Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 12/4/2015
-
How Stinky PJs Launched a Crusade Against the Chemical Industry
Dec 4, 2015 | Fortune
By John Anderson
Parents of young children all know about smelly pajamas. Few would consider them good source material for a motion picture. -
US EPA Issues Snurs for 29 Substances
Dec 4, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has issued a final rule imposing significant new use rules for 29 chemicals that were the subject of pre-manufacture notices under the Toxic Substances Control Act. -
New NARUC Head Says Cyberattacks Pose Existential Threat for Utilities and Their Customers
Dec 4, 2015 | E&E - Energwire
By Peter Behr
The new head of the state utility regulators' association says a long-lasting power outage from a terrorist attack on local electric utilities could threaten their financial and political survival. -
Environmentalists Elevate Push For EPA Facility IST Rule To White House
Dec 4, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dave Reynolds
Environmentalists are urging White House officials to ensure that EPA issues a final industrial facility safety rule that includes a mandate to use inherently safer technologies (IST) and to issue it before President Obama leaves office... -
Congress OKs Five-Year Transportation Funding Bill
Dec 4, 2015 | Progressive Railroading
Both houses of Congress yesterday passed the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, which provides five years of dedicated transportation funding. -
N.D. Pipeline Study Sees Flaws in Some Safety Features
Dec 4, 2015 | E&E - Energwire
By Mike Lee and Pamela King
A state-funded study recommends safety improvements for the network of pipelines that connect North Dakota's Bakken Shale oil field, but stops short of what landowners and environmentalists asked for earlier this year. -
Embattled Mercury Rule Likely to Withstand Court Assault
Dec 4, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
U.S. EPA's landmark air standards for mercury appear likely to survive an effort by industry and states to kill the rules in court. -
EPA Cites Paris Talks in Defending Climate Rule
Dec 4, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Blocking the Obama administration’s climate change rule for power plants would hurt the ongoing climate talks in Paris, federal attorneys argued to an appeals court. -
A Q&A with an Official Who Hopes to be Among the First to Comply With the Clean Power Plan
Dec 4, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Elizabeth Harball
John Quigley is secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Under Gov. Tom Wolf (D), Quigley will craft Pennsylvania's compliance path for the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan... -
Draft EPA SO2 Science Assessment Shows Slightly Elevated Health Risks
Dec 4, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA's latest draft integrated science assessment (ISA) of sulfur dioxide (SO2) air pollution finds slightly higher risks of adverse health effects from the gas than it estimated previously, but avoids making any new definitive statements on "causal" links between SO2 and ill health.. -
Kan. Utility Regulators Order Probe of EPA Rule
Dec 4, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Jeffrey Tomich
Kansas utility regulators voted yesterday to begin an investigation into what U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan will mean for utility rates in the state and the reliability of the electric grid. -
U.S. Shipping Requirement Could Derail Industry -- GAO
Dec 4, 2015 | E&E - Energwire
By Jenny Mandel
A congressional proposal to export U.S. liquefied natural gas only on domestically built ships could cause costs to go up nearly 25 percent and cut into U.S. markets for the fuel, federal analysts say. -
Okla. Regulators Shut Down 7 Wells, Restrict Others
Dec 4, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
Oklahoma oil and gas officials yesterday responded to the state's strongest series of earthquakes in years by telling the owners of seven disposal wells to shut down operations.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
-
How Stinky PJs Launched a Crusade Against the Chemical Industry
Dec 4, 2015 | Fortune
By John Anderson
Parents of young children all know about smelly pajamas. Few would consider them good source material for a motion picture.
Still, the documentary Stink! — which may cause clothiers, fragrance makers and cosmetics manufacturers to lose some sleep — emanated out of the PJs that director Jon Whelan bought his young daughters for Christmas 2011. When they opened the package, they said, they were greeted by a chemical “stench.”
Deciding to find out what was what, Whelan explored the customer-service route, got a runaround and decided to turn his subsequent inquiries into a crusading, Michael-Moore-like documentary — about industry’s use of questionable chemicals, the lack of government oversight over these chemicals, and the companies that exercise the freedom not to be fully transparent on their product labels.
Whelan, who developed and then in 2000 sold the domain-name resale site Afternic, said he’s been working on the movie full-time for the last four years. (His own company, Net Return Inc., is distributing ‘Stink!,” which opened in New York last week, before expanding to additional markets.) The filmmaker’s wife, Heather, seen throughout the movie in home-video flashbacks, died of breast cancer nearly seven years ago.
Whelan is careful not to connect his wife’s illness to exposure to any particular chemicals, but he gives screen time to advocates who cite a variety of statistics: In the 1960s, says one, the odds of contracting breast cancer among women was one in 20. Today, it’s one in eight.
What “Stink!” claims is that there are so many chemicals in the average person’s environment — from the flame retardants in furniture, to the formaldehyde in nail polish – that the cumulative effect could be having a deleterious effect on the nation’s health. As the movie notes, nearly 1,500 chemical ingredients are currently banned by the European Union. Only 11 of those ingredients are banned in the United States; formaldehyde, propylparaben, lead acetate and other carcinogenic chemicals are often found on cosmetic shelves.
The battle, which plays out in the film, is between advocates who want full disclosure on product labeling and companies that don’t. Among the principal targets in the film, which opens Friday in Los Angeles, is Justice, the tween clothing chain operated by Tween Brands, a subsidiary of Ascena Retail Group Inc. And the maker of those odoriferous pajamas.
In the film, Michael Rayden, Justice’s now-retired CEO, defends the companies’ polices as appropriate. “Our customers always come first,” Keriake Lucas, a spokesperson for Tween Brands, later told Fortune. “And we work diligently to see that our products are safe and meet regulatory requirements.”
Whelan dismisses such arguments. “I went to business school,” said Whelan, who has an MBA from Fordham, “so I can look at this through an economic lens. They don’t have to disclose the chemicals in the short time, and in the long term, they don’t want any liability.”
Whelan’s main contention is that regulatory requirements are too lax when it comes to ingredients in clothing, cosmetics and cleaning products. Anything declared “proprietary” by a manufacturer need not be disclosed any further; the Food and Drug Administration and Consumer Products Safety Commission don’t test products for the presence of suspected carcinogens and endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs).
Both were discovered, Whelan says — after he ordered an analysis by an independent laboratory — in his daughters’ pajamas.
“The website didn’t say the pajamas were supposed to have scent, which is partly why I looked into it,” Whelan said. What they included were phthalates, an endocrine disrupter linked to breast cancer.
There’s been some action in this area recently, some theresult of legislative agitation, some due to bad PR and Wall Street: Whelan pointed to companies like Lumber Liquidators, which suffered a skid in share price after the ingredients in its flooring, including formaldehyde, were disclosed earlier this year. “All those chemicals they recently committed to eliminating,” Whelan noted, “we found in Justice clothing.”
The Consumer Products Safety Commission did not respond to Fortune’s request for comment, and Lauren Sucher, a spokesperson for the FDA, told Fortune that since the agency hadn’t yet seen the film, “the FDA cannot respond to issues raised in the film.”
But Ms. Sucher did verify some of Whelan’s positions. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act, for instance, she said, “cosmetic products and ingredients, except for color additives, do not require premarket approval.” The Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, she added, “does require that cosmetics must not be ‘adulterated’ or ‘misbranded.’ This means they must be safe for consumers when used according to directions on the label, or in the customary or expected way, and they must be properly labeled. It also means they must not be prepared, packed, or stored in a way in which they may have become contaminated or harmful to health.”
She did not deny that the “proprietary“ label precludes any demand for further disclosure, or that ingredients deemed harmful in, say food, could be included in other products. These would include formaldehyde and phthalates.
“Safety and transparency are separate issues,” Whelan said. “What’s happened in the past is that industry has argued ‘it’s safe; we don’t have to disclose.’ But they don’t have to prove that it’s safe.”
-
US EPA Issues Snurs for 29 Substances
Dec 4, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has issued a final rule imposing significant new use rules for 29 chemicals that were the subject of pre-manufacture notices under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
The action requires persons who intend to manufacture, import or process these substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use to notify the agency at 90 days before starting that activity.
The rule goes into effect on 2 February 2016.
-
New NARUC Head Says Cyberattacks Pose Existential Threat for Utilities and Their Customers
Dec 4, 2015 | E&E - Energwire
By Peter Behr
The new head of the state utility regulators' association says a long-lasting power outage from a terrorist attack on local electric utilities could threaten their financial and political survival.
"Let's imagine that something catastrophic happened that we recover from, but it was on a level of seriousness that it was front-page news for three months running," said Travis Kavulla, twice-elected member of the Montana Public Service Commission and president of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC).
"I don't know that investor-owned utilities would survive the potential nationalization of the industry that would follow," Kavulla said in an interview with EnergyWire.
"What does that tell the people who actually run the utilities, as opposed to the regulator? That they'd better figure it out and that they'd better be on top of it.
"We can talk about whether or not the cold weather has boosted your profits from gas sales or whether you're going to get stranded costs [recovery] for a coal plant. But this is something like an existential threat to their financial viability, were something to actually occur," Kavulla said.
Kavulla said that on this trip to Washington, D.C., he brought a copy of broadcast journalist Ted Koppel's book "Lights Out," about disastrous consequences from a crippling cyberattack on power grids.
Travis Kavulla, the new NARUC president will appear on Monday's E&ETV OnPoint. Photo courtesy of E&ETV.
"I know people are quibbling about the details, but good for him, scaring the hell out of everyone like that. It keeps people on their toes.
"All of this talk about the Clean Power Plan this, or net metering that, would look trivial compared to the things -- if that actually happened -- that he talked about in his book," he added. "We would look like we'd really been focusing on the wrong things."
Kavulla was elected last month to a one-year term as NARUC's president, taking over an organization that has sought to raise awareness of cyber and physical security hazards among the 50 different state utility regulatory commissions.
NARUC has developed a checklist of priority cybersecurity issues as a guide to state regulators. "We are giving them context and tools so they can develop best practices," said Miles Keogh, NARUC director of grants and research, in an October interview. "The practices they take up are their own best practices. We have not been trying to say, 'This is the way to do it.'"
"I'm not aware of a single state that hasn't engaged on the 48 questions on the back of the cybersecurity primer," although the states differ in how they have used it, Keogh said.State differences
A report this year by the National Regulatory Research Institute found wide variations in state responses.
As of the end of 2013, 11 commissions had completed rules or orders relating to cybersecurity: Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Maryland, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas and Washington. Eight other states, plus New York, Connecticut and the District of Columbia, had ongoing dockets on cybersecurity policy: Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Vermont (EnergyWire, Feb. 17).
Thirty-one states were not on either list, including Kavulla's home state of Montana. "Some states ... they're super enthusiastic about it," said Daniel Phelan, an NRRI research associate who prepared the report, "whereas other states, you struggle to find any information about what they've been doing."
Kavulla said he has been briefed by officials of NorthWestern Energy, the state's largest utility, about how they are protecting their most critical assets.
The reality is that state commissions, based on their size, have different capabilities to oversee cyberthreats, he said.
"Some of the larger commissions may have staff to engage in more thoroughgoing exercises around cybersecurity, but regulation on the part of the 40 or states that do not have those resources really does need to exist primarily in ensuring that utilities are being proactive ... that they're thinking about this topic seriously."
In response to a question, Kavulla said he has been digging into the dilemma of potentially wide-ranging cyberthreats to the grid that pass over the jurisdictional divide between the interstate bulk-power transmission grids, subject to mandatory federal cyber rules, and the local utility distribution networks that are regulated by state commissions.
"I'll be candid. That is really difficult," he said.
From an electrical engineer's perspective, he said "it makes sense to have a bright-line break in kilovoltage terminology of what is the bulk electric system and what is the distribution system for purposes of defining federal and state jurisdiction. But data is data, and it can flow from a Nest thermostat, which is beyond the regulation of any of these bodies ... all the way up to critical power plants.
"There needs to be more thinking about the premise of jurisdiction relative to that," he added.
"We're definitely thinking about how to highlight that," although there is nothing to announce at this point, he said.
"Clearly, cyber seems to be one of those topics where there really needs to be some kind of one-stop shop ... for data sharing and threat reporting."
-
Environmentalists Elevate Push For EPA Facility IST Rule To White House
Dec 4, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dave Reynolds
Environmentalists are urging White House officials to ensure that EPA issues a final industrial facility safety rule that includes a mandate to use inherently safer technologies (IST) and to issue it before President Obama leaves office, after learning from EPA that the agency will likely delay proposing the rule and not mandate IST.
Meanwhile, chemical industry representatives are starting their work to advise EPA on how to craft the rule as part of a Small Business Advocacy Review to ensure it does not create major costs for small businesses. EPA will issue its proposed facility safety rules likely sometime next year, and then work on a final version of the rule.
During a Nov. 23 meeting with the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), officials with the Coalition to Prevent Chemical Disasters -- consisting of environmental groups and other advocates of stricter facility safety rules -- argued that EPA's new deadline to propose revisions to its Risk Management Plan (RMP) rule in March puts an eventual final regulation at risk from further review from Congress or a future administration.
At the CEQ meeting, the groups also faulted EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy's apparent suggestion in a meeting with advocates in October that the proposal likely will not require that facilities use IST, usually alternative chemicals or processes advocates say reduce the risk of an accident or attack. The groups noted that Obama and other administration officials have expressed prior support for IST.
"We're continuing to try and elevate this issue," a coalition source said, adding advocates want "to make sure that the White House understands clearly our view and our concerns with what we're seeing as EPA's direction on this rule."
EPA has been weighing an IST mandate as part of its planned overhaul of its RMP accident prevention program for months. But after the Oct. 13 meeting with McCarthy, advocates fear EPA will forgo requiring IST, which they say shows the Obama administration abandoning a key priority in the face of industry opposition.
EPA missed a non-binding September goal for proposing revisions to the RMP and has not issued a new target date. Advocates say federal officials have indicated they intend to propose a rule in March.
The agency's overhaul of its RMP is part of a broad federal effort to implement President Obama's 2013 Executive Order (EO) 13650 on strengthening the safety and security of industrial plants through improved coordination as well as modernized policies, rules and standards. Obama issued the EO Aug. 1, 2013, in response to an ammonium nitrate explosion in April of that year at a fertilizer facility in West, TX, that killed 14 people and wounded 200 others.
RMP currently require facilities to report certain hazardous chemicals to EPA and reduce risks of their accidental release, and advocates say the proposed revision should include a mandate for facilities to use IST.
IST Requirement
The Coalition to Prevent Chemical Disasters in 2012 petitioned EPA to use authority under section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act -- which established the RMP program -- to require facilities to use IST where feasible. More recently, the coalition has urged EPA to speed its RMP rulemaking to ensure any revisions to the rule are final before Obama's term ends in 2016 and therefore not abandoned by a potential future administration opposed to the rule.
Advocates told officials from CEQ and the White House Office of Management and Budget and National Security Council that an IST requirement has been one of Obama's core principles as both a candidate and president.
In his 2008 book Change We Can Believe In, Obama backed "using safer technology, such as less toxic chemicals" whenever possible, advocates said. And in March 2010 congressional testimony, former EPA water chief Peter Silva and former Deputy Secretary for Homeland Security Rand Beers called requiring the highest-risk facilities to use IST a key priority.
In an Oct. 29 letter to CEQ Managing Director Christy Goldfuss, the Center for Effective Government (CEG), a coalition member, said EPA's RMP proposal is significantly delayed and that rules to prevent accidents, such as an IST requirement, are long overdue.
"We are concerned that the rule may not include prevention-focused safety requirements consistent with the principles laid down by the Obama administration before Congress," CEG says in the letter requesting a meeting.
Sources who attended the Nov. 23 meeting said advocates told federal officials, "We have a president who has been on the record supporting this as a senator and a candidate."
A second source tells Inside EPA that advocates told federal officials that "The White House issued the executive order, and we're looking to [the White House] for accountability."
In response, sources say White House officials said the administration still plans to issue a final rule before Obama leaves office, though they appeared to leave open the possibility of finalizing RMP revisions at a later date, noting that some White House officials would likely remain on staff in a future administration.
"Unfortunately, it really seemed to validate that it's unlikely we will see a final rule in this administration," one of the coalition sources tells Inside EPA.
Small Business Review
Industry officials tracking the federal review of the potential costs to small businesses of EPA's planned RMP revisions have said EPA's proposing a rule by March would be a stretch but is possible since the review takes two months.
EPA, in a Nov. 16 update on its website says it convened the small business review for the RMP proposal on Nov. 4. Industry sources have said federal officials began consulting with industry on the review earlier in the fall. During that time, federal officials indicated they are weighing the costs of third party audits and hazard assessments, including of safer alternatives.
The first meeting involving industry advisors was Nov. 19, sources say.
A food industry source familiar with the review process said the small business review will last until late December or early January, and that the March time frame for a proposal is an achievable goal. Should that occur, the source also says it would still be possible for the agency to issue a final rule before Obama leaves office.
"It's ambitious, but I think it's possible," the source says, adding that completing the rulemaking is an administration priority. "I think they will do everything they can to have a final product before the end of the administration."
Industry officials and GOP Sens. David Vitter (LA) and James Inhofe (OK) called for the review after arguing EPA's July 2014 request for information on strengthening RMP suggested costly and unnecessary changes.
EPA announced the review this spring, with a June 19 press release requesting that representatives of small businesses, governments and nonprofit organizations apply as members of the Small Business Advocacy Review.
EPA's website says the Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act requires EPA to convene the panels for regulations that could adversely impact small business.
Federal representatives from the Small Business Administration, OMB, and EPA lead the review, the site says, though representatives of small entities, including businesses, local governments and nonprofit groups may advise the panel if they are "directly subject to the particular proposed regulation that is under development."
The outside representatives advise the panel on the potential impacts of the rule and ways to reduce those impacts. The coalition sources say they are not allowed to participate in the review.
EPA did not respond to a request for further information on the review by press time.
-
Congress OKs Five-Year Transportation Funding Bill
Dec 4, 2015 | Progressive Railroading
Both houses of Congress yesterday passed the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, which provides five years of dedicated transportation funding.
The bill now proceeds to the White House, where President Obama is expected to sign it into law. The current extension on transportation funding was slated to expire at midnight tonight.
The FAST Act will provide about $300 billion over five years and includes environmental streamlining provisions that could speed up project delivery, according to the American Associations of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
Passage of the bill elicited a variety of responses from several lawmakers and organizations, with many expressing support.
U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) praised the bill's rail safety provisions, such as a requirement that railroads inform first responders about hazardous materials moving through their communities.
"I am so grateful to the advocates, first responders, local officials, and concerned citizens who have spoken out and demanded increased transparency, communication and accountability when it comes to keeping our Wisconsin communities along oil train routes safe," Baldwin said. "I have been sounding the alarm for two years on the need to put in place strong rail safety reforms and today we have taken major action to hold railroad companies accountable and protect Wisconsin’s citizens from the catastrophic consequences of these dangerous derailments."
Other responses to the bill follow.
"It is a tremendous relief to know that with the FAST Act, state departments of transportation will have some reasonable long-term certainty regarding the levels of federal investments for surface transportation."
Paul Trombino, AASHTO president and Iowa Department of Transportation director
"We applaud this bipartisan support for a transportation bill that marks another step toward increased freight rail safety, our industry's top priority," said Chet Thompson, president of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers. "Congress rightly concluded that annual retrofit progress reports are critical to prevent supply disruption of products, including the fuels that make America's modern lifestyle possible."
Chet Thompson, president of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers
"I cannot support a piece of legislation that falls well short of the obligation Congress has to fix our broken Highway Trust Fund. Sadly, Congress has opted to pilfer tomorrow’s dollars to pay for today’s need to rebuild and modern our country’s transportation system. While this bill includes some good transportation policies, the way we pay for these policies is unsustainable and irresponsible, offering little more than a grab bag of budget gimmicks that will actually increase our deficit in the long run. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has already told us that when this bill expires, the Highway Trust Fund will be $100 billion in the hole."
U.S. Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) -
N.D. Pipeline Study Sees Flaws in Some Safety Features
Dec 4, 2015 | E&E - Energwire
By Mike Lee and Pamela King
A state-funded study recommends safety improvements for the network of pipelines that connect North Dakota's Bakken Shale oil field, but stops short of what landowners and environmentalists asked for earlier this year.
The North Dakota Legislature ordered the $1.5 million study in April, to determine if it's feasible to require leak-detection systems and other safety features on the Bakken's gathering lines -- the lightly regulated pipelines that connect individual well sites to the larger transportation network.
The final report, published Wednesday by the Energy and Environmental Research Center at University of North Dakota, called for more testing of new pipelines, better information sharing among companies and state regulators, better training of pipeline operators, and other steps.
But it said leak-detection technology isn't advanced enough, and other safety features such as automatic shutoff valves won't work correctly in the Bakken's rugged conditions or aren't cost-effective.
It's a setback for the Northwest Landowners Association, which represents farmers and ranchers in the Bakken. The group has been pushing state regulators and legislators for those safety features since 2013, hoping to reduce the number of spills and other accidents in the Bakken.
"We'll have to negotiate those things to get them into the rules," association Chairman Troy Coons said.
The landowners group has pushed for tougher standards on gathering lines since 2013, hoping to reduce the number of spills and other accidents in the Bakken.
Dick Anderson, a Republican state representative who served on the committee that authorized the study, said he understood the concerns about cost, but also wanted to ensure that landowners are protected from spills.
"I think we're still looking for a solution," he said in an interview.
The North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources, which will ultimately write any new pipeline regulations, declined to comment on the report until agency staff have a chance to fully review the document, a spokeswoman said.
The Bakken, a deep layer of shale that has to be broken up with millions of gallons of water and chemicals, has pushed North Dakota's oil production up almost tenfold to about 1.2 million barrels a day in the last decade.
The field already has about 10,000 wells, and 4,000 miles of gathering pipelines have been built in the last four years, according to data the EERC made public in September. The EERCestimates that another 36,000 miles could be built as the field is developed.
Like most oil-producing states, North Dakota historically has had little regulation on gathering lines. The larger transmission lines are subjected to more extensive oversight, either by the states or by the Department of Transportation.
There's been an increase in the number of spills, and some of the biggest ones have come from gathering lines. The number of spills in North Dakota jumped 42 percent from 2012 to 2013, and another 15 percent from 2013 to 2014. More of them went uncontained than in previous years -- 24 percent in 2014 compared with 20 percent in 2013 (EnergyWire, Sept. 29).
Three of the five biggest spills in the past 12 months have come from pipelines. In January, a wastewater pipeline outside of Williston leaked for days before it was caught. The state estimates that 3 million gallons of salty brine flowed across a field and into Blacktail Creek, eventually reaching the Little Muddy and Missouri rivers (Greenwire, Jan. 27).
Brine spills are a particular concern for farmers because the salt is harder to clean up than oil and can cause long-term soil damage.
A month after the Blacktail Creek spill, the North Dakota House of Representatives passed a bill calling for automatic shutoff valves and leak-detection equipment for gathering lines. The bill was later amended to remove those requirements but fund the study.
The EERC report said that existing leak-detection systems may not work on gathering lines. Unlike long-haul systems, which operate at a steady pressure for long periods, gathering pipelines tend to ebb and flow rapidly. Also, most leak-detection systems are designed for steel pipe, and virtually all of the 1,200 miles of brine-gathering pipe is made from plastic.Safety recommendations
The report recommended some safety features that are already used on larger pipelines. Newly installed pipe could be filled with water and pressurized to test for leaks, and new systems could be built to allow testing with instruments called pigs that travel inside the line.
Citing an Alaska study from 1999, the EERC report says, "The best opportunities to mitigate pipeline accidents and subsequent leaks are through prevention measures such as aggressive controller training and strict enforcement of safety and maintenance programs."
EERC also recommended establishing a system that would streamline the process for reporting and analyzing spill data. Such a system would improve North Dakota regulators' ability to identify root causes of pipeline spills and to shape future regulations based on those findings, the report says.
The system also could be used to track the progress of spill remediation, the authors wrote.
As it stands, standards for recording spill information in North Dakota -- and other oil-producing states -- are nonexistent. Spill volumes are sometimes given in gallons, sometimes in barrels. Data on the type of material released are inconsistent. Duplicate entries abound.
North Dakota's spill data are skewed because of the state's low reporting threshold, the report says. Raising that floor could allow for a more apples-to-apples data comparison against states like Texas and New Mexico, which have 5-barrel thresholds, said Jay Almlie, principal engineer and lead of EERC's mid- and downstream oil and gas group.
"When all the other states have a threshold and we don't, naturally our statistics are going to look much worse," he said.
But EERC stops short of recommending that North Dakota's Department of Mineral Resources, which was a stakeholder in the report, raise its threshold.
"We need to let DMR do their job because they have insight into how that database is constructed and how they can effectively execute any additional regulation," Almlie said.
-
Embattled Mercury Rule Likely to Withstand Court Assault
Dec 4, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
U.S. EPA's landmark air standards for mercury appear likely to survive an effort by industry and states to kill the rules in court.
A panel of federal judges this morning seemed reluctant to vacate EPA's rules to slash mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from power plants after the Supreme Court sent the standards back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The high court ruled that EPA failed to properly consider costs before issuing the standards, and opponents of the regulation urged the D.C. Circuit to toss out the rules.
But the same three-judge panel that upheld those EPA rules in 2014 hinted today that it's inclined to keep the standards alive while allowing EPA to address the problems flagged in the Supreme Court's ruling.
Oral arguments this morning centered on whether the rules should be vacated, and the judges focused questioning on the practical consequences of gutting the rules. EPA officials have indicated that they believe they can tweak the rule quickly to address costs and comply with the Supreme Court's ruling, and that the agency believes it is likely to reaffirm its finding.
The agency has committed to fully addressing the high court's concerns by April 15, and EPA issued a proposed finding last month concluding that the benefits of its mercury standards justified the costs of the rule.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a Republican appointee who dissented in the appeals court's divided ruling last year, questioned what practical implications vacating EPA's rules would have, given that the agency has already indicated it will come to the same conclusion.
Michigan Solicitor General Aaron Lindstrom, the attorney representing a coalition of states and industries asking to vacate the rule, warned that compliance costs will be "significant" during the time that EPA tweaks its rule. "This has been imposed unlawfully," he told the judges.
Chief Judge Merrick Garland, a Democratic appointee, told the challengers that "in four months, you may be back under the rule again." He added, "We can't help you with what happened in between." Garland apologized for issuing the decision to uphold the rule that was later rebuffed by the high court.
The judges also noted that their court had previously sent flawed rules back to agencies without gutting the rules completely.
Kavanaugh noted that the Supreme Court did not say EPA didn't have the authority to issue the rule in the first place. Rather, he said, the high court found that EPA didn't have the authority to do what it did without first considering costs.
Kavanaugh dissented from Garland and Judge Judith Rogers -- another Democratic appointee -- in the 2014 decision to uphold the rule, based on EPA's conclusions regarding costs. Kavanaugh wrote that consideration of costs is "common sense and sound government practice." He added that consideration of costs "is no trivial matter" (Greenwire, April 15, 2014).
Stephanie Talbert, the attorney representing EPA in court today, stressed that the agency "is on track" to meet its deadline to factor in costs. She also argued that tossing out the mercury rule would have harmful public health and environmental consequences.
The mercury rules issued by EPA in December 2011 require coal-burning power plants to reduce emissions of mercury, lead, arsenic and other hazardous air pollutants. The agency said those standards would prevent 11,000 premature deaths a year and yield up to $90 billion in health benefits.
-
EPA Cites Paris Talks in Defending Climate Rule
Dec 4, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Blocking the Obama administration’s climate change rule for power plants would hurt the ongoing climate talks in Paris, federal attorneys argued to an appeals court.
Justice Department attorneys representing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) urged the judges not to put a temporary block on the carbon dioxide rule, saying it significantly helps the negotiations toward a global accord on fighting climate change.
“By demonstrating the United States’s commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the rule has helped to establish this country’s leadership on the international stage,” lawyers said in a late Thursday filing.
“This leadership has facilitated new emission reduction commitments, called Intentional Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), by countries representing 98% of global emissions. The successful implementation of the Clean Power Plan will enable our nation to continue leading by example,” they said.
The lawyers also submitted a declaration from Todd Stern, the State Department’s top negotiator for the ongoing talks, saying that a halt to the rule “might prompt other countries to scale back or renege on their own domestic mitigation efforts.”
The Obama administration is trying to convince the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that it should not stop implementation of the rule, as requested by 27 states and dozens of businesses and interest groups who are suing to have it overturned.
Those opponents say the rule is illegal under the Clean Air Act, and they should be protected from its effects while litigation against it is under way.
The administration argued in the court filing that the litigants do not meet the three requirements for a stay of the regulation: likelihood of success on the merits of their case, irreparable harm without a stay and the public interest and balance of harms.
“Even though all significant regulatory deadlines are set well after review in this court would conclude, movants seek the immediate and extraordinary relief of a stay,” the attorneys wrote. “Their requests for a stay should be denied.”
The litigants asking for the stay must file a brief Tuesday responding to the EPA’s arguments. The court will consider the motion as early as the end of December.
Scott Segal, a partner at the law and lobbying firm Bracewell & Giuliani who represents fossil fuel companies, called Stern’s declaration “a desperate attempt to support EPA’s weak legal case that has garnered the opposition of the majority of the states.”
Furthermore, Segal argues, the Supreme Court has rejected the notion that foreign policy should be considered in questions of climate change regulation.
-
A Q&A with an Official Who Hopes to be Among the First to Comply With the Clean Power Plan
Dec 4, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Elizabeth Harball
John Quigley is secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Under Gov. Tom Wolf (D), Quigley will craft Pennsylvania's compliance path for the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan, a sweeping regulation to reduce U.S. carbon emissions from the power sector 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030.
Under the Clean Power Plan, U.S. EPA is requiring Pennsylvania to lower its emissions rate from power plants by 33 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. Pennsylvania's plan will have repercussions beyond the state's borders. It is the top electricity exporter in the United States, according to DEP, and also is a major producer of both coal and natural gas.
Complying with the Clean Power Plan will also present political hurdles for Quigley; Act 175 of 2014, signed into law by then-Gov. Tom Corbett (R), requires DEP to submit its state plan to the now Republican-led General Assembly for a vote before turning it in to EPA (Greenwire, Oct. 16, 2014).
Nevertheless, the Wolf administration aims to submit a final plan to EPA in September 2016 rather than seeking a two-year extension, a course many other states are expected to take. DEP recently completed a series of 14 listening sessions that, in addition to a public comment period, allowed the agency to hear how Pennsylvanians want the agency to approach EPA's climate rule. Quigley says DEP is now writing a first draft of its plan. He spoke with ClimateWire about the challenges -- and opportunities -- Clean Power Plan compliance presents for his state. This conversation has been edited slightly for length and clarity.
ClimateWire: You have said one of the big challenges for Pennsylvania in writing its state plan is maintaining its status as a net energy exporter. Why is that a challenge, and what are the consequences if Pennsylvania loses this status?
Quigley: The energy sector is a very important sector in Pennsylvania's economy. There are a lot of folks in Pennsylvania employed in the generation of electricity; Pennsylvania is the No. 1 energy-exporting state in the United States. ... Governor Wolf has tasked us to maintain that position as an energy exporter while meeting the requirements of the Clean Power Plan. So it's an additional hurdle, basically, that we have to get over, but I'm confident that we'll be able to do that.
CW: Looking over the comments the Pennsylvania DEP has received, it looks like many energy companies are pushing for mass-based carbon trading as a compliance option. Is that consistent with what you are seeing? Do you see any advantages in that approach?
Quigley: We haven't made any decisions yet. Certainly, in the course of the listening sessions and looking at the volume of comments, we heard a significant amount of support for mass-based [trading]. It is easier, relatively speaking, to administer. It could be less costly overall and could facilitate interstate trading. So it has a number of attributes that lend itself to consideration. We have to do some sophisticated modeling and make sure that is the right course for Pennsylvania.
CW: Pennsylvania's coal industry is urging DEP to delay the submittal of its state plan until 2018. Can you bring them on board with your desire to submit a plan in 2016?
Quigley: We heard very significant comments from the generating community urging us to submit a plan in September [2016]. The argument there was, "We want business certainty. The sooner we know what the rules of the road are, the longer we will have to plan for the implementation of those rules." So there are compelling arguments on all sides of this. It's not to say that anybody has a monopoly on the best argument. We have to take into account all of the input we received and try to balance it. Certainly, the governor wants us to maintain a role for coal in our future energy mix. We are looking at ways that we will be able to do that. In addition, looking at how we can perhaps become a leader in developing some of the technologies that will be needed in the longer term -- things like carbon capture and storage, carbon capture and utilization. At the end of the day, it's a balance.
CW: Could submitting a state plan to EPA next September be an advantage because Pennsylvania would therefore likely influence which carbon trading system -- either mass-based or rate-based -- other states would choose to participate in?
Quigley: There are incentives for states to really take out a leadership position, and clearly, because of Pennsylvania's footprint in the energy world, being the nation's No. 1 energy-exporting state, we certainly have some influence. There's an opportunity on multiple levels for us to lead and ultimately, I think, to demonstrate sustainability to the nation.
CW: Do you anticipate any political efforts, like in Pennsylvania's Republican-led General Assembly, to try to prevent you from submitting a plan in the time frame you're contemplating?
Quigley: It's our intention to share a draft plan with the General Assembly well in advance of submission to EPA. We will do this open-book. The options are, does Pennsylvania want a plan handed to us by EPA? Or do we want a plan that is developed for Pennsylvania, by Pennsylvanians? I think the work will speak for itself and we will prepare a plan that is compelling, that shows how we can maintain the state's energy economy -- indeed, grow our economy -- and cut our emissions at the same time.
CW: Are there any unknowns that present a challenge when it comes to writing a plan? For example, some critics have said that because Pennsylvania doesn't know what EPA's federal plan will look like because it hasn't yet been finalized, the state should wait to file its plan until 2018.
Quigley: There are variables that we have to pay attention to. Another one, for example, is that PJM Interconnection's modeling of the final rule might not be available until the summer of next year. We would be on track to have a plan drafted by Memorial Day. So we have to look at that timing and determine whether or not any of those variables requires us to adjust our timing and our goal. The goal is to submit a final plan that is not an absolute; we're going to have to respond to some of these conditions and information as it develops. But we intend to stay on track to shoot for final submission in September.
CW: The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission noted in its comments to DEP, "the successful compliance with [Clean Power Plan] requirements within the PJM region may largely depend on the survival of the existing nuclear fleet." Is there anything Pennsylvania might do to ensure nuclear energy's role is maintained?
Quigley: We think there is, at least, as strong argument to be made that the effect of this rule will provide some incentives to nuclear power. It is an important part of our energy generation in Pennsylvania; about 36 percent of electricity generated in Pennsylvania comes from nuclear power. We are the No. 2 nuclear power state in the nation. And nuclear power, in fact, represents about 95 percent of the carbon-free generation in Pennsylvania. So it's a huge asset to the commonwealth, as well as being a significant employer, and we need to figure out how to preserve that.
CW: Are you seeing interest in EPA's Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP), which provides early credit to wind, solar and energy efficiency built before the Clean Power Plan compliance period begins? Is that something Pennsylvania is considering?
Quigley: Yes. When you look at the comments that we received in the course of our 14 listening sessions, there was very strong support for the CEIP, for energy efficiency and renewable energy, generally -- in fact, I'd say overwhelming support. We're trying to see, as that plan still comes into focus, what is the appropriate role for both of those tools. Clearly, the cleanest megawatt-hour is the one you don't have to generate. And I think there's a lot of juice left to be squeezed out of our Act 129 -- Pennsylvania's energy-efficiency law.
We will come up with a plan that resides within the four squares of the Clean Power Plan, but we're very likely also to come out with a companion document of the "should-do's" that aren't necessarily needed for compliance, but are things Pennsylvania should do as a matter of good public policy: to grow the renewable energy economy, to advance the cause of energy efficiency.
-
Draft EPA SO2 Science Assessment Shows Slightly Elevated Health Risks
Dec 4, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA's latest draft integrated science assessment (ISA) of sulfur dioxide (SO2) air pollution finds slightly higher risks of adverse health effects from the gas than it estimated previously, but avoids making any new definitive statements on "causal" links between SO2 and ill health, citing lingering scientific uncertainty.
In the "external review draft" ISA announced by EPA Nov. 24, the agency slightly elevates the likelihood of SO2 causing adverse health outcomes, but does not reach new conclusions that would potentially suggest a need for it to tighten the SO2 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). EPA last tightened the SO2 NAAQS in 2010, introducing a new one-hour limit of 75 parts per billion (ppb) to address short-term spikes in pollution.
The ISA summarizes new science on a pollutant's effects that has been published since the last NAAQS review. The document can then serve as the basis for a risk and exposure assessment (REA) developing quantitative characterizations of SO2 exposures and risks, if EPA feels that a new REA is warranted.
Both scientific documents inform the policy assessment (PA) document that EPA staff prepares for the agency administrator, presenting options to either update a NAAQS or leave it unchanged. EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee will review the draft ISA at least once before it is finalized.
EPA last finalized an ISA for SO2 in 2008, in support of the eventual 2010 NAAQS, which replaced an earlier annual limit of 30 ppb and a daily limit of 140 ppb, which had been in effect since 1971.
In its new draft ISA, on which EPA is taking comment through Jan. 25, the agency says there is a "causal" relationship between short-term exposure to SO2 and respiratory effects, the same conclusion it reached in 2008.
However, the agency strengthens some other conclusions. For long-term exposure, EPA said in 2008 that there was "inadequate" evidence to infer presence or absence of a causal relationship with respiratory effects. Now, EPA says the evidence is "suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship."
Similarly, EPA upgrades its assessment for cardiovascular effects caused by short-term exposure from "inadequate" to show a relationship to "suggestive" but insufficient to infer a causal relationship.
EPA makes the same upgrade in assessment for "reproductive and development effects," and for both total mortality and cancer stemming from long-term exposure to SO2. The new ISA considers cardiovascular effects from long-term exposure for the first time, but says the evidence is "inadequate" to infer a causal relationship.
For respiratory effects from short-term exposure, EPA says says the evidence is strongest for asthmatics. "Consistent with the findings of the 2008 [sulfur oxides] ISA, this ISA concludes that there is adequate evidence that people with asthma are at increased risk for SO2-related health effects compared with those without asthma. This conclusion is based on the evidence for short-term SO2 exposure and respiratory effects (specifically lung function decrements), for which a causal relationship has been determined."
EPA adds, "There is also evidence suggestive of increased risk of SO2-related health effects for children and older adults relative to other lifestages." This is significant because NAAQS standards are supposed to be set sufficient to protect public health "with an adequate margin of safety" to protect especially vulnerable groups.
Scientific Uncertainty
However, substantial scientific uncertainty surrounds the "suggestive" links to health effects that EPA has identified, according to the draft ISA, creating doubts about whether the PA will call for revising the NAAQS.
Also, EPA notes in the draft ISA that SO2 emissions have continued to fall steeply since 2010, a trend begun in the early 1990s as a result of EPA power plant regulations and power plants and industry switching to fuel other than coal. Locally, exposure to SO2 is highly variable, EPA notes, and this can lead to miscalculations of exposure.
Under the five-year review cycle established by the Clean Air Act, EPA should issue a new NAAQS rule for SO2 this year. However, as is often the case, the agency is already well behind this schedule.
Also, implementation of the 2010 standard is years behind air law schedule because of difficulties in measuring SO2 concentrations to determine which areas are attaining the standard. After initially asking states to use computer modeling to determine their compliance with the NAAQS, EPA was heavily criticized because critics in some states said conservative assumptions inherent in modeling would lead to unnecessary nonattainment designations.
The agency then changed course to allow states to rely on air quality monitoring, but this requires the establishment of a new monitoring network. To accommodate setting up the network, EPA will now take until 2020 to complete attainment designations, under a settlement agreement reached with environmentalists.
States are challenging the deal, however, seeking immediate designation of many areas as "unclassifiable" -- and hence avoiding nonattainment status -- in the suit Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, now on appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
-
Kan. Utility Regulators Order Probe of EPA Rule
Dec 4, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Jeffrey Tomich
Kansas utility regulators voted yesterday to begin an investigation into what U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan will mean for utility rates in the state and the reliability of the electric grid.
The order by the Kansas Corporation Commission is based on a recommendation by commission staff and will focus on examining generation redispatch options that enable the state to comply with the rule while maintaining reliable, least-cost electric service.
The information gathered is required by newly exacted legislation adopted this spring that also created a joint legislative committee to review the state's Clean Power Plan compliance strategy.
"This rule will impact the electric industry in a way that has not been seen since rural electrification in the 1930s. It will affect every budget, every business and every utility company in Kansas," Commissioner Pat Apple said in a statement. "I'm pleased that the Commission has opened a docket into this matter, so that we can take a closer look into the rule's implications, as well as to give members of the public a chance to weigh in, on-the-record."
In its 28-page order, the commission authorized its staff to hire consultants and said it will convene "legislative-style hearings" and hold educational sessions on issues relevant to the investigation. It also authorizes staff and consultants to obtain relevant data from Kansas utilities.
The initial "special educational session" will be held Jan. 12 in Topeka and will include representatives from commission staff, the state attorney general's office and the Kansas Department of Health and Environment.Strong criticism from Kan.
Kansas has been among the states most critical of the Clean Power Plan and what the rule will mean for consumers.
Republican Gov. Sam Brownback said the final rule, issued Aug. 3, "is twice as bad for Kansas as the proposed rule released last summer and requires us to review not only the rule itself but reconsider the state's overall approach to the Clean Power Plan."
Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt, also a Republican, is among the state attorneys general who filed a lawsuit to halt implementation of the rule.
In formal comments to EPA last fall, the Kansas commission embraced its staff's view that the proposed rule represented an intrusion by the federal government into an area regulated by states -- one that could cost the state billions of dollars in higher electric rates (EnergyWire, Oct. 31, 2014).
The Southwest Power Pool, which operates the regional power grid across Kansas and much of the Great Plains, has also warned that implementation of the Clean Power Plan, as initially proposed, would be expensive for consumers.
But Little Rock, Ark.-based SPP also said costs can be mitigated by cooperation among states through trading emissions allowances or credits (EnergyWire, July 28). The grid operator has also urged states -- even those like Kansas that are suing EPA -- to develop state plans rather than refuse to comply and be prescribed a federal implementation plan (EnergyWire, Oct. 13).
The final rule pushed back the start of the compliance period by two years, to 2022, but also imposed more stringent CO2 cuts for Kansas than were initially proposed.
The draft rule issued in June 2014 required a 22.7 percent reduction in CO2 emissions for Kansas generators. The final rule requires a 43 percent cut. Only North Dakota and Montana saw a bigger shift.
Nearly two-thirds of electrical generation in Kansas is from coal. If the Clean Power Plan is implemented as currently structured, the commission said, electric rates are expected to rise "significantly."
-
U.S. Shipping Requirement Could Derail Industry -- GAO
Dec 4, 2015 | E&E - Energwire
By Jenny Mandel
A congressional proposal to export U.S. liquefied natural gas only on domestically built ships could cause costs to go up nearly 25 percent and cut into U.S. markets for the fuel, federal analysts say.
A U.S. Government Accountability Office study, released yesterday, looks at a proposal to require that U.S. LNG be shipped only on tankers that bear U.S. flags and, over time, are built in the United States.
The analysis found that such a requirement could support the maritime industry with new jobs through a need for as many as 100 new LNG tankers to serve the five U.S. export facilities currently under construction. But it risks lessening the global appetite for domestic LNG if buyers are on the hook for the higher costs that come with U.S. construction and American crews.
Today, there are no U.S.-flagged LNG tankers, and the foreign-operated ships that were built in the United States are from the 1970s.
House Republicans in January blocked a proposal by California Democrat John Garamendi, whose district includes major shipping interests, that LNG exports be constrained to U.S. vessels (E&E Daily, Jan. 27). But a measure was passed calling for a GAO review of the issue.
In its assessment, GAO found that a U.S.-built standard for LNG tankers would support maritime interests and potentially U.S. military readiness, which benefits from a strong domestic shipbuilding industry and is the basis for the long-standing requirement, known as the Jones Act, that goods shipped between U.S. ports be carried on U.S.-built, -crewed and -flagged vessels.
But the overall impact would depend on whether the gas industry saw reduced LNG demand due to the associated increase in shipping costs, GAO said, which could cut into upstream production employment, as well as other parts of the LNG supply chain.
GAO cited information from "U.S. liquefaction companies" as the source of its estimate that shipping costs are expected to make up around 26 percent of the total cost for LNG delivered to Asian markets. But switching to U.S.-built vessels could increase that portion of overall costs by a further 24 percent.
That amounts to roughly $0.73 per million British thermal unit (MMBtu) of gas, GAO concluded from a rough estimation process, while shipments from the U.S. Gulf Coast to preferred Asian markets might otherwise run about $3 per MMBtu, they said.
"Higher shipping rates likely associated with U.S.-built-and-flagged carriers would decrease the competitiveness of U.S. LNG, but the extent to which this would occur and its effects are uncertain," GAO wrote in its assessment.
Another factor in a new U.S. vessel requirement would be the time frame over which U.S. construction was phased in. Since there is no existing capacity to construct LNG tankers at domestic shipyards, GAO said, a requirement to use U.S.-built ships within a short time frame could significantly chill exports.
"Because [shipping] capacity would likely only be able to come online gradually over more than three decades, limited LNG would likely be exported for some period of time, requiring purchasers to import from other sources in the early and intermediate years. This reduction in the currently planned exports of U.S. LNG may cause the U.S. export industry to not develop as currently planned," analysts concluded.Permitting stopwatch
Natural gas interests were quiet on the GAO report yesterday following its publication, but LNG backers cheered another victory: passage in the House of Representatives of a broad energy measure that included a firm timetable for Energy Department consideration of LNG export applications.
The "North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act," or H.R. 8, would require DOE to issue a decision on requests to export LNG within 30 days of the project's National Environmental Policy Act assessment being completed. That review, performed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, involves an in-depth consideration of a project's construction and engineering plans and takes generally 18 months or more to complete.
In a statement, the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas welcomed the prospect of an assured timeline for export permit consideration. "Regulatory certainty is crucial to fostering export capacity growth. ... Clear timelines will facilitate efficient planning, scheduling, financing and construction of projects," a spokesman said.
But while the measure passed the House with some limited bipartisan support, many see it as a long shot in the Senate, and the White House has threatened to veto it (Greenwire, Dec. 3).
Among the measure's particularly controversial elements is a provision to repeal the decades-old ban on exporting crude oil, and language to ease permitting of natural gas pipelines.
-
Okla. Regulators Shut Down 7 Wells, Restrict Others
Dec 4, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
Oklahoma oil and gas officials yesterday responded to the state's strongest series of earthquakes in years by telling the owners of seven disposal wells to shut down operations.
The Oklahoma Corporation Commission directed the owners of 66 other wells to reduce volumes by 25 to 50 percent. Operators of another 67 disposal wells were told to prepare for possible changes to their operations.
Six of the seven wells directed to close belong to SandRidge Energy Inc., a dominant operator in the Mississippi Lime Co. play in northern Oklahoma that is already facing financial troubles (EnergyWire, Nov. 17).
The move came amid criticism from a Democratic state legislator that Oklahoma has failed to get ahead of the seismic swarms.
"We are continually reacting after the seismic activity happens," state Rep. Cory Williams of Stillwater said in a statement earlier in the week. "This is a terrible way to protect the lives and property of Oklahomans."
Commission spokesman Matt Skinner acknowledged that the agency's response has been reactive, but said it is doing the best it can with limited staff to dedicate to the problem.
"We are doing everything we can within the limits of our resources," Skinner said. "We have much to learn and much to do, but our ultimate goal is to be proactive."
The commission has three staffers working to identify which disposal wells are near recorded earthquakes. The agency's budget was cut this year, along with those of most other state agencies.
Skinner said the commission is also hobbled because it can't call on a state seismologist. In recent months, both state seismologists have left the Oklahoma Geological Survey for other jobs.
"We are very concerned we don't have seismologists we can consult," Skinner said.
But OGS director Jerry Boak said his agency actually now has more staff available to help with earthquakes than it had before his two seismologists left. He has hired analysts and a temporary staffer in one of the seismologist posts. But he said he's taking time to be careful in searching for the senior seismologist position.
"I'm content that we're giving them what we need," Boak said.
OCC previously has directed wells to shut down and reduce volumes in the areas targeted yesterday. It has also directed closures and shutdowns in other areas such as Crescent, Cushing and Fairview.
Northern Oklahoma was shaken Monday afternoon by the second magnitude-4.7 earthquake in two weeks. It was centered west of Medford but was felt as far away as Iowa. The first occurred the morning of Nov. 19, centered near Cherokee. It was the largest quake since the aftershocks of the state's largest-recorded quake, a magnitude-5.6 quake near Prague in 2011 that destroyed 16 homes and injured two people.
In November, the state had 68 earthquakes of magnitude 3 or larger. This year, it has had more than 800, a substantial increase over the 585 in 2014.Slowdown in quakes?
Scientists say the unprecedented swarms of man-made quakes in the state since 2009 can be attributed to favorably aligned faults and production methods that create uniquely large volumes of wastewater.
Boak said in October that the rate of earthquakes was on the decline. At a legislative hearing, he told Williams and other lawmakers that the 90-day average for earthquakes had dropped to 3.5 a day from five a day in July.
Williams criticized that analysis, saying that even if the number of quakes has declined, their strength is increasing.
"Oklahoma leads the nation in earthquakes, but the director of the Geological Survey celebrates that we have had a slightly downward trend over the last two months," Williams said. "That's absurd. Just because we have a slight reduction, but still lead the world in seismic activity -- and it's all man-made -- is nothing to brag about."
Boak responded that he was not "bragging." He stressed that the slowdown could be the result of state efforts working, or it could be just a lull before the swarm intensifies again.
"I made it clear that it's not time to declare victory and go home," Boak said.
Williams also criticized Gov. Mary Fallin (R) and her aides for what he said is her lackluster response to the earthquake swarms. He noted that after the magnitude-4.7 quake on Nov. 19, Fallin made a public request, accompanied by a news release, to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood.
"But when we have a genuine public-safety issue that threatens lives and property, we can't even get a press release from her office acknowledging there's a problem and recommending any preparations to remedy it," Williams said.
Fallin's top adviser on energy and environment issues, Michael Teague, responded that the state is moving as quickly as possible.
"I know that anyone whose home has been impacted by an earthquake will feel that we are moving too slowly," Teague, whose title is secretary of energy and environment, said in a statement forwarded by Fallin's press office. "But the increase in seismic activity in Oklahoma is unprecedented and there is a great deal of research being done across the country on this problem. We are moving as quickly as the science develops and in many cases we are pushing the researchers."
Fallin also this week announced she was forming a "fact-finding work group" to advance the idea of reusing drilling wastewater or recycling it for industrial use or crop irrigation.
"What a win-win for all if we can turn wasted water into a useful resource, while at the same time reducing seismic activity caused by deep well injection," Fallin said.
Reuse of wastewater for drilling new wells is increasingly common in other areas, such as Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale. But industry figures in Oklahoma have said they don't have the technology to recycle the water for other uses in an economical way (EnergyWire, July 1).
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested