is incongruent to the project impacts, and often is a major disincentive for projects."
Mitigation Rule
EPA and the Corps issued a joint compensatory mitigation rule in 2008 that established uniform standards for such efforts, allowing permittees to use several methods for offsetting lost wetlands services.
These methods include either a mitigation bank -- the preferred option -- or third-party broker to replace the lost wetlands with newly constructed wetlands, provided the new wetlands are placed in the same watershed as the dredge-and-fill activity to address factors like local hydrology, ecological benefits and land use.
Under the rule, a seller of wetland bank credits must meet certain criteria, including guarantees that the wetlands that are created through the bank will remain in perpetuity.
H.R. 3271 would change that mandate. "Ultimately, Congressman Young believes land should not be locked up for perpetuity, and mitigation should better reflect [the] life of project," the statement says.
Young's introduction of H.R. 3271 on July 28 comes as observers are expecting use of the section 404 mitigation program to rise as a result of the recently finalized EPA-Corps CWA jurisdiction rule.
The rule could prompt expansion of compensatory mitigation given that it is likely to require more section 404 permits to be issued, and may expand permitting to areas that previously have not seen much in the way of mitigation activity -- bringing in regulators who have not previously dealt with the program at length.
The rule could increase interest in options for mitigating damage to streams because it would formally extend CWA jurisdiction to all "tributaries" or waters that contribute flow, either directly or through another water to a jurisdictional waterbody characterized by the presence of the physical indicators of a bed and banks and an ordinary high water mark.
Mitigation is often more limited for section 404 projects impacting streams than in cases that involve wetlands, because they often involve simple stream crossings rather than more extensive fills.
A wetlands source has told Inside EPA that the Obama administration should consider crafting a national plan for enhancing stream mitigation policies similar to the 2002 National Wetlands Mitigation Plan, laying out a number of areas in need of further dialogue between stakeholders.
For example, an April 2014 "Report on State Definitions, Jurisdiction and Mitigation Requirements in State Programs for Ephemeral, Intermittent and Perennial Streams in the United States," crafted by the Association of State Wetland Managers (ASWM) for EPA, made a host recommendations for facilitating more widespread and uniform mitigation practices.
The ASWM report found that 13 states have their own formal state-coordinated stream mitigation program, and an additional nine states report having state stream mitigation "practices," but no formal program, and 18 states leave mitigation decisions to the Corps.
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 - There are no clips to report at this time
Add recipients
Suggested