Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 1/29/16
-
California Cleaning Product Ingredient Disclosure Measure Fails
Jan 29, 2016 | Chemical Watch
A California bill that would have required the disclosure of all chemical ingredients in cleaning products has failed to pass the California Assembly (CW 12 January 2016). -
Study Questions EPA ToxCast's Ability To Identify Endocrine Disruptors
Jan 29, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
A new paper by academic researchers questions the ability of EPA's ToxCast program to identify a type of endocrine disruptor known as obesogens, findings that come as EPA is turning its Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) to greater use of the computational ToxCast toxicity screen to replace some of its traditional tests. -
Board Closes Book on Probe of Texas Fertilizer Explosion
Jan 29, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board approved its final report last night on the massive fertilizer explosion in West, Texas, in 2013 that killed 15 people and prompted a federal effort to coordinate on safety regulations. -
Democrats Urge Methane Limits
Jan 29, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
Over 20 U.S. senators, including one presidential hopeful, are calling for U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy to put tighter limits on methane emissions. -
EPA Scales Back Voluntary Methane Control Program, Piquing Advocates
Jan 28, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA has quietly released its voluntary plan for oil and gas companies to reduce methane emissions from their existing operations though the agency dropped several components from the proposed version of the plan, including a commitment to set interim milestones, prompting criticism from environmentalists who say the program is flawed and underscores the need for strong regulation. -
California Senate Moves to Keep Gas Company From Using Wells Near Porter Ranch
Jan 29, 2016 | LA Times
By Alice Walton, Paige St. John, and Patrick McGreevy
The state Senate voted unanimously Thursday to order Southern California Gas Co. to stop using its wells at Aliso Canyon until they have been determined to be safe. -
California Senators Seek Methane Leak Task Force in U.S. Energy Bill
Jan 29, 2016 | The New York Times
By Reuters
The two U.S. Senators representing California said on Friday they will propose a federal task force to investigate the cause and response to the massive natural gas leak near Los Angeles. -
Agency has 'Goldilocks Syndrome' After Flint Crisis
Jan 29, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
U.S. EPA, often under fire from its Capitol Hill and industry critics for overstepping its authority, now finds itself in the cross-hairs for not using its authority soon enough. -
Greenwire's Bravender Talks SCOTUS Stay Request, Timeline for Suit
Jan 29, 2016 | E&E TV
This month, legal action on U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan heated up with a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to deny a request for a stay of the rule and a subsequent request filed with the Supreme Court to weigh in on the stay. On today's The Cutting Edge, Greenwire reporter Robin Bravender discusses the challenges facing petitioners as legal proceedings move forward quickly. She also weighs in on the role politics are playing in the court filings. -
Senate Gets to Work on Energy Bill
Jan 29, 2016 | Politico Pro - Tipsheets
By Eric Wolff
The Senate will do much of the heavy lifting on a major energy bill next week — lawmakers proposed over 130 amendments — but the upper chamber kicked it off Thursday, approving 11 amendments amid a notable lack of partisan heat. That mood may change when they get back next week.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
-
California Cleaning Product Ingredient Disclosure Measure Fails
Jan 29, 2016 | Chemical Watch
A California bill that would have required the disclosure of all chemical ingredients in cleaning products has failed to pass the California Assembly (CW 12 January 2016).
Several industry trade groups opposed Bill AB 708 over the need for the legislation and they voiced concern over protection of trade secrets.
Amendments to the bill made earlier in the week removed an on-label disclosure requirement. The manufacturer would only have had to provide a full list of product ingredients on its website.
And a separate amendment excluded “incidental ingredients” from the reporting requirement. The amended bill defined those as contaminants “unintentionally introduced during formulation, that are present at a level of 25 parts per million or more and have no technical or functional effect in the finished cleaning product”.
These changes, however, did not convince the industry groups to drop their opposition.
The measure failed on a 33-27 vote, with 18 members abstaining.
“It’s unfortunate that the CA Assembly did not stand up to industry trade associations and vote to support their constituents' right to know what’s in cleaning products”, said Nancy Buermeyer, senior policy strategist at the Breast Cancer Fund. The organisation paired with the Environmental Working Group to sponsor the bill.
“While we lost this round, we will continue to advocate for ... consumers to get the information they want and need to protect themselves and their families”, she added.
-
Study Questions EPA ToxCast's Ability To Identify Endocrine Disruptors
Jan 29, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
A new paper by academic researchers questions the ability of EPA's ToxCast program to identify a type of endocrine disruptor known as obesogens, findings that come as EPA is turning its Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) to greater use of the computational ToxCast toxicity screen to replace some of its traditional tests.
Obesogens are chemicals that act on hormones to cause fat gain. Effects are seen not necessarily in a treated lab animal, but rather in its grandchildren and future generations. Whether the same concept could apply to humans remains a thorny issue, according to an article last fall in The Scientist.
The journal Environmental Health Perspectives published the study, "On the Utility of ToxCast and ToxPi as Methods for Identifying New Obesogens," on its website Jan. 13. The study sought to explore whether chemicals identified by EPA's high throughput cellular screening assays as activators of the fatty acid receptor known as PPARgamma "were genuine PPARgamma activators and inducers of adipogenesis."
In a second phase of the study, the researchers "identified ToxCast assays that should predict adipogenesis," or the formation of fat and fatty tissue. Next, they developed an adipogenesis [ToxPi] "and asked how well the ToxPi predicted adipogenic activity," according to the study.
EPA scientists developed ToxPi, or the Toxicological Priority Index, to compare chemicals' toxicity, chemical properties, exposure predictions and other attributes across a group of chemicals. The tool, like much of ToxCast's related efforts, is designed for outside scientists to build and test.
The researchers found that only five of the 21 PPARgamma activators scored highest by ToxCast "were activators in our assays, [three] were PPARgamma antagonists, the remainder were inactive," the study finds. Similarly, only seven of the 17 chemicals "predicted to be active by the ToxPi promoted adipogenesis, [one] inhibited adipogenesis, and [two out of seven] predicted negatives were also adipogenic."
The study concludes that "ToxCast PPARgamma and RXRalpha assays do not correlate well with laboratory measurements of PPARgamma and RXRalpha activity. The adipogenesis ToxPi performed poorly, perhaps due to the performance of ToxCast assays. We observed a modest predictive value of ToxCast for PPARgamma and RXRalpha activation and adipogenesis and it is likely that many obesogenic chemicals remain to be identified."
The researchers focused on the PPARgamma and RXR receptors because "[m]any obesogens (but not all) are PPARgamma or RXR activators," one of the authors, Bruce Blumberg, writes Inside EPA in a Jan. 14 email. "PPARgamma and RXR heterodimerize to form a protein that is considered to be a master regulator of adipogenesis. Therefore, they are obvious choices to evaluate if one is interested in identifying obesogens, as we are."
Asked if it is problematic that ToxCast doesn't identify obesogens, Blumberg replied that he thinks it is, though he adds that "I don't know whether EPA is interested in identifying obesogens."
Asked if the PPARgamma and RXR receptors should be added to the scope of EDSP, which currently focuses only on those compounds that disrupt estrogen, androgen or thyroid hormones, Blumberg replies, "It is not for me to say which pathways and endpoints should be added to EDSP. I'd be very happy if the results of the EDSP assays were sensitive, accurate, reproducible, and agreed with the published literature."
Second Phase
In the second phase of the study, the researchers "developed a ToxPi to predict obesogens that might act through other pathways and identified a few," Blumberg adds. The tool "combines information from several assays to link chemicals with a particular biological process," and the researchers selected 16 assays from ToxCast to craft their "adipogenesis ToxPi." None of the chemicals they evaluated were active in all 16 assays, with the highest scoring assays positive in five or six assays, the paper states.
The paper concludes that "the ToxPi we designed for adipogenesis performed poorly in identifying potential obesogens and that the results were rife with false positives. . . . We expect that if poorly performing ToxCast assays were improved (or replaced) the utility of ToxCast and ToxPi could be improved markedly and the promise of this important program realized."
"ToxCast provides public access to a remarkable and unprecedented reservoir of data on chemicals. We know that there is not one perfect model or assay, and by design, we encourage and welcome the engagement of the scientific community to help us use, probe and evaluate the data," an EPA spokeswoman says when asked about the new publication. "The engagement of the scientific community helps us improve and enrich the applicability and relevance of the data. We will be working to evaluate the results of this interesting paper and will provide a response at a later date."
The paper does not directly address EPA's recent decision to utilize a model of 18 ToxCast assays to replace three of the estrogenic receptor assays in the first tier of the traditional ToxCast animal based assays, with plans to develop a similar model for androgen and eventually thyroid hormones. The paper notes that EPA has chosen to do so, and states that "This approach shows some promise for androgen and estrogen receptor disruption."
But when asked about the statement given the paper's findings, Blumberg replied, "[m]ost of us in the endocrine disruptor community strongly disagree with this approach. If you apply the standards that EPA did, i.e., an estrogen is a chemical that is positive in at least 2 out of 18 assays, then the ToxCast estrogenic assays identify a fair number of estrogens." But Blumberg points to an article published in the journal Birth Defects Research last year by California regulatory scientists that also finds some discrepancies between ToxCast's findings and more traditional toxicity testing methods.
In that publication, California pesticides scientists and colleagues in California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment "examined the potential utility of ToxCast for the prioritization and assessment of pesticides based on data from two well-studied compounds. We identified areas of concordance as well as non-concordance after comparing in vivo data with ToxCast assay results. We also noted gaps in the available ToxCast assays leading to apparent false conclusions that indicate inactivity for endosulfan and methidathion."
Still, the California researchers concluded their paper optimistically, writing, "[u]ltimately, with improved biological coverage and an expanded knowledge base of chemical activity within ToxCast and other [highthroughput screening (HTS)] resources, we are optimistic that these in vitro predictive screening programs may account for many of the pathways and toxicological mechanisms needed for understanding chemical toxicity without solely relying on animal models."
Blumberg and colleagues, however, raise other concerns. Blumberg writes that "Many of the ToxCast nuclear receptor assays are essentially identical (for example, measure activation of estrogen receptor alpha) and should give very similar results. That they do not is problematic, rather than an affirmation that they are working."
Researchers' Concern
The researchers say the lack of agreement among assays on the same endpoint is a particular concern, and their paper questions why EPA averages the results of all of the ToxCast assays equally. "This may work for cases such as the estrogen receptor where the large number of assays reduces the negative impact of the poorly performing assays, but will necessarily fail when assay numbers are small (such as for PPARgamma, RXR, etc.)," they add. Instead, they recommend "eliminating poorly performing assays."
Blumberg writes that "EPA is contracting out assays and accepting the results uncritically instead of evaluating the performance of the assays they are paying for against the published literature (or their own in house testing) and eliminating the poorly performing assays. ToxCast and Tox21 are clearly the future of toxicology testing and need to be performed correctly in order to be useful for their intended purpose."
The researchers' paper also raises concerns that there are not additional levels of screening to back up the ToxCast HTS assays, arguing that they "alone cannot accurately predict the activity chemicals against any endpoint . . . All HTS assay results need to be confirmed by counter-screens and secondary screens that reduce the number of false positives and false negatives."
The paper adds that "[t]o the best of our knowledge, ToxCast assays as currently practiced are not constructed in this manner and this limits their accuracy. Until the HTS assays reflect actual receptor activity, these data must be interpreted with caution. This is particularly important now that EPA is proposing to use ToxCast as a substitute for Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program Tier 1 assays."
Asked whether the planned EDSP tier two assays, intended to generate further information for dose-response analysis of chemicals flagged in the first tier of EDSP screening, would fit this role, Blumberg disagreed. "Without proper counterscreens and secondary screens. HTS assays will give a high percentage of false positives and false negatives -- just what we observed in the assays we evaluated. Tier 2 in vivo assays could be useful but are not appropriate counter- or secondary screens for HTS assays."
-
Board Closes Book on Probe of Texas Fertilizer Explosion
Jan 29, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board approved its final report last night on the massive fertilizer explosion in West, Texas, in 2013 that killed 15 people and prompted a federal effort to coordinate on safety regulations.
The board signed off on the 265-page report at a public meeting last night in Waco, Texas.
The report found that few state or federal regulations had changed since the West Fertilizer Co. explosion on April 17, 2013. The board's unanimous approval of the report -- and its recommendations to other state and federal agencies -- completes its work on the incident.
The CSB also released a safety video on the explosion.
The CSB's report is not the first examination of the West incident, which has exposed problems with land-use planning, emergency response and chemical storage regulations. But the agency has perhaps the broadest mandate of state and federal agencies to identify the root cause of the incident and propose solutions. The agency has called the incident preventable.
More than 1,300 other facilities in the United States store large quantities of ammonium nitrate fertilizer, but no federal requirements exist on how close homes, schools or hospitals may be to these sites, the CSB found. In Texas, zoning issues are delegated to the county or local level and sometimes not regulated at all, the report said.
CSB Chairwoman Vanessa Sutherland called the explosion a "very, very complicated and tragic incident."
"All of us share a strong interest in trying to prevent chemical safety accidents in the future and understand that it can be a challenge," Sutherland said.
The report found that West Fertilizer and local officials were not aware of the hazard posed by the storage site. Its proximity to homes and schools -- some of which were destroyed in the explosion -- was dangerous, and state and local officials had not conducted adequate emergency planning or regulatory oversight.
In West, over time, the city expanded so that homes and schools were directly adjacent to the fertilizer site, which was storing 40 to 60 tons of explosive ammonium nitrate in a wooden building with no sprinkler system. But no one considered the risks to the two nearby schools, apartment complex, playground and nursing home, the board found.
When a fire started around 7:30 p.m. April 17, emergency responders, led by the West Volunteer Fire Department, were unaware of the hazardous chemicals that lurked within. They had never trained for a fire containing ammonium nitrate and didn't know it was there, the report said.
Contrary to recommended practices for fighting fires where explosive chemicals are present, firefighters rushed to attack the flames.
Around 7:45 p.m., the CSB found, the fire began to heat the ammonium nitrate stockpile. At 7:51 p.m., the building exploded. Twelve of the people killed were trying to put out the fire.
The CSB -- and other agencies that have investigated -- has been unable to determine how or in what part of the building the fire began.
Federal agencies had some authority to regulate ammonium nitrate because its characteristics should have triggered its inclusion under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's process safety management program, the report said. That would have subjected it to requirements for safe handling.
OSHA should either add fertilizer-grade ammonium nitrate to this list or update its explosives and blasting agents standard to require safer handling of the fertilizer, the report said. The agency could start a regional enforcement program in areas where facilities similar to West Fertilizer's are most common, the report said.
In addition, the CSB recommended that U.S. EPA update its risk management program rule to add fertilizer-grade ammonium nitrate to a list of substances in the program (Greenwire, Jan. 26).
Another chemical -- anhydrous ammonia -- that was stored on site but did not explode was covered under the risk management program, and the company and local officials were far more aware of its risks, the CSB said.
In the long term, there must be a funding source to boost local emergency response planning committees and emergency responders, CSB member Rick Engler said.
Doing so would help "address training and the other problems that we've identified today with real resources and not just, frankly, pep talks at times," Engler said.
-
Jan 29, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
Over 20 U.S. senators, including one presidential hopeful, are calling for U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy to put tighter limits on methane emissions.
In a letter released yesterday by Sens. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), legislators urged the agency to regulate existing sources of methane in the oil and gas industry, which will account for 90 percent of the emissions from the sector in 2018.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was among the 19 other signatories who aimed to get EPA to take stronger action to reduce the oil and gas industry's emissions before the agency's proposed methane rule is finalized.
"This is a very important issue to Sen. Sanders. The methane from natural gas is 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide in the short-term. If we are serious about combating climate change we must regulate methane emissions in addition to carbon pollution. That is why Sanders supports the goals of this letter and has gone further by calling for a ban on fracking," a Sanders spokesperson said in an email.
Creating stricter methane and volatile organic compound (VOC) regulations would help to cut down on air pollutants that contribute to premature death and increased asthma rates, as well as toxic pollutants like benzene that are linked to cancer and other serious health problems, the lawmakers argue.
EPA's current proposed methane regulations under the updated New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) just apply to new and modified oil and natural gas sources of methane and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). But only cutting methane from these sources will mean the United States will not be able meet the Obama administration's goal to cut total methane emissions by 40 to 45 percent from 2012 levels by 2025.
Obama's 'last major climate act'?
The senators' letter comes as the Rhodium Group released a report finding that EPA's current plan to reduce methane falls between 59 million and 70 million metric tons short of meeting the U.S. target. A separate analysis published earlier this week by the Clean Air Task Force (CATF) placed the gap slightly higher, at 75 million metric tons (Greenwire, Jan. 26).
The current proposed regulations also do not cover other sources of methane like emissions from liquids offloading, pneumatic controllers, compressors at well sites and some storage vessels.
"These sources are associated with significant methane emissions, and low cost controls exist for all of them. We therefore urge EPA to cover them in the final rule," the senators wrote.
There is still time for EPA to address methane nationwide, said Sarah Uhl, program director on short-lived climate pollutants at CATF. She has worked as part of a broad coalition of environmental groups that have reached out to legislators to increase awareness about the need to slash methane emissions.
"Momentum is building, and the stage is set for President Obama's last major climate act," she said, adding that cutting methane further would go a long way toward meeting the administration's emissions reduction goals.
"Ever since EPA's new source proposal hit the street, we've seen increasing support from officials. More and more elected officials are speaking out publicly," she said.
Jessica Ennis, a senior legislative representative at Earthjustice, a nonprofit law organization, agreed.
"The more we understand about methane, the more we see it as a problem with actual solutions," she said.
Greens: No reason to wait
The introduction of infrared cameras to visualize methane leaks has also helped people visualize the issue, she added. While methane leaks are invisible to the naked eye, the gas appears as a dark black cloud through an infrared lens, making leaks easier to detect.
The "methane gap" is a problem that EPA has already acknowledged. To date, the agency's solution has been to encourage companies to take part in voluntary action to address methane from existing sources through its Methane Challenge Program, which will launch in the spring. The new program will expand on EPA's Natural Gas STAR Program.
But the CATF analysis found that even 100 percent voluntary participation would leave them well below the target. CATF estimated based on past participation that somewhere between 10 and 20 percent of oil and gas companies would take part in EPA's voluntary programs. The report's authors proposed taking much more aggressive action to cut methane from new and existing sources, by requiring monthly or quarterly surveys to find and fix methane leaks; replacing older equipment; restricting methane leaks from valves, connectors and other equipment; and preventing intentional releases of gas from oil and gas wells.
Conrad Schneider, advocacy director at CATF, described the changes as more "auto mechanics than rocket science."
"It's literally plugging leaks; it doesn't require any new technology," he said.
Under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, EPA is required to set up regulations for methane at existing oil and gas facilities, in addition to new and modified sources, but it is not required to set a timeline, according to the Rhodium Group report.
The agency does have the authority to move forward on regulations for existing sources of methane while it finalizes the current proposed rules for new and modified sources, said Uhl.
"There is no reason for the EPA to wait on tackling these issues," she said.
Oil industry: Regs unnecessary
In a response to the senators' letter, EPA did not offer a timeline for regulating existing sources of methane but reiterated that the proposed standards for new and modified sources in the oil and gas industry would add requirements to capture methane and VOCs during the completion of hydraulically fractured oil wells.
The new rule would also cover equipment "downstream" that wasn't covered in the 2012 rule. Operators would also have to find and repair leaks, which are a significant source of methane and VOC pollution, according to EPA.
Howard Feldman, the American Petroleum Institute's senior director of regulatory and scientific affairs, referred to EPA's proposed additional regulations as duplicative and costly in a conference call last month.
"America is already leading the world in reducing greenhouse gases. Even as oil and natural gas production has risen dramatically, methane emissions have fallen, thanks to industry leadership and investment in new technologies," Feldman said.
He added that methane emissions will continue to fall as operators continue to improve methods of methane capture and delivery.
-
EPA Scales Back Voluntary Methane Control Program, Piquing Advocates
Jan 28, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA has quietly released its voluntary plan for oil and gas companies to reduce methane emissions from their existing operations though the agency dropped several components from the proposed version of the plan, including a commitment to set interim milestones, prompting criticism from environmentalists who say the program is flawed and underscores the need for strong regulation.
The final program is a “perfect example of what can go wrong when the agency tries too hard to entice an unwilling industry to engage,” Mark Brownstein of Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) said in a Jan. 28 blog post.
Without fanfare, the agency last week released its final “Natural Gas STAR Methane Challenge Program Best Management Practice (BMP) Commitment Framework,” which aims to expand upon the methane reductions achieved by its voluntary Natural Gas STAR program.
The agency crafted the framework as part of a package to cut the sector's methane emissions in accordance with the president's goal of reducing the sector's emissions of methane, the potent greenhouse gas (GHG), by 40-45 percent by 2025. Included in the package are proposed new source performance standards (NSPS), which would set first-time methane controls for new and modified sources under section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act.
But environmentalists have long pressed the agency to craft mandatory standards under section 111(d) to limit emissions from existing sources in order to achieve the president's goals, though the agency has so far rejected those calls.
Instead, the agency developed the voluntary program. Many in industry have urged EPA to allow participation in the voluntary program as an alternative to strict new emissions standards for existing sources.
Intended as a partnership between EPA and industry, the program offers best practices for companies to cut emissions of methane from specific emissions sources, such as pneumatic controllers and distribution pipeline blowdowns.
The agency opted to scrap its initial 2014 plan for the voluntary program, a proposal known as Gas STAR Gold, after industry complained that it would have been too burdensome and few companies would have participated. The Methane Challenge plan seeks to provide industry with greater flexibility by scrapping the “Gold” proposal's facility-based framework.
In its July 23 proposed “Methane Challenge” plan, EPA floated several options for industry to participate on a company-wide level, including a BMP approach, which would aim to drive near-term, widespread implementation of mitigation activities from specific sources of methane, and an approach in which companies could participate through One Future, an existing industry-led program involving ambitious reduction targets based on emission rates.
In the final framework, however, EPA does not include the One Future option, saying on its website that it is “still working on developing those programmatic details.”
Emissions Reductions
EPA also declined to finalize a third approach it proposed based on emissions targets. On the emissions targets approach, companies would reduce their methane emissions by a certain percentage from an agreed company-wide baseline by a future date, but EPA said in the proposal that it had some concerns that committing to emissions reductions could be problematic for companies wishing to expand their operations.
EPA also hinted that tracking baseline emissions could present a challenge and that companies participating in the program whose emissions fall below the GHG reporting program's 25,000 metric tons per year threshold may show higher total emissions than non-participating companies.
In comments on the proposal, industry sought to steer EPA away from the emissions-based option, while environmentalists favored such an approach. American Petroleum Institute said in comments filed in November that “we do not anticipate many members joining an emission reduction (ER) commitment due to the many issues outlined in the proposal related to developing baseline data and the frequent changes in exploration and production portfolios.”
But environmentalists favored the ER option over both the One Future and BMP approaches, saying the option would transparently and clearly achieve actual reductions in emissions levels. “If the goal of the Methane Challenge Program is to be truly ambitious, it should aim to reduce absolute levels of methane emissions, not simply to reduce methane emissions as a share of natural gas production” they said in their comments, adding that a stringent approach such as the ER option was necessary.
EPA also finalized a provision allowing for the agency to grant exemptions, where “circumstances significantly hinder a Partner’s ability to implement BMPs company-wide,” which the environmentalists panned, with the groups saying in their comments such an exemption is not appropriate.
“If the company is unable to meet the BMP goals, its status in the Methane Challenge Program should be marked as “Provisional” until the company is able to attain full compliance,” the joint CATF and NRDC comments said.
While EPA retained the five year time frame for achieving company-wide implementation, the agency dropped language that said that commitments should “include interim milestones on an annual basis to ensure steady progress towards full completion.”
EDF's Brownstein was especially critical that the agency dropped the milestones, saying the program “falls short on thoroughness, rigor, and urgency,” requires no quantitative goals and lacks a requirement to set emissions targets, which he writes could mean a “company's overall methane emissions could increase yet still win official kudos from the agency.”
Moreover, Brownstein faults the program for allowing companies to choose which BMPs they implement, and because it gives companies a full five years to implement commitments despite the availability of cost-effective controls. The program does not require companies to implement BMPs to find or fix leaks as a condition of program participation, “despite the fact that leaks, equipment malfunctions, and equipment failures are a widespread problem that accounts for a major share of industry emissions,” Brownstein writes.
Leak detection and repair (LDAR) has been a major focus of environmentalists' comments on EPA's proposed NSPS. The proposal would set first-time emissions limits for methane from new and modified sources, and set controls for volatile organic compounds and methane for some sources not regulated under an earlier 2012 NSPS, such as hydraulically fractured oil wells and downstream compressors and other equipment.
For example, in recent comments filed on the proposed NSPS environmentalists urge EPA to clarify that LDAR applies to potentially high-emitting gathering facilities that have dehydrators but lack storage tanks and compressors and to adopt a more "protective" modification definition that would apply LDAR to a broader range of course.
EPA in a Federal Register notice slated for publication Jan. 29 is proposing to revise its GHG reporting rules for the oil and gas sector, known as subpart W, to add new monitoring methodology that applies to leak detection, and to add emissions factors for estimating emissions from leaks, in anticipation of implementing the NSPS rules.
EPA is taking comment on the proposal through Feb. 28.
-
California Senate Moves to Keep Gas Company From Using Wells Near Porter Ranch
Jan 29, 2016 | LA Times
By Alice Walton, Paige St. John, and Patrick McGreevy
The state Senate voted unanimously Thursday to order Southern California Gas Co. to stop using its wells at Aliso Canyon until they have been determined to be safe.
The moratorium would prevent the gas company from injecting gas into the underground storage reservoir until all 115 wells have been inspected. The legislation, which now moves to the Assembly, also would halt any withdrawals of gas from 18 of the wells that, like the leaking one, are among the oldest at the facility.
The legislation would have little immediate effect. Kristine Lloyd, a spokeswoman for the utility, said injections were stopped in late October, as the gas company sought to decrease pressure in the reservoir. The California Public Utilities Commission ordered withdrawals stopped last week.
Gas company crews have been working for months to plug a leak from a well that dates to 1953. The leak has spewed enormous amounts of methane and forced thousands of Porter Ranch residents to temporarily relocate.
"My constituents have been on the receiving end of a natural disaster for the last three months," said state Sen. Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills), sponsor of the legislation. The utility could resume all operations after the Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources determines the wells are safe.
The Senate's action drew mixed reactions from Porter Ranch residents.
"This legislation is a good step but not a total solution as we need a permanent shutdown of the Aliso Canyon Storage Facility," said Matt Pakucko, president of the Save Porter Ranch group. "As long as this facility remains open, my community will not feel safe in their homes."
The Senate's vote came after the utilities commission ordered the owners of all underground gas storage fields in California to conduct immediate checks for leaks in wells, pipelines and compressors used for gas injection and withdrawal.
Also, DOGGR and the utilities commission have given the utility until Monday to turn over records and documents related to the Aliso Canyon field.
A DOGGR representatives said the agency does not intend to give the public access to all of the information it is collecting on the gas company's Aliso Canyon operations.
"While we are striving to make public as much information as possible, we cannot release any information related to that investigation until it is concluded," said Teresa Schilling, a spokeswoman for the Department of Conservation, DOGGR's parent agency.
Schilling said the utility is complying with the agency's orders, including past demands for information.
In the hope of preventing similar leaks in the future, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks) announced Thursday that he and Vice President Joe Biden would work together on new federal safety standards for the storage of natural gas. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration within the U.S. Department of Transportation has the authority to regulate such standards.
"The Porter Ranch gas leak, the largest in U.S. history, occurred due to negligent operations," Sherman said. "But apparently, SoCal Gas complied with the weak state regulations and nonexistent federal regulatory efforts."
-
California Senators Seek Methane Leak Task Force in U.S. Energy Bill
Jan 29, 2016 | The New York Times
By Reuters
The two U.S. Senators representing California said on Friday they will propose a federal task force to investigate the cause and response to the massive natural gas leak near Los Angeles.
Democratic Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein announced they will introduce an amendment to a national energy bill being debated by the Senate that would direct U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz to lead a task force that will recommend how to solve the ongoing methane leak and prevent future incidents.
Southern California Gas Company's Aliso Canyon Natural Gas Storage Facility, which sprung a leak in October that has not yet been sealed, has raised alarms about the danger of aging oil and gas infrastructure.
There is little oversight of the 400 underground natural gas storage facilities in 30 U.S. states.
"We have a responsibility not only to address this leak, but also to ensure nothing like this ever happens again," Feinstein said in a statement.
The amendment is one of nearly 100 that senators have introduced or plan to offer next week, as the Senate works to pass the country's first major energy bill in over eight years. The bill, which aims to modernize the country's aging energy infrastructure, is one of the few in Congress to have bipartisan support.
Senate Majority Leader McConnell said he expects the legislation to pass late next week, after members vote on the list of amendments.
The California senators' proposal would direct Moniz to lead a six-member intergovernmental task force to study the impacts of the leak on affected communities as well as the environment and issue its findings within six months.
Those findings and subsequent updates would help agencies such as the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) help respond to the leak.
The task force would recommend whether to continue operations at Aliso Canyon and other facilities in close proximity to densely populated areas.
Other amendments the Senate will consider next week include a proposal by Michigan Democrats to deal with another environmental crisis - lead water contamination in Flint.
The proposal would also direct $200 million for a research center to focus on the needs of children, and would also require the EPA to warn the public of high lead levels in drinking water if a state fails to do so.
-
Agency has 'Goldilocks Syndrome' After Flint Crisis
Jan 29, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
U.S. EPA, often under fire from its Capitol Hill and industry critics for overstepping its authority, now finds itself in the cross-hairs for not using its authority soon enough.
The drinking water crisis in Flint, Mich., that has poisoned residents with lead has put the environmental agency on its heels as it tries to answer why federal officials didn't act sooner after knowing for months about problems with the city's water supply. EPA was caught stalling in a complicated process that involves government on the local, state and federal level when it comes to ensuring there is safe water to drink.
It's another tough chapter for the agency over the past year, which has seen EPA scolded for promoting its controversial Waters of the U.S. rule, blasted on Capitol Hill for ignoring sexual harassment allegations and blamed for the Gold King mine spill in Colorado. In interviews withGreenwire, union representatives and former EPA officials said the Flint crisis is an example of how the agency is often in a no-win situation -- hammered for doing too much, now hammered for doing too little.
"I call it the Goldilocks syndrome," said Brent Fewell, former deputy chief of EPA's Office of Water in the George W. Bush administration. "Too hard, too soft. You have to find the right balance."
Fewell, now a founding partner at the Earth and Water Group, said EPA "has been hit pretty hard here" over the drinking water crisis in Flint but he felt criticism of the agency has been "unfair" at times since the state of Michigan had a role to play in environmental protection.
"I think some of the criticism has been unfair. Maybe the only thing they can be criticized for is they didn't move quickly enough," Fewell said. "Cooperative federalism involves EPA, state and local governments."
Bob Sussman, once a senior policy adviser to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, said the crisis in Flint is a reminder of EPA's important role in protecting public health.
"I think Flint, Mich., is a reaffirmation of EPA's historic role of being the cop on the environmental beat. The message here is EPA is the nation's last resort for environmental protection, which everyone who has ever worked at the agency knows," said Sussman, also a former EPA deputy administrator during the Clinton administration.
"If there is anything here, EPA was perhaps too timid."
Last week, the agency whipped into action in response to Flint.
EPA began implementing an emergency order for Flint to start a new round of water quality testing and requires the city and state to respond to the agency's recommendations within 10 days. Further, EPA Region 5 Administrator Susan Hedman, who oversees Michigan, is stepping down next week and EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy issued a memorandum to all staff to "elevate" critical public health issues from here on out (Greenwire, Jan. 22).
Those steps by McCarthy have won her praise from agency insiders.
"I think she has been very responsive and she has stepped into the breach," Sussman said.
Others have not been as laudatory of EPA's performance so far.
"EPA should have been out there months and months ago doing its own sampling or joint sampling with the city to ascertain what was going on. It has authority to act," said Mary Gade, who headed EPA's Region 5 office from 2006 to 2008.
Flint has been struggling with lead contamination over the past year since the city switched its water supply from Lake Huron to the Flint River. Flint then failed to implement corrosion controls at its water treatment plant, which led the river to eat away at the city's lead service lines and caused lead to seep into the water supply.
At Region 5, Hedman downplayed an EPA report leaked to the media in July 2015 that found high lead levels in Flint's water. The now-departing regional chief said "it would be premature to draw any conclusions based on" the report, according to an email she sent to Flint's mayor. The author of that report, EPA staffer Miguel Del Toral, told Michigan Radio last week that he "saw what was coming, and I guess the inability to affect that was really stressful" (Greenwire, Jan. 26).
John O'Grady, president of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 704, which represents EPA Region 5 workers, said agency managers should have listened to their employees and responded promptly to the crisis.
"For God's sake, just let us do our job. This would have been resolved easily if EPA employees were allowed to do their job," O'Grady said.
Under investigation for sluggish response
Now EPA will have to face several official investigations over how it responded to the Flint crisis.
The agency inspector general began its own probe last week that will reach into not only EPA's Region 5 but also its water policy and enforcement offices (Greenwire, Jan. 22).
In addition, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is set to hold a hearing next week on the federal response to the drinking water crisis in Flint.
Litigation could also be in EPA's future regarding Flint. Environmental and public interest groups filed a lawsuit in federal court earlier this week aimed at forcing the replacement of the city's lead-contaminated water lines (Greenwire, Jan. 27).
Yet the politics of who was responsible for protecting Flint's water may shift blame away from EPA and to other government officials. For example, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) has come under fire for his role in the crisis.
"The politics of Flint are difficult because you have a Republican governor who shares some culpability here. This makes Republicans less likely to attack on this issue. Democrats will not want to attack EPA, either. There is some nuance here," said Elizabeth Gore, once chief of staff and legislative director to ex-Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and now a policy director at Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck.
O'Grady is worried that the Flint crisis could lead Republicans to slash EPA's budget even more.
"It just feeds into the wrong solution," O'Grady said. "Some of the presidential candidates are talking about cutting EPA's budget. That will leave our hands tied."
Despite the crisis in Flint, Sussman said the agency would be able to accomplish its original goals for the remainder of the Obama administration this year. EPA has been focused on several items, including implementing the Clean Power Plan and finalizing regulations that will cut heavy-duty vehicles' carbon emissions and reduce methane from oil and gas operations.
"The Flint situation will play itself out and take up management's time, but it will not paralyze EPA or divert EPA from its priorities," Sussman said.
In addition, Fewell said EPA would be on the lookout for the next drinking water crisis.
"The agency goes into hyperactive mode to see what else is out there," Fewell said. "I'm sure that the agency is scouring the landscape now to see if there is another Flint on the horizon."
The former EPA official said he hopes lawmakers will see that impoverished cities like Flint need federal funds to fix what's wrong with their drinking water systems.
"I hope this sparks a conversation on the Hill and elsewhere about how these distressed communities need help with their water systems," Fewell said. "These are big, expensive problems that are going to take a while to fix."
-
Greenwire's Bravender Talks SCOTUS Stay Request, Timeline for Suit
Jan 29, 2016 | E&E TV
This month, legal action on U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan heated up with a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to deny a request for a stay of the rule and a subsequent request filed with the Supreme Court to weigh in on the stay. On today's The Cutting Edge, Greenwire reporter Robin Bravender discusses the challenges facing petitioners as legal proceedings move forward quickly. She also weighs in on the role politics are playing in the court filings.
Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Welcome to The Cutting Edge. Legal action on the Clean Power Plan heating up with the decision by the D.C. Circuit to deny a stay request, and now action moving quickly to the Supreme Court. Greenwire's Robin Bravender has been covering all aspects of the legal proceedings on the rule. Robin, let's begin with this latest move by petitioners requesting that the Supreme Court weight in on a stay. Things are moving quickly here. How has the court responded and what kind of timeline are we looking at?
Robin Bravender: There's been a lot of activity lately. It all started last week just before Snowzilla hit D.C. We saw an order from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals refusing to block the administration's Clean Power Plan. They basically said that petitioners hadn't met the stringent requirements needed for them to step in and halt the rule. And then this week after that we saw 25 states petition Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court asking him to step in and block the rule. Shortly after that we saw utilities and business groups and coal groups also ask the Supreme Court to step in. So Chief Justice Roberts has asked the administration to respond by next Thursday, so we'll see what they have to say about this. Presumably they'll oppose a stay to their rule. And then after that the chief justice could ask his colleagues to weigh in or he could issue something on his own. My sources are expecting him to ask his colleagues to weigh in, just given the complexity and the high stakes in this rule.
Monica Trauzzi: Right, and it's an unusual request. So what are you hearing behind the scenes from your sources about the motivation surrounding the request to move this all the way to the high court?
Robin Bravender: A lot of people see this as purely political posturing just given the costs and the politics involving this rule, but other folks are saying, you know, this rule is so important, the stakes are so high, and the Supreme Court is expected to weigh in eventually, that they might decide to step in and stop this rule.
Monica Trauzzi: The D.C. Circuit in its decision chose not to bifurcate certain issues. How complex then does this make the case?
Robin Bravender: This case was bound to be complex to begin with. We've got nearly 40 petitioners challenging this rule, 40 separately lawsuits by nearly 160 different parties, all with different arguments against the rule. But petitioners have basically asked the court to break it up into two pieces: first into fundamental legal issues surrounding the legality of the rule to begin with, and then secondly sort of state-specific issues, smaller issues. EPA said that that would make the whole case take even longer, and the D.C. Circuit seemed to agree with them and refused to break it up that way.
Monica Trauzzi: April deadline for briefs, oral arguments June 2nd, so things are moving quickly. How are stakeholders responding and reacting to the panel of judges that are going to be hearing the case?
Robin Bravender: This panel of three judges was seen as a lucky draw for the administration. We've got two Democratic appointees, one Clinton appointee, another appointee from President Obama. The third is seen as more conservative, but the case is so complicated with so many issues that it's really not seen as a given where the court will weigh in ultimately. And eventually this case is probably headed to the Supreme Court anyway.
Monica Trauzzi: All right, Robin. We'll be watching it all. Thanks for coming on the show.
Robin Bravender: Thanks, Monica.
Monica Trauzzi: More Cutting Edge coming next Friday. We'll see you then.
-
Senate Gets to Work on Energy Bill
Jan 29, 2016 | Politico Pro - Tipsheets
By Eric Wolff
ENERGY BILL GOES LIVE ON THE SENATE FLOOR: The Senate will do much of the heavy lifting on a major energy bill next week — lawmakers proposed over 130 amendments — but the upper chamber kicked it off Thursday, approving 11 amendments amid a notable lack of partisan heat. That mood may change when they get back next week. “Are we going to be able to keep it that way throughout the entire process? No, I’ve got to be realistic,” Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski said. “We will have some amendments that the Ds will want that will probably go on a party-line and we will have some on the Republican side that will probably go on a party line.” But there’s still “genuine interest on both sides to seeing a bill pass and seeing a good bill passed,” she said. The goal is to finish the bill by Thursday night, she said.
Everyone wants something: Democrats still plan to offer amendments on climate change. Republicans have filed or will likely file amendments to thwart EPA greenhouse gas, ozone and renewable fuel regulations as well as federal hydraulic fracturing controls. Two amendments are pending, including one from Bill Cassidy and Ed Markey regarding up to $5 billion in sales from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Is Flint's poisoned water a poison pill? The biggest challenge may be an effort by Senate Democrats to tack on a plan they introduced Thursday providing as much as $400 million in matching federal funds to address drinking water contamination in Flint, Mich. Democrats say the amendment’s more than $600 million in spending should be treated as emergency funding that doesn’t need an offset, but Republicans aren’t likely to agree to that designation.
Michigan Democratic Sens. Debbie Stabenow and Gary Peters are focusing on the energy bill as the vehicle. “Right now we’re all in on this," Peters said. “This is our best shot to try to get it going and in the process build more support in a bipartisan way as well.” Stabenow, who met with Murkowski on the Senate floor, told reporters that Democrats are “very flexible in how we do this” and “may change the amendment so that it accomplishes the same thing but does it maybe a little differently that her caucus would be more open to.” She wouldn’t rule out the possibility of filibustering the bill over the issue. “We feel very strongly that we need to move forward,” she said. “We’ve not yet made that decision.”
Not without peril: “We both know, both leaderships would have to agree that this is the approach that you take and it’s fraught with peril,” Murkowski told reporters. But she added that “there may be certain aspects of what she is proposing that we could include that do not cost and be somewhat helpful.”
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested