Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 2/1/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) Cabot CEO Still Recovering from Stroke, Unable to Return to Work Full-Time
Feb 1, 2016 | Boston Business Journal
By David Harris
Late last year, the CEO of Cabot Corp., a Boston-based chemical firm that saw $2.9 billion in sales in its 2015 fiscal year, suffered what the company called a "minor" stroke. -
Making Sense of Chemical Safety Reform
Jan 29, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Andrew Rosenberg
Last year, both the House and Senate approved bills to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act. -
Biochemicals Group Weighing Options After EPA Denies TSCA Petition
Feb 1, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
A biochemicals advocacy group is weighing its options after EPA rejected a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) petition seeking to ease the regulatory path for certain biobased chemicals, including challenging the denial in court or filing a new request under a different section of the toxics law. -
We Don't Need Another Natural Gas Mega Leak. Will You Help?
Feb 1, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Mark Brownstein
The massive natural gas leak at SoCalGas’ Aliso Canyon storage facility in Southern California has now continued unabated into its fourth month. The company says the leak is still weeks from being stopped. -
NTSB Ready to Release Report on Last Year’s Deadly Amtrak Wreck in Philadelphia
Feb 1, 2016 | Washington Post
By Ashley Halsey III and Michael Laris
The National Transportation Safety Board on Monday prepared to release the detailed findings of its investigation of a train wreck in Philadelphia in May that killed eight passengers and injured more than 200 in the worst Amtrak crash in 22 years. -
(ACC Mentioned) D.C. Circuit Backs Legal Agreement On CERCLA Financial Assurance Rules
Jan 29, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is endorsing a legal agreement between EPA and environmental groups that sets a schedule for EPA to finalize long-delayed Superfund financial assurance rules for the hardrock mining industry and commits to deadlines for deciding if similar rules should follow for other industry sectors, finding that environmental petitioners have standing. -
Bracewell's Holmstead Says SCOTUS Stay request a Long Shot but Warranted
Feb 1, 2016 | E&E TV
As states work behind the scenes to craft compliance strategies for U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, legal action against the rule is now front and center. Is the latest move by petitioners requesting the Supreme Court consider a stay of the rule a long shot? During today's OnPoint, Jeff Holmstead, a partner at Bracewell and a former assistant administrator for air and radiation at EPA, discusses the outlook for legal proceedings on the rule and explains why he believes carbon trading makes the rule more economically viable. -
N.D. Joins Appeal to Supreme Court
Feb 1, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
North Dakota has joined more than two dozen other states in pressing the Supreme Court to put the brakes on the Obama administration's signature climate change rule. -
Week Ahead: Senate Aims to Wrap Up Energy Reform Bill 13
Feb 1, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The Senate will pick up debate on its energy overhaul bill in the coming week. Lawmakers have filed more than 100 amendments to the bill, which itself is a major rewrite of federal energy policy. -
Obama's Unfinished Business on Climate Change
Feb 1, 2016 | Politico Pro
By Elana Schor and Andrew Restuccia
President Barack Obama is facing mounting pressure from his liberal allies to unleash an even more aggressive climate change crackdown with less than a year left in office. -
Toxic Emissions Drop, Still Cost More Than $100B
Feb 1, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Toxic emissions from power plants and other energy-related sources cost the United States an estimated $131 billion in 2011, a figure that nonetheless represented a substantial drop from 2002, according to a new study that credits tighter federal regulation for much of the difference. -
EPA Too Slow in Flint Crisis Response, Lawyers Say
Feb 1, 2016 | Bloomberg BNA
By Pat Ware
The Environmental Protection Agency should have acted more quickly and aggressively in responding to widespread lead contamination in the drinking water of Flint, Mich., residents, several environmental lawyers told Bloomberg BNA. -
N.D. Pipeline Leaks 300 Barrels of Crude, Brine into Creek
Feb 1, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
North Dakota officials said Friday that a pipeline at an oil production site leaked about 300 barrels of crude oil and salt water -- a byproduct of hydraulic fracturing -- onto the land in the western part of the state, some of which made its way into a creek.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Cabot CEO Still Recovering from Stroke, Unable to Return to Work Full-Time
Feb 1, 2016 | Boston Business Journal
By David Harris
Late last year, the CEO of Cabot Corp., a Boston-based chemical firm that saw $2.9 billion in sales in its 2015 fiscal year, suffered what the company called a "minor" stroke.
Patrick M. Prevost, 60, has served as chief executive officer and president of the company (NYSE: CBT) since 2008 and is still in recovery from the effects of that stroke.
On Dec. 2, 2015, Cabot issued a press release stating that Prevost had to take a temporary medical leave of absence, with the expectation of rejoining the company in January 2016. At that time, the company established an interim office of the CEO, which is comprised of Eduardo E. Cordeiro, the company's chief financial officer, and other executives.
On Monday, the company said that although Provost has been "increasingly engaged with the management team and the board of directors and he has been participating in various meetings in the office," he "is not yet ready to resume his full-time CEO responsibilities."
Cabot said that the interim CEO office will continue to report to the board of directors, as it has been doing.
As for when Prevost would return to his old job in a full-time capacity, that has yet to be determined.
“It is in Cabot’s best interest, and mine, that I focus on my health during my leave of absence,” Prevost said in a statement. “I look forward to fully re-engaging with the business in the near future.”
Prevost total compensation last year was $4.95 million, not including another $3.5 million in value realized from prior year option and restricted stock awards. In addition, Prevost owns nearly 300,000 shares of Cabot, worth an estimated $12 million as of Monday afternoon.
As of Sept. 30, 2015, Cabot, which is headquartered in Boston's Seaport District, had approximately 4,600 employees.
Prevost previously served as an executive at BASF AG, an international chemical company and held senior management positions at BP and Amoco. He is also a member of the board of directors of General Cable Corp., a copper, aluminum and fiber optic wire and cable products company. He is a member of the board of directors of the American Chemistry Council, a trade association representing the business of chemistry at the global, national and state levels.
Cabot specializes in chemicals such as rubber and specialty grade carbon blacks used in tires and plastics as well as fumed metal oxides used in adhesives, food and other coatings.
Shares in the company declined nearly 3 percent Monday as of noon to $39.28.
-
Making Sense of Chemical Safety Reform
Jan 29, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Andrew Rosenberg
Last year, both the House and Senate approved bills to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Both bills make some improvements over the current law. But neither bill provides the protections the public deserves. Now comes the hard part: Taking the best, and most protective, provisions from the House and Senate bills and coming up with the strongest possible final legislation.
But another, scarier, outcome also is possible. Senate and House negotiators may agree on a bill that combines the two bills’ least protective provisions, something some in the chemical industrywould prefer.
The point of reform is to give the Environmental Protection Agency the authority it has lacked ever since the original TSCA was passed in 1976. As a consequence, only about 200 of the tens of thousands of chemicals in commerce have been tested for safety.
What would a strong final TSCA reform look like? Here are some of Union of Concerned Scientists' priorities:
Ensure that the EPA can use the best available science to inform its work. It is crucial that the final bill does not tell the EPA how to use science to assess and regulate toxic chemicals. The EPA ought to operate transparently, and explain the scientific basis for its methods, but legislating scientific methods will block innovation that can produce better results. The House bill is less prescriptive.
Protect the EPA’s work from court challenges. The EPA must focus on public health and safety when assessing chemicals., Costs should not be the priority that opens regulations to legal challenges. The Senate bill is clearer and more protective.
Protect vulnerable populations. A final bill must protect those most exposed to the chemicals, and those most physically susceptible to their harms, including workers, children, fence-line communities, pregnant women, and the elderly. The Senate bill is more specific.
Give the EPA the power to protect the public without going through unnecessary procedural hurdles. The EPA has an existing regulatory framework in place. What it has lacked is the authority to impose meaningful restrictions. The House bill does not increase these hurdles.
Address all PBTs. Persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals are very dangerous. The EPA should have the authority to regulate all PBTs that pose significant hazards. While the House process for acting on PBTs is more efficient, the House exempts certain PBTs from regulation.
Impose enforceable deadlines on the EPA to regulate chemicals. Deadlines are the only way to guarantee that toxic chemicals are identified and regulated in a timely manner. The Senate bill includes clearer deadlines.
Give states the widest latitude to continue to protect their residents from unsafe chemicals. It is necessary to take elements from both House and Senate bills to reach this goal. The House does not pre-empt states until the EPA issues a final rule, a big plus. But the Senate bill clearly exempts all state laws whose purpose is to gather information or monitor chemicals, and permits states to regulate new uses of existing chemicals that the EPA has not included in its safety assessment and determinations, or new chemicals for risks or uses that the EPA has not identified.
Both bills would not pre-empt state laws passed before August 2015. But the Senate bill more clearly exempts California’s Proposition 65, which requires labeling of products that cause cancer, birth defects or reproductive harms, and the Massachusetts Toxic Use Reduction Act.
Put EPA priorities first. Both House and Senate bills permit companies to ask the EPA to do a chemical evaluation, provided they pay for it. But company requests must be capped, so that the EPA’s priorities always take precedence. The Senate bill caps requests.
Provide resources for the EPA to do its work. The Senate bill authorizes additional federal funds for EPA, and imposes industry fees to pay for up to 25 percent of the agency’s estimated $100 million annual TSCA budget.
Give the EPA the power to require companies to provide the data it needs to determine whether a chemical is safe or not. A final bill must give the EPA the power to ask a company about a new chemical or a new use for an existing chemical without having to justify its need for the information. Neither bill is adequate.
Place limits on confidentiality. Overall, the Senate bill has stronger language addressing the use of confidential business information. The House bill would allow chemical identity to be kept secret, even in the context of health and safety studies.
Do not create any loopholes for new chemicals to escape EPA scrutiny. The Senate bill could permit a company to claim that a new chemical actually was a slightly modified version of an existing chemical. This could lead to dangerous industry efforts to evade regulation. The House bill lacks this harmful provision.
Congress has an opportunity to improve chemical safety in a meaningful way. This legislation, the first major chemical safety law to be passed in more than a generation, could make a positive difference. But that is possible only if House and Senate negotiators keep in mind the needs of the American public, and not the pleadings of high-priced industry lobbyists.
Rosenberg is director of the Center for Science and Democracy.
-
Biochemicals Group Weighing Options After EPA Denies TSCA Petition
Feb 1, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
A biochemicals advocacy group is weighing its options after EPA rejected a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) petition seeking to ease the regulatory path for certain biobased chemicals, including challenging the denial in court or filing a new request under a different section of the toxics law.
"After careful consideration, EPA denied the petitioner's request to initiate a [Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)] section 8 rulemaking," the agency says in a Jan. 12 Federal Register notice. "EPA denied the request because the petition neither justified the petitioners' claim (that the initiation of a TSCA section 8 rulemaking proceeding is necessary) nor explained how petitioners believe EPA's actual rulemaking authorities under section 8 could be used to accomplish the objectives that petitioners are seeking."
The agency adds that "a request for an order under TSCA section 8(b) is not cognizable in a petition that is submitted pursuant to TSCA section 21," as the Biobased and Renewable Products Advocacy Group's (BRAG) Oct. 5 petition was.
"We appreciate the timely response and are considering our next steps," BRAG Executive Director Kathleen Roberts told Inside EPA in a Jan. 20 interview. "We hope to go in and meet with the agency to better understand the potential paths forward."
BRAG petitioned EPA last fall to ease TSCA review of a group of 35 oils and fatty acids, seeking to have the chemicals re-labeled as "existing" chemicals not subject to "new" chemical review by the agency. In its TSCA Section 21 petition, BRAG asked EPA to reconsider its treatment of the chemicals, arguing they are essentially identical to those already on the TSCA inventory of existing chemicals, or those in commerce before 1976, and therefore should not be required to undergo the pre-manufacture review required of all new chemicals.
"Many in the biobased chemical sector have focused their current efforts on finding new sources of fats and oils. Some new sources are isolated from non-traditional plants, like camelina and jatropha. Some are derived from algae and some are derived from microbes. These novel sources yield oils that are functionally equivalent to, and may be chemically indistinguishable from" the chemicals sourced from traditional feedstocks, BRAG's petition states.
EPA's toxics chief Jim Jones, in a letter summarizing the agency's denial of the petition, suggests two means by which BRAG might bring its concerns forward again. In the Dec. 31 letter, released Jan. 13, Jones writes to Roberts that BRAG can appeal EPA's denial of the petition to a federal district court within 60 days of the letter.
Alternative Path
Jones also provides an alternate path forward. "Note that TSCA section 5(h)(4) provides that '[t]he Administrator may, upon application and by rule, exempt the manufacture of any new chemical substance from all or part of the requirements of section 5 if the Administrator determines that the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, or disposal of such chemical substance, or that any combination of such activities, will not present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the environment.'"
Section 5 is the section of the statute that deals with new chemicals, and from it stems EPA's pre-manufacture program for review of new chemicals before they are allowed to enter the commercial market. Jones adds that this section "may be more relevant to the subject of your petition," and invites BRAG to contact Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, director of the EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, "to discuss these matters further."
All chemicals listed on the TSCA inventory must have a scientific chemical name and description, but BRAG argues in its petition that the naming system EPA and the Soap and Detergent Association (SDA) established in 1978 prevents the group of 35 oils and fatty acids from being recognized as chemical equivalents to substances already on the TSCA inventory because it includes the chemical's source in its name.
The result of this classification is, effectively, a determination of chemical equivalency based on the name -- but only for those substances already on the market when TSCA was enacted, since "EPA has not attempted to amend the list of 35 sources or made equivalency determinations for other natural sources" in recent years, the group says.
BRAG is asking EPA to make such an equivalency determination to allow biobased producers of the 35 oils and fatty acids to avoid the new chemical review process.
EPA, however, argues in its Federal Register notice that such a change is neither warranted nor necessary. "The petition asserts that a new regulatory procedure is necessary, to govern public requests for changes to the SDA naming convention and EPA response to those requests," the notice says. "Yet the petition supplies no evidence of any current impediment to any party in making requests along these lines, or to EPA in considering such requests . . ."
The notice continues, "the petition presumes, without justification, that until a certain preliminary EPA rulemaking has been completed, those same manufacturers lack a meaningful opportunity to request that EPA enlarge the definitional scope of one or more existing chemical substances named according to the SDA naming convention. The petition's failure to explain that a particular impediment exists (either to manufacturers in making these sorts of requests or to EPA in adjudicating them) is sufficient grounds to deny the request to commence a rulemaking proceeding intended to remove the unspecified impediment. Thus, the petition does not demonstrate that the requested rule is necessary in any respect, much less that it is necessary to protect health or the environment against an unreasonable risk of injury."
-
We Don't Need Another Natural Gas Mega Leak. Will You Help?
Feb 1, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Mark Brownstein
The massive natural gas leak at SoCalGas’ Aliso Canyon storage facility in Southern California has now continued unabated into its fourth month. The company says the leak is still weeks from being stopped.
It’s forced 2,000 families to evacuate their homes and the California governor has declared a state of emergency as hazardous air pollution and emissions of methane, the main ingredient in natural gas and a potent greenhouse gas, take a rising toll.
Infrared video footage of the leak has gone viral and a growing number of Americans across the country are wondering: Could this happen in my hometown?
Methane leaks: A national problem
Here’s what we know today:
There are more than 400 underground natural gas storage facilities such as Aliso Canyon in 31 states, many of them 40-plus years old.
There have been similar accidents in the past in Kansas and Texas, among other states.
Government officials and companies only tend to act to correct deficiencies in operation and maintenance practices after a tragedy occurs. Case in point: Aliso Canyon.
Studies have shown thousands of smaller methane leaks happening right now all around the country.
In total, the oil and gas industry emits more than 7 million metric tons of methane every year, with a near-term impact on the climate equal to the pollution from 160 coal plants. Methane is more than 80 times more powerful of a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide over a 20-year timeframe.
The Aliso Canyon incident is an extreme case, in other words, but it’s not unique.
Voluntary actions aren’t enough
While a handful of oil and gas operators have partnered with state regulators to support strong standards, and others are pioneering new leak detection technologies, the good efforts of these few leaders are not enough.
More than 99 percent of this industry has declined to participate in voluntary programs to cut their emissions, and as our recent report shows, companies are doing virtually nothing to set reduction targets or disclose their methane problem to the public.
Given all this pollution and inaction, it’s not surprising that arecent poll found trust in the oil and gas industry to be low.
But change is under way.
We need your help
The United States Environmental Protection Agency took an important step last year when it proposed the first-ever rulesto rein in methane emissions from future oil and gas facilities. These rules must be strengthened.
Incidents such as Aliso Canyon show why we need rules that cover all emissions sources – those that exist now as well as those that will be built in the future. It proves that we can no longer stand by while our natural gas facilities, large and small, continue to leak.
The EPA must take action to control methane pollution from existing sources now, and we need your help to make it happen.
-
NTSB Ready to Release Report on Last Year’s Deadly Amtrak Wreck in Philadelphia
Feb 1, 2016 | Washington Post
By Ashley Halsey III and Michael Laris
The National Transportation Safety Board on Monday prepared to release the detailed findings of its investigation of a train wreck in Philadelphia in May that killed eight passengers and injured more than 200 in the worst Amtrak crash in 22 years.
The NTSB report is the second of three that the safety agency will produce on its investigation of the derailment. In May, it issued a brief outline of the facts then known. On Monday, it will provide a detailed examination, and later this year it is expected to announce the accident’s probable cause.
The report was expected to acknowledge a critical fact on which Amtrak, the NTSB and federal regulators had agreed from the outset: The derailment could have been avoided if a safety device known as positive train control (PTC) had been in place.
Amtrak train 188 had begun its journey north from Washington’s Union Station at 7:10 p.m. on May 12, carrying many passengers of the pin-striped sort who make day trips to conduct business in the nation’s capital. For more than two hours, it moved without incident, making designated stops and carrying 258 people by the time it departed Philadelphia’s 30th Street Station for New York.
Engineer Brandon Bostian, 32, was at the controls as the engine and seven cars rattled across the Schuylkill River bridge and gained speed as it crossed North Philadelphia, first through a gentle curve to the east and then heading toward a sharp curve to the north at Frankford Junction.
Bostian slammed on the emergency brake as the train hurtled into the northbound turn, but it came too late to keep the train on track. His attorney said afterward that Bostian had suffered a concussion and had no memory of the few seconds immediately before the wreck.
There were reports in the aftermath of the derailment that two other passenger trains in the area had been hit that night by debris apparently thrown by passersby. There was no confirmation that the Amtrak train was struck by some type of object, but there had been speculation that that might have happened.
A similar incident involving an Amtrak train passing through the same North Philadelphia neighborhood was reported Sunday, when a train en route from Washington to New York was damaged by a flying object.
The train halted for a time to permit an investigation of what Amtrak spokeswoman Kimberly D. Woods said was “an incident of objects being thrown.” It was not clear what those objects were.
A photograph posted on Twitter showed fracture lines radiating in a circular pattern from what appeared to be a dent in one of the train’s windows. The window appeared to remain intact.
Woods said that 201 passengers were on the train and that no injuries were reported. The passengers were apparently startled, however, according to a Twitter account from someone on board.
The NTSB, which has advocated for PTC for decades, said in its preliminary comments in May that the train was traveling at 70 mph 65 seconds before the derailment. Twelve seconds later, it bumped up to 80 mph, the authorized maximum in the stretch of track just before the curve. Twelve seconds after that, it increased to 90 mph, and 16 seconds later, it accelerated to 100 mph in the curve.
PTC is an automatic braking system that would have slowed the train as it entered the curve at more than twice the authorized speed.
Since the derailment, Amtrak has activated its version of PTC from Washington to New York. The passenger rail company said it is operational on nearly all the Amtrak-owned or maintained track all the way to Boston.
Outside of the northeast rail corridor, however, Amtrak operates on rail owned by freight railroads that have not met target dates set by Congress for installation of the system. Until freight railroads finish installing the towers that are the backbone of the automated system, Amtrak will not be able to turn on the electronic equipment it has installed in its engines that allows the technology to work.
After 25 people were killed and more than 100 injured in an accident in 2008 that PTC could have prevented, Congress ordered the railroads to complete installation by the end of 2015. But the freight railroads, in particular, fell woefully behind schedule, complaining that the system was too expensive and too complicated to allow speedy compliance.
Congress last year extended the installation deadline until 2018 and provided for extensions beyond that in some circumstances.
-
(ACC Mentioned) D.C. Circuit Backs Legal Agreement On CERCLA Financial Assurance Rules
Jan 29, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is endorsing a legal agreement between EPA and environmental groups that sets a schedule for EPA to finalize long-delayed Superfund financial assurance rules for the hardrock mining industry and commits to deadlines for deciding if similar rules should follow for other industry sectors, finding that environmental petitioners have standing.
At the same time, the court denied industry parties' attempt to intervene in the procedural consent order, which involves a timeline for regulations, but does not resolve "the substance of any rulemaking nor even which classes of hardrock mining facilities will be regulated." The industry parties fail to show the consent order will impair their interests, the court says.
The Jan. 29 order from the D.C. Circuit in In Re: Idaho Conservation League, et al. responds to a proposed legal agreement reached by EPA and environmental groups last summer under which the agency is committing to propose financial assurance rules for the hardrock mining sector under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act (CERCLA) by Dec. 1, 2016 -- a date several months after EPA previously said it expected to have the draft rules ready.
But, in the accord, environmentalists were able to get a commitment from the agency to finalize the rules one year later, by Dec. 1, 2017 -- a much shorter timespan between the draft and final rules than EPA had previously sought. EPA, Earthworks and other environmental groups Aug. 31 filed with the court a joint motionfor an order on consent supporting the accord.
The agreement followed a May 19 order from the D.C. Circuit ordering EPA to update its schedule for issuing the hardrock mining rules and heavily criticizing the agency for its lack of progress in writing the rules. While Congress required EPA by 1983 to identify classes of facilities for which to develop financial assurance requirements, it did not establish a deadline for promulgating rules, only saying such rules should be promulgated sometime after December 1985.
In the case, environmental groups had asked the court to issue a writ of mandamus requiring EPA to finalize rules under section 108(b) of CERCLA. The section set out the 1983 requirement for identifying classes of facilities, and then called for issuing financial assurance rules. Financial assurance requires that owners of facilities treating, storing or disposing of hazardous waste can prove they have sufficient funds to pay for cleanup and post-closure care of a facility; to pay for cleanup of any accidental releases; and to compensate third parties for any damage, EPA's website says.
EPA in 2009 identified hardrock mining as the first sector for which it will issue such rules and identified three other sectors -- chemical manufacturing; petroleum and coal products manufacturing; and electric power generation, transmission, and distribution -- for which it is weighing such rules. But EPA has yet to issue any proposals.
The agreement endorsed by the court also responds to the court's call for EPA to provide a date by which it will decide whether it will require financial assurance measures for these three other sectors. Under the joint motion, EPA agrees to determine by Dec. 1, 2016, whether it will issue proposed rulemakings for any of these other sectors. It also sets out a schedule for proposing and finalizing those rules if the agency decides to go forward with issuing them.
Regulatory Gaps
In its accompanying Jan. 29 opinion, the court says it is granting the joint motion for an order on consent setting the agreed-to schedule, finding that at least one of the petitioners has standing under Article III of the Constitution. In addition, it says that "because the joint motion resolves the issues presented by the petition for mandamus, the court has no occasion to decide whether EPA's delay in promulgating section 108(b) regulations was unreasonable delay for which mandamus would lie.”
The court says that the Idaho Conservation League has shown that at least one of its members has met Article III's requirements with regard to hardrock mining. This member "has suffered and continues to be threatened with ongoing and certainly impending injuries-in-fact that are caused by EPA's failure to promulgate financial assurance regulations in the hardrock mining industry and that will be redressed by promulgation of such rules.”
Specifically, the court points to mining projects in the area where the member lives, as well as "gaps in the existing regulatory landscape" where financial assurance measures are "inconsistent and inadequate." Further, it cites the record showing that some mining companies file for bankruptcy protection, making it hard for EPA to recover cleanup costs, and that funding shortfalls for cleanups delay remediation and exposures the member would face.
As to petitioners' standing with respect to the requirements related to EPA's decision on whether to promulgate the other three industry sector rules, the court says in the opinion that declarations by environmental group members show they are being harmed by the lack of financial assurance rules in those sectors. "[F]inancial assurance requirements would redress their injuries by incentivizing these industries to limit hazardous releases and by reducing cleanup delays," the opinion says.
Several industry parties, including the National Mining Association, American Petroleum Institute, American Chemistry Council and others, sought to intervene in the litigation, but the court says they fail to show Article III standing.
The industry parties "suggest generally that stricter hardrock mining regulation is a foregone conclusion," but the joint order "'does not require EPA to promulgate a new, stricter rule,'" the court says, referencing its 2013 decision in Defenders of Wildlife v. Perciasepe.
It goes on to say that "nothing about this particular order on consent makes it any more likely than inPerciasepe . . . that proposed intervenors will be subject to regulation, much less suffer concrete harm to their interests.”
The court says, "Granting the joint motion on consent would not prevent proposed intervenors from seeking to intervene in the scheduled rulemaking or challenging a final rule that subjects them to regulation."
-
Bracewell's Holmstead Says SCOTUS Stay request a Long Shot but Warranted
Feb 1, 2016 | E&E TV
As states work behind the scenes to craft compliance strategies for U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, legal action against the rule is now front and center. Is the latest move by petitioners requesting the Supreme Court consider a stay of the rule a long shot? During today's OnPoint, Jeff Holmstead, a partner at Bracewell and a former assistant administrator for air and radiation at EPA, discusses the outlook for legal proceedings on the rule and explains why he believes carbon trading makes the rule more economically viable.
Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello, and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Jeff Holmstead, a partner at Bracewell & Giuliani and a former assistant administrator for air and radiation at EPA. Jeff, it's nice to have you back on the show.
Jeff Holmstead: Thanks, my pleasure.
Monica Trauzzi: So, Jeff, as states work behind the scenes to create Clean Power Plan compliance mechanisms, legal action against the rule is now front and center. The D.C. Circuit has ruled against a request for a stay on the rule, and most stakeholders were not surprised by this, but what has come as a bit of a surprise to some is this escalation request to the Supreme Court. Is the latest move a long shot?
Jeff Holmstead: Yes. It would be very unusual for the Supreme Court to grant the stay, but the Clean Power Plan is pretty remarkable and EPA is asserting authority that goes way beyond what they've ever done before, so I think there is a chance that the Supreme Court will step in because you have to remember, the Supreme Court in the last two terms has really sent a signal that EPA has overreached with the mercury rule and with the permitting program, so it may be that the Supreme Court is willing to step in and say enough is enough, we're going to put this on hold, but it is a long shot.
Monica Trauzzi: How much of this aggressive legal action, though, is politically motivated and tied to individual political aspirations in the states?
Jeff Holmstead: You know something? I think very little. If you were to be involved in the discussions that are going on with the litigants, people just say look at the Clean Air Act. Just know there's no way that it can possibly authorize EPA to do what it needs to do. So I think the legal officials in 27 states just believe that EPA has gone well beyond its statutory authority. Now, of course there's always political motivations as well, but I think it really is a response to the legal issues that are raised by EPA's assertion of authority.
Monica Trauzzi: So we now know what the D.C. Circuit panel looks like. We'll be hearing the power plan case. This isn't the panel you were hoping for, is it?
Jeff Holmstead: Well, you know, you're never quite sure what panel you're going to get, and certainly our hope is that the legal issues are clear enough that it really won't matter very much who we get on the panel. You know, we have a little more history with two of the judges. The third judge is a little newer and so people don't really know very much about him, but we're hopeful and confident that even with this panel, the legal issues will be clear enough that the states will prevail.
Monica Trauzzi: So the court has also denied the motion to split certain issues. How complex then does that make the case?
Jeff Holmstead: That is probably, to my mind, the most disappointing thing. This rule creates so many issues that by requiring them all to be briefed at once, it's going to be very difficult, especially for the states. You have to remember that every state got its own individual mandate. It's not like MATS where there was a uniform standard that applied throughout the country, and so there are many states that are wondering how we're really going to present our issues if we have to brief them all at once. So that was disappointing, especially after the CSAPR decision where the Supreme Court said we're going to uphold on the basic legal issues but then, states, you can bring separate as-applied challenges. We were hopeful that the D.C. Circuit would adopt the same approach here, but they haven't.
Monica Trauzzi: So then it does -- does it potentially muddy the waters when it comes to the case?
Jeff Holmstead: I think all the litigants are pretty united around the core legal issues, and so I think those will be presented in any event, and the real challenge now is to see all these what are called programmatic issues, if there's a way to present them without going kind of state by state. So there will definitely be some briefing challenges for both the petitioners and for EPA. You didn't mention that the court actually imposed a very expedited briefing schedule. I mean, it's almost unheard of for a case of this magnitude to be briefed in just a couple of months, oral arguments in June, so things are moving pretty quickly, which is certainly something that the petitioners will ask for.
Monica Trauzzi: Is that concerning, this timeline?
Jeff Holmstead: Oh no, no. I think the petitioners are all more than ready to brief the case. But as I said, the challenge is going to be the programmatic issues, and not so much a time challenge, but just a space challenge. We're still not sure how many briefs we'll get to brief all of these issues, although the court has said that there may well be a second day of oral arguments, so we're hopeful that they give us enough words to really brief the issues.
Monica Trauzzi: There does seem to be this concern, though, within states, among utilities regulators and state governments that legal challenges will not hold up because they're all having conversations on how they're going to comply, what the mechanisms are going to look like. What do you think sort of that two-pronged strategy says about the legal strength of the rule and the strength of the arguments against it?
Jeff Holmstead: I don't think it tells us really anything about that. If you're a company, if you're a state, if there's any chance at all that the rule will be upheld, then you need to begin to prepare for it. So I think virtually everyone is confident that we'll prevail, is hopeful that we'll prevail, but there's no guarantee. So you have virtually all of the states now, and as far as I know, all the companies that we're working with, at the same time they're challenging the rule. They're saying, well just in case, how would we possibly comply with this? And so you're seeing both of those things going on, but I don't think it really tells us anything about the legal case. It would be silly for someone to say, you know, we're not going to worry about it because we're 100 percent certain. No one's quite that sure about the legal issues.
Monica Trauzzi: Trading seems to be the name of the game for states. Everyone's talking about regional trading schemes.
Jeff Holmstead: There's no way -- there has to be a trading scheme. I mean, the way the rule is set up, if there's a trading scheme -- if there's not a trading scheme, then no existing plant can continue to function because they need to be able to buy a credit from somebody else. So the question is whether it's going to be trading within a state or trading much more broadly.
Monica Trauzzi: Right, so then does this idea of trading, and potentially regionally trading, make the rule more politically and economically viable?
Jeff Holmstead: Oh, it certainly makes it more economically viable. I mean, without the trading, the rule wouldn't work at all. It would be essentially impossible, so -- and that's why I think you see states and industry who are saying, well if -- in the event that this rule is upheld, how would we comply, and they're looking at the broadest possible trading regimes, but it's tricky because the kind of trading regime that will work for one state depends on what other states do. So everyone's kind of circling around each other and having these conversations as to what really, you know, what kind of a trading regime would work for the broadest number of people, and that's certainly what you're seeing going on.
Monica Trauzzi: The Supreme Court recently ruled in the government's favor in the FERC demand-response case. What does that tell you about this court's perspective on the government's ability to have a say on a state's planning on energy?
Jeff Holmstead: I don't think it really tells us much of anything. You know, if you -- you probably read that decision, but it's really very much about the wording of the Federal Power Act, and I think the Clean Power Plan will be all about the wording of the Clean Air Act. The cases are pretty different. For one thing, the Supreme Court specifically noted that this order that was being challenged was actually supported by most states and most industry because it would reduce consumer prices and it would at least arguably improve reliability, so in that regard, it's 180 degrees from the Clean Power Plan where you have at least a significant majority of the states who oppose it, and no one believes that it will reduce prices. Everyone agrees it will increase them. So you know, I wasn't involved in that case. I did read the decision, and I'm not sure that it really has very much to tell us about the Clean Power Plan.
Monica Trauzzi: All right, we'll end it right there. Always good to see you.
Jeff Holmstead: Thank you for having me.
Monica Trauzzi: Thanks for coming on the show. And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
-
N.D. Joins Appeal to Supreme Court
Feb 1, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
North Dakota has joined more than two dozen other states in pressing the Supreme Court to put the brakes on the Obama administration's signature climate change rule.
On Friday, the state filed a motion with Chief Justice John Roberts, asking his court to freeze U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan as litigation challenging the rule plays out in a lower court.
The application comes on the heels of several similar petitions filed last week by dozens of states and industry groups. Roberts has asked the Obama administration to respond to those requests by Thursday afternoon.
In its petition, North Dakota argues the court should halt the rule because the state is already suffering "ongoing irreparable harm."
The state would be particularly hard hit, the document said, because EPA imposes "a particularly stringent compliance requirement" on the state, requiring a "dramatic and immediate shift" from lignite-coal-powered generators to gas-powered plants or renewable sources.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit last month refused requests to freeze the rule, saying that challengers hadn't met the stringent requirements needed to halt or "stay" a regulation (E&ENews PM, Jan. 21).
In a separate motion, 25 states and four state agencies, led by West Virginia, appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, asking it to block the rule while litigation moves ahead in the lower court (Greenwire, Jan. 26).
A coalition of utilities, coal industry groups and business interests, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, submitted three separate stay requests (E&ENews PM, Jan. 27).
It's widely seen as unlikely that the high court would grant such an unusual effort to overturn a lower court decision pending litigation, but critics of the rule are hopeful the high stakes will encourage the justices to intervene.
The administration's Clean Power Plan is expected to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.
-
Week Ahead: Senate Aims to Wrap Up Energy Reform Bill 13
Feb 1, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The Senate will pick up debate on its energy overhaul bill in the coming week.
Lawmakers have filed more than 100 amendments to the bill, which itself is a major rewrite of federal energy policy.
The legislation, from Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), includes provisions to speed up the export of liquefied natural gas, indefinitely expand a conservation fund, update the electricity grid and reform other energy policies.
Members have worked hard to preserve the legislation’s bipartisan appeal — it cleared committee on an 18-4 vote — and none of the amendments approved during the first week of debate threw the bill off track. Senators advanced 11 amendments in Thursday, but they only held roll-call votes on those relating to nuclear research, funding for advanced energy and a study on crude oil exports.
That’s not to say there aren’t controversial, contentious or high-profile amendments waiting in the wings. A host of Democrats, led by Michigan Sens. Debbie Stabenow and Gary Peters, want to attach a $600 million aid package for Flint, Mich., to the bill.
California Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer introduced an amendment on Friday calling for a formal federal response to a methane leak at a natural gas storage facility outside of Los Angeles.
Lawmakers have also introduced amendments dealing with several other controversial issues and pet projects, including cutting fossil fuel tax credits or ending the federal ethanol mandate. But it’s unlikely the bill’s managers will be enthusiastic to bring such measures to the floor for a vote.
“It is the beginning of a series of steps that we will take to modernize our nation’s energy, as well as our mineral policies,” Murkowski, the chairwoman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said on Thursday.
Senators will resume debate on the legislation Monday, begin amendment votes on Tuesday, and look to approve the bill by the end of the week.
Elsewhere, committees on both sides of the Capitol are gearing up to resume work after the recent blizzard canceled many events.
The House Space, Science and Technology Committee will hold a hearing on the Paris climate deal on Tuesday. Industry experts, including the Chamber of Commerce, will discuss what the committee calls a “bad deal for America.”
The Committee on Natural Resources will mark up 18 bills on Wednesday. A list can be found here.
In the Senate, the Environment and Public Works Committee will hold a hearing Wednesday on the Obama administration’s coal mining rule for streams and waterways. The House passed a bill this month blocking the rule.
-
Obama's Unfinished Business on Climate Change
Feb 1, 2016 | Politico Pro
By Elana Schor and Andrew Restuccia
President Barack Obama is facing mounting pressure from his liberal allies to unleash an even more aggressive climate change crackdown with less than a year left in office.
Environmentalists and Democrats say Obama's EPA should force oil and gas companies to plug methane leaks at thousands of active drilling sites around the country — a piece of unfinished business that could be the biggest remaining factor in determining whether the U.S. meets the greenhouse gas target the president committed to in Paris.
Without tackling those existing sources of methane in the oil and gas sector, it will also likely be impossible for Obama to uphold his year-old vowto slash methane emissions from oil and gas nearly in half over the next decade.
"In order to achieve our international commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, we simply must address existing sources of methane emissions," Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and 20 other Democratic senators wroteto Obama last week. Schatz is pitching an amendment to the energy bill now on the Senate floor calling on EPA to expand its methane regulations.
The administration is already playing beat the clock on methane-cutting rules that are in the pipeline, including an Interior Department proposal to require drillers operating on public land to reduce venting and a proposed EPA rule to more strictly regulate new emission sources from oil and gas systems. Those are part of a larger final-year push to cement the president's climate legacy that has also included a moratorium on federal coal leasing. Any new initiatives would face sharp resistance from Republicans as well as an oil and gas industry that is already being battered by bottom-of-the-barrel prices.
“We feel like we’re under a lot of pressure,” the American Petroleum Institute's regulatory affairs director, Howard Feldman, said in an interview. “All around, we’re taking shots from the administration — left and right.”
Still, liberal Democrats and greens are pushing EPA to propose — and even finalize — new rules regulating methane from existing oil and gas sources before the next president takes office, fearing that a Republican successor would abandon the effort.
"This is the single most important thing that this administration or frankly any administration can do to make a real step forward in reducing the rate of warming right now," said Mark Brownstein, the vice president of the climate and energy program at the Environmental Defense Fund.
Oil and natural gas systems account for about 30 percent of U.S. emissions of methane, which warms the planet much more rapidly than carbon dioxide. A 2014report written by the consulting firm ICF International for EDF estimated that industry could cut its methane emissions by 40 percent from projected 2018 levels at an average cost of less than one cent for every thousand cubic feet of produced natural gas. Recommended methods for cutting methane emissions include detecting and fixing leaks at key facilities and gas compressors and replacing so-called pneumatic devices.
The administration last year set a goal of cutting oil and gas-related methane by as much as 45 percent from 2012 levels by 2025, but it is poised to miss its methane-cutting target for 2025 by as much as 70 million metric tons of emissions without extra action, according to an analysis published Thursday by the research firm Rhodium Group. An existing-source methane rule would more than fill that gap, according to separate estimates from the Clean Air Task Force and EDF, which pegged potential reductions between 77 and 79 million metric tons.
In terms of the Paris pledge, Rhodium estimates that the actions Obama has already pledged put the nation on track to bring down emissions by 23 percent by 2025, leaving the U.S. between 3 percent and 5 percent short of the commitment he made in Paris. About 1 percent in additional reductions, filling as much of a third of that gap, could come from stepping up already-planned methane regulations to meet Obama's target, according to Rhodium.
Even though EPA has not committed to adding on existing-source regulations, which account for the vast majority of the industry's methane, the White Houseacknowledged last year that meeting its methane goals “will require additional action, particularly with respect to existing sources.”
EPA spokeswoman Laura Allen declined to answer emailed questions about whether EPA is planning separate methane regulations for existing oil and gas systems. She instead touted her agency's multi-part approach to cutting methane from oil and gas sources, including guidelines that also cut existing sources of pollutants known as volatile organic compounds and a voluntary program aimed at encouraging the industry to work on methane cuts from existing sources.
David Doniger, the director of the climate program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said voluntary programs don't go nearly far enough because "there’s not enough volunteers." He added, "You need standards to set a level playing field on everyone in the industry.”
Feldman of API was noncommittal about the degree of industry participation in EPA's voluntary program for methane reduction from existing oil and gas operations. He also questioned whether EPA would attempt to tackle existing sources of methane this year, noting that "they've been very equivocal about that to us."
To be sure, EPA would have to work fast to successfully propose and finalize a second round of methane regulations before the next president arrives. But environmentalists tracking the issue say it’s possible, and not nearly as complicated for EPA as the politically and technically fraught process of hammering out greenhouse gas rules for the country’s existing power plants.
“This should be an easy one, from our perspective,” Doniger said.
-
Toxic Emissions Drop, Still Cost More Than $100B
Feb 1, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Toxic emissions from power plants and other energy-related sources cost the United States an estimated $131 billion in 2011, a figure that nonetheless represented a substantial drop from 2002, according to a new study that credits tighter federal regulation for much of the difference.
Given that energy production increased during that period, the findings suggest both that "policies that have driven reductions in emissions have reduced damages" and that more stringent controls on the electric generation industry may be warranted, the study's authorswrote in the journal Energy Policy.
The research tapped U.S. EPA data on emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, fine particles known as PM2.5, ammonia and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from the electric power sector, coal mining, oil refineries, and oil and gas drilling.
For the first four pollutants, the power generation sector accounted for most of the emissions; refineries and oil and gas drilling were responsible for the bulk of VOC releases.
Between 2002 and 2011, power plants were consistently responsible for 95 percent of the damages, which came in the form of such factors as lower crop yields and a higher risk of illness and death.
Nationwide, the impact was not spread equally. Geographically, for example, Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania, home to a significant amount of coal-fired power generation, had the highest yearly damages stemming from energy production, the study found.
From 2002 through 2011, however, the overall estimated total cost of air pollution across the country fell by about one-quarter, from $175 billion to $131 billion, measured in inflation-adjusted dollars.
It was during that period that EPA developed its Clean Air Interstate Rule, rolled out in 2005 and designed to sharply cut power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). Although the rule was never implemented, the agency followed up in 2011 with new regulations under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule.
In anticipation of both, "many facilities installed abatement devices" and also changed their fuel mixes, according to the study, which found that emissions of SO2 and NOx fell "precipitously" between 2005 and 2011.
While the crippling economic downturn known as the Great Recession also played out during that time, electric power generation had largely rebounded by 2011, the study said. The biggest driver of lower damage costs was reduced emissions of SO2.
The research is the latest in a series of studies over the years that make use of modeling to estimate the costs of air pollution.
The authors, based at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh and Middlebury College in Vermont, acknowledged several caveats about the results.
Among them: uncertain emissions estimates from EPA and the possibility that some data for releases related to coal mining may be understated.
The new analysis also does not address damage stemming from greenhouse gases. Further cutting releases of other air pollutants, the authors wrote, "would likely result in reductions of greenhouse gas emissions and add to the social benefit of environmental regulations."
-
EPA Too Slow in Flint Crisis Response, Lawyers Say
Feb 1, 2016 | Bloomberg BNA
By Pat Ware
The Environmental Protection Agency should have acted more quickly and aggressively in responding to widespread lead contamination in the drinking water of Flint, Mich., residents, several environmental lawyers told Bloomberg BNA.
“While EPA's role is to oversee and police the nation's waters, the responsibility to ensure safe water for the residents of Flint belongs to the city of Flint and the state,” said Brent Fewell, founder of the Earth & Water Group, a legal and strategic advisory firm. If EPA has any culpability in this crisis, it was that it responded too slowly to the failure by the city and state to provide clean water for its residents, he said in an e-mail.
Elevated levels of lead were found in the blood of some of the city's children in September 2015 after Flint changed its drinking water source without implementing a corrosion control program.
While cities are responsible for their drinking water programs, many communities don't have the resources or expertise to deal with such major decisions and need help, Fewell, who served as the EPA deputy assistant administrator for water in the George W. Bush administration, said.
So when the EPA learned in February 2015 that Flint did not have a corrosion control program in place, it should have moved quickly to require one, he said.
Emergency Authority
Fewell said the EPA has emergency authority under Section 1431 of the Safe Drinking Water Act to respond to events that could endanger public health after determining that state and local authorities have failed to do so. Once that determination is made, the EPA is still required by law, if practicable, to consult with state and local authorities on the facts of the threat and ongoing responses, he said.
“However, there are legal and practical considerations that likely delayed EPA's intervention,” Fewell said. “And that is something we need to better understand and I'm confident those reasons will come out of the ongoing investigations.”
“But in hindsight, once the EPA realized that the state or local authorities were not responding quickly enough or failing to take sufficient action, it should have acted upon its emergency powers,” Fewell said.
Ultimately, the EPA only issued an emergency administrative order Jan. 21 and said it would take over lead sampling and analysis and publish results on its website to provide the public with more reliable information (15 DEN A-20, 1/25/16)
‘Shocking Delay’ by EPA
Henry Henderson, midwest director of the Natural Resources Defense Council, was more emphatic that the EPA should have invoked its emergency powers authority earlier than it did.
“EPA took a remarkably passive role in this situation,” he told Bloomberg BNA. Although the EPA delegates authority to states and relies on local authorities, it has a fundamental role to protect the public, he said.
“In this instance, there were bright primary color warning signs,” he said, “and then overwhelming evidence of the remarkable and really kind of morally repugnant failure of state and local government to protect the interest of the people of Flint.”
NRDC petitioned the EPA to use its emergency authority on Oct. 1, 2015, but it was only after Susan Hedman, the EPA administrator for Region 5, resigned Jan. 21 that the agency finally did, he said.
“That's a shocking delay,” he said.
Henderson said he hoped the Flint crisis would lead to changes in the way the EPA approaches these issues in the future.
“But one of the things we're concerned about is that long-time foes of EPA who have caricatured the agency as being particularly aggressive … will seize upon this,” he said. “They'll say it's an irrelevant agency because it's not doing its job.”
Fewell said he thought the crisis was avoidable. If Michigan had properly applied the EPA's drinking water Lead and Copper Rule and corrosion control had been implemented, the situation would have been averted, he said. The Lead and Copper rule aims to reduce lead and copper in drinking water—introduced primarily through plumbing materials—by addressing sampling, treatment and lead service line replacement.
“Ultimately, this is a colossal failure of government and governance,” Fewell said.
Removal of Lead Pipes
Lead pipes, fixtures and service lines continue to present significant health risks for many communities, particularly small and poor systems, Fewell said.
“However, the cost to remove lead piping would be enormously expensive,” he said. “In Flint alone, the estimates are well over a billion dollars to remove lead service lines.”
Congress has established two programs to finance drinking water infrastructure. The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund gives states federal grant money based on their need. In turn, states make low- or no-interest loans to communities for infrastructure improvements. The Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act—part of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (Pub. L. No. 113-121)—establishes a new financing mechanism for water and wastewater infrastructure projects, providing low-interest-rate financing for large-dollar-value projects, according to the EPA.
But it remains unclear how useful these two mechanisms will be for keeping lead out of drinking water on a large scale.
While more federal and state funding could encourage the removal of lead pipes from homes, it would be “an expensive and generational fix,” Fewell said. “Personally, I think WIFIA and the SRF funding should be allocated on a more targeted basis to help those smaller and distressed communities who are unable to afford and maintain their water systems,” he said.
A 2013 EPA report estimated that $384 billion is needed for drinking water infrastructure through 2030 (108 DEN A-1, 6/5/13).
The American Water Works Association estimates about $1 trillion will be needed for drinking water infrastructure over the next 20 years, while only $540 billion will be available. The $1 trillion does not include the removal of lead service lines on private property.
“If there is a silver lining to this tragedy, perhaps Flint will spur a productive conversation on Capitol Hill and some positive reforms in terms of addressing our nation's failing water systems,” Fewell said.
Private Property Complications
G. Tracy Mehan III, executive director of government affairs for the American Water Works Association, said water utilities are responsible for removing lead lines on their property. But WIFIA and the DWSRF become complicated for lead pipe removal because property may not be owned by the water utility, he told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail.
Ultimately, the responsibility for financing removal of all lead service lines will require financial support from private property owners, municipalities, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, private philanthropy, and others, Mehan said.
“So it needs to be a societal goal, not just a utility goal given that we already have a $1 trillion investment gap for replacing and expanding drinking water infrastructure over the next several decades,” he said.
-
N.D. Pipeline Leaks 300 Barrels of Crude, Brine into Creek
Feb 1, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
North Dakota officials said Friday that a pipeline at an oil production site leaked about 300 barrels of crude oil and salt water -- a byproduct of hydraulic fracturing -- onto the land in the western part of the state, some of which made its way into a creek.
The spill was detected early Thursday about 16 miles north of the rural town of Belfield near Theodore Roosevelt National Park, the state's Health Department said.
State officials have sent people to determine the cause of the leak and oversee cleanup efforts. The pipe is owned by White Rock Oil and Gas LLC.
The leak occurred on the same day that North Dakota state regulators approved an ownership transfer of 80 wells from Whiting Petroleum Corp. to White Rock. It is still unclear whether the leak occurred at one of the company's recently acquired wells or at one of its 45 already-established sites.
Bill Suess, spill investigation program manager with the North Dakota Department of Health's environmental health section, said about 50 barrels of the crude-oil-heavy mixture ran into the waterway. He said the spill has been contained and does not pose any risks to wildlife.
The incident is another in a string of leaks that have come as a result of the Bakken oil boom, incidents that have increased tensions between the state's energy and agriculture industries.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested