Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 4/14/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) FDA to Review Plasticizer Use in Food Products
Apr 14, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
The Food and Drug Administration will review whether to revoke authorization for a type of plasticizer in food products. -
(ACC Mentioned) Fast Food May Increase Phthalate Exposure, US Study Finds
Apr 14, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Dr Emma Davies
Fast food consumption may expose consumers to phthalates, according to data collected for the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (Nhanes). -
(ACC Mentioned) Eating Fast Food Exposes You to Harmful Chemicals
Apr 14, 2016 | Bel Marra Health
By Emily Lunardo
By now you know that eating fast food isn’t the healthiest choice you can make, but a new study suggests that eating fast food can actually expose you to harmful chemicals known as phthalates. -
(ACC Mentioned) Another Reason Not To Eat Fast Food: It Exposes You To Really Bad Chemicals
Apr 14, 2016 | Coexist
By Christina Couch
If the high fat, calorie, sugar, and sodium content of fast food weren’t enough to deter you, new research offers another reason to change your eating habits. -
EWG Updates Guide to Cleaning Products
Apr 14, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Sylvia Palmer
In its quest to lift the “veil of secrecy” regarding cleaning products, and direct consumers towards those with good ingredient disclosures, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) has released its updated Guide to Healthy Cleaning. -
US Apparel Group Updates Restricted Substance List
Apr 14, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA) has published the 17th edition of its restricted substance list (RSL). -
Review Measures Value of AOPs for Regulators
Apr 14, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Even partially complete adverse outcome pathways (AOPs), with unknown molecular initiating events, can be “valuable” to regulators, according to a review by a multinational team. -
Echa Round-Up
Apr 14, 2016 | Chemical Watch
New versions of Iuclid, and the chemical safety assessment and reporting tool Chesar, are to be published in the last week of April. An update of the dossier submission and communication tool REACH-IT will follow at the end of June. -
Study: North America NGLs Will Drive Midstream Investments of $43-55 Billion During 2015-35
Apr 14, 2016 | Chemical Week
By Clay Boswell
Over the next 20 years, North American midstream companies will need to spend $471-621 billion on infrastructure to keep up with natural gas, crude oil, and natural gas liquids (NGLs) production, according to a new study commissioned by the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA). -
Senate Plots Return to Energy Reform Bill Without Flint Aid
Apr 14, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
Months of negotiations over the Senate energy reform package yielded a surprise agreement yesterday to bring the measure back to the floor as early as next week, after lawmakers decided to put off fights on offshore drilling and money for Flint, Mich. -
Clinton-Sanders Fracking Fracas Heats Up
Apr 14, 2016 | Politico Pro
By Elana Schor
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are feuding over fracking as they head toward primaries in gas-rich New York, Pennsylvania and Maryland — exposing a rift among Democrats that could haunt her at the party’s convention in July and beyond. -
The Most Important Mystery About U.S. Climate Change Policy
Apr 14, 2016 | Washington Post
By Chris Mooney
On the surface, it looks like extraordinarily good news. The United States isburning less coal — less of the fuel that contributes the most carbon dioxide to the atmosphere when burned. Instead, we’re swapping in cleaner burning natural gas, which could serve as a “bridge” to an era in which wind and solar provide the bulk of the nation’s power. And carbon dioxide emissions are already lower as a result. -
Pa. Lawmakers Criticize Proposed Drilling Rules
Apr 14, 2016 | E&E Energywire
Pennsylvania state legislators formally disapproved of new drilling rules Tuesday, criticizing the regulatory process. -
Bakken Oil Industry Has 'Hardly Even Begun the Race' -- State Regulator
Apr 14, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
Oil's rebound will be strong and quick, so this once-booming micropolis had better be prepared, the state's top energy regulator said yesterday. -
2 Killed, 1 Injured in Texas Pipeline Accident
Apr 14, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
As workers repaired a South Texas gas pipeline, an unexpected high-pressure release occurred, leaving two dead and injuring a third. -
EPA's Stricter Ozone 'Nonattainment' Findings Preempt Advocates' Suits
Apr 14, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA has issued a final rule placing the Atlanta, Chicago, Denver and New York City metropolitan areas, among others, into a more severe state of "nonattainment" with the agency's national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone, preempting threatened environmentalist lawsuits seeking to force EPA to act. -
State Regulators Applaud Proposed Ozone Rule Delay
Apr 14, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Several state environmental regulators voiced support at a hearing this morning for legislation to delay implementation of U.S. EPA's new ozone standard, saying compliance would be costly, if not impossible, to achieve in some cases.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) FDA to Review Plasticizer Use in Food Products
Apr 14, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
The Food and Drug Administration will review whether to revoke authorization for a type of plasticizer in food products.
FDA granted review yesterday of a petition by the Environmental Defense Fund that asks for the removal of 30 chemicals known as ortho-phthalates that are used as food additives.
FDA's acceptance of the petition starts a 180-day review period during which it will determine if the chemicals don't present a "reasonable certainty of no harm" to consumers. The agency also rejected two requests made under the petition on procedural grounds.
Though the chemical industry maintains that the substances pose no risk to the public, scientists have linked ortho-phthalates to several health problems, including malformed genitalia in infants and lower IQs in children (Greenwire, Feb. 19, 2015).
Many researchers believe consumers are mainly exposed to the chemicals when food is eaten from packaging that contains the substances.
"The stakes for children's health are high," Tom Neltner, EDF's chemicals program director, wrote in a blog post.
The petition was filed last month by EDF along with the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the Center for Environmental Health, the Center for Food Safety, Clean Water Action, the Consumer Federation of America, Earthjustice, Improving Kids' Environment and the Learning Disabilities Association of America.
In a statement, the American Chemistry Council said it was reviewing the petition.
"Phthalates have been reviewed and studied by numerous government scientific agencies and regulatory bodies world-wide," the trade group said. "Their conclusions have been essentially the same each time: that the phthalates in commerce today do not pose a risk to human health at real-life exposure levels."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/04/14/stories/1060035620
-
(ACC Mentioned) Fast Food May Increase Phthalate Exposure, US Study Finds
Apr 14, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Dr Emma Davies
Fast food consumption may expose consumers to phthalates, according to data collected for the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (Nhanes).
A team from George Washington University, led by Ami Zota, looked for possible associations between recent fast food intake and urinary metabolites of the phthalates, DEHP and DINP.
The team used data on almost 9,000 Nhanes participants, who provided urine samples as well as answering a food questionnaire, covering the previous 24 hours. Questions included whether participants had eaten fast food, either as home deliveries or at restaurants with no waiting staff.
One third of participants reported having eaten fast food and had significantly higher levels of DEHP and DINP metabolites than those who had not. The researchers report a monotonic, positive relationship between the data, so that those who ate the most fast food also had the highest phthalate levels, with DEHP metabolites just over 20% higher and DINP levels 40% higher.
The researchers suggest that “grain” (flour) items, including bread, pizza and noodles, are “significantly associated” with DINP and DEHP. They call for further research to investigate phthalate content in specific fast food menu items.
The researchers highlight a 2014 study of phthalates in foods, led by Amrit Sakhi from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, which suggested that DINP is the most detected phthalate. In 2014, Zota and colleagues used US biomonitoring data to illustrate how phthalate exposure changed between 2001 and 2010, with DEHP metabolites decreasing by 37%, while a DINP metabolite increased by 149%.
Writing in Environmental Health Perspectives, they suggest that “further studies should further examine the human health effects, associated with DINP exposure, and its potential synergy with other phthalates such as DEHP.”
As with all Nhanes studies, the researchers acknowedge the limitation of the cross-sectional design, which does not make it possible to infer a causal relationship between fast food consumption and urinary phthalate metabolites. A longitudinal study, with phthalate exposure determined in individuals, before and after eating fast food, would be beneficial, they add. If confirmed by longitudional studies, their results “may have great public health significance”, they conclude.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) was quick to emphasise the study's cross-sectional limitation. It pointed to reviews and studies by “numerous government scientific agencies and regulatory bodies worldwide”, suggesting that “phthalates, in commerce today, do not pose a risk to human health at real-life exposure levels.”
In California, DINP is listed as a known human carcinogen under Proposition 65, following rodent studies, although industry continues to contest the listing.
In the EU, DEHP, a category 1B reprotoxin, is included in the REACH candidate list and in Annex XVII's authorisation list. All non-authorised uses had to be phased out by February 2015.
On 20 April, the REACH Committee is set to discuss a proposed authorisation for recycling PVC containing DEHP, to produce soft PVC. The matter has been the subject of much debate, and a group of NGOs, including ChemTrust, have long campaigned for the authorisation application to be rejected.
https://chemicalwatch.com/46560/fast-food-may-increase-phthalate-exposure-us-study-finds
-
(ACC Mentioned) Eating Fast Food Exposes You to Harmful Chemicals
Apr 14, 2016 | Bel Marra Health
By Emily Lunardo
By now you know that eating fast food isn’t the healthiest choice you can make, but a new study suggests that eating fast food can actually expose you to harmful chemicals known as phthalates. The researchers found that fast-food eaters had higher levels of phthalates in their urine – in fact, 24 to 40 percent higher, compared to people who rarely consumed fast food.
Study author Ami Zota said, “We found statistically significant associations between the amount of fast food consumed in the prior 24 hours and the levels of two particular phthalates found in the body.”
The two common phthalates found were di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) and diisononyl phthalate (DiNP), commonly used to make plastics flexible. These phthalates are also found in many food processors and packaging machinery.
The U.S. Congress banned the use of DEHP in children’s toys and bottles, and DiNP was temporarily banned for other uses as well. The bans were put into place based on concerns that these phthalates could interfere with male reproductive development. Other possible issues include birth defects, childhood behavioral problems, and chronic illnesses like asthma.
The chemicals can get into fast food through the processing system and can also get released into the food from its packaging.
Shanna Swan, a professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive science with the department of preventive medicine at Mount Sinai’s Icahn School of Medicine, added, “To reduce exposure to phthalates, my recommendation always is to minimize exposure to processed foods, and the ultimate processed food platform is the fast-food restaurant.”
The researchers reviewed data from nearly 8,900 participants of a regular health survey carried out by the CDC. Fast food was described as anything obtained from a restaurant along with take-out or delivered food.
Individuals were categorized as frequent fast-food eaters if they received 35 percent of their daily calories from fast food.
The researchers found the greater the amount of fast food consumed, the higher the levels of chemicals were. Grains and meats were found to have the highest concentration of phthalates.
Some food manufacturers have issues regarding the findings. Lisa Dry, senior director of product communications at the American Chemistry Council, said, “The authors acknowledge that a limitation of the study is that they cannot establish a link between any phthalate exposure and fast-food consumption. No phthalates were actually measured or confirmed to be present in any foods. Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention over the last 10 years, the same data on which this study is based, demonstrate that exposure to phthalates from any source is extremely low, including any contribution from fast foods, and significantly lower than acceptable levels as set by regulatory agencies.”
Swan and Zota advised that pregnant women in particular lower their intake of fast food as it is quite harmful for them.
The findings were published in Environmental Health Perspectives.
http://www.belmarrahealth.com/eating-fast-food-exposes-you-to-harmful-chemicals/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Another Reason Not To Eat Fast Food: It Exposes You To Really Bad Chemicals
Apr 14, 2016 | Coexist
By Christina Couch
If the high fat, calorie, sugar, and sodium content of fast food weren’t enough to deter you, new research offers another reason to change your eating habits. People who had eaten fast food in the previous 24 hours showed significantly higher levels of phthalates—a family of industrial chemicals used to make plastics more flexible—than people who had skipped the drive-through. And the more they ate, the worse it got.
Among the nearly 9,000 participants in a study from George Washington University published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, the "high consumers"—ones who had eaten the most fast food (35% of their caloric intake or more)—had anywhere from 20% to 40% higher levels of two specific phthalates than people who hadn’t eaten fast food.
What that means for human health isn’t entirely clear. Phthalates, which are used in everything from raincoats to vinyl flooring to food and beverage containers, are so pervasive that nearly all Americans have some of the chemicals’ breakdown products in their bodies already. While the American Chemical Council recently issued a statement that the phthalates currently used "do not pose a risk to human health at real-life exposure levels," the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have stated that the health effects are "unknown" and that "more research is needed." Previous studies on animals have linked phthalates to a wide range of issues, including hormone disruptions, demasculinization (problems with male sexual organ development), cardiovascular problems, and cancer while phthalate studies involving humans have linked the chemicals to attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD) and asthma in children. DEHP and DiNP—the two phthalates examined in the George Washington University research—are already banned from being used in manufacturing children’s toys and child-care products.
"We know from a wealth of emerging evidence from both human studies as well as animal studies that we do see adverse health effects even at low levels in the range of what we’re finding in this study," says Ami R. Zota, an assistant professor at GW’s Milken Institute School of Public Health and the study’s lead author. "It would be very difficult to eliminate everyone’s exposures to phthalates."
Because phthalates are everywhere, nailing down where exactly our bodies are picking up these chemicals is a major problem, one that Zota is quick to point out that her study doesn’t definitively solve. The George Washington University research only concludes that fast food, defined here as any food available as a carry-out/delivery item or available at a restaurant without a waitstaff, "may be a source of exposure" to phthalates. Zota says that a longitudinal study would be required to confirm these findings.
To determine the specific impact of phthalates, "we need more information," says Linda S. Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. We also need to broaden the ways in which these chemicals are studied.
"No one’s exposed to one phthalate at a time, and there’s some data that suggests that at least the demasculization effects act in an additive fashion," Birnbaum says. "Looking at [phthalates] one at a time may not actually predict what the risks might be."
Zota says that the drastic difference between phthalate levels in people who ate lots of fast food versus those who didn’t is enough to push her to continue studying whether phthalates could be sneaking into our bodies through the food we eat.
"You don’t find such solid results in this type of research everyday," she says. "I think it does reflect something real going on."
http://www.fastcoexist.com/3058921/another-reason-not-to-eat-fast-food-it-exposes-you-to-really-bad-chemicals
-
EWG Updates Guide to Cleaning Products
Apr 14, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Sylvia Palmer
In its quest to lift the “veil of secrecy” regarding cleaning products, and direct consumers towards those with good ingredient disclosures, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) has released its updated Guide to Healthy Cleaning.
Over 400 new products have been added.
Created in 2012, the guide, according to EWG, is “solely for educational purposes, to help guide consumers on product contents when buying household cleaners.”
EWG gathered information from product labels, company websites, and safety data sheets, then used that to develop an A to F ranking system for over 2,500 cleaning products.
Rankings reflect EWG’s level of concern with products, based on the amount of ingredient information available. “A” represents low safety concern and an “F” represents high concern - with no endorsement of brands or products.
Of the 2,500 products, nearly half are rated “poor” on ingredient disclosure. One in seven rated “A” or “B”, while the rest, over two thirds, rated “D” or “F”. In addition, according to the findings:75% contain ingredients, which may have respiratory health effects, and are commonly found in all-purpose spray cleaners;over 25% rank at moderate to high concern level, because of ingredients or impurities linked to cancer; and20% also rank at moderate to high concern level, because of ingredients associated with developmental, endocrine or reproductive harm.
EWG believes consumers deserve the “right to know”, when it comes to selecting household cleaning products. In the guide, they explain that “the ratings indicate the relative level of concern, posed by exposure to the ingredients in this product - not the product itself - compared to other product formulations. The ratings reflect potential health hazards but do not account for the level of exposure or individual susceptibility, factors which determine actual health risks, if any.”
The American Cleaning Institute (ACI) says: “It is a fact that anything can be safe or unsafe – it all depends on the amount. Manufacturers work to ensure that they use levels of ingredients that are ‘just right’ - in that they provide a benefit in the products, but at the same time are safe.”
The ACI calls the effort a “disappointing scare campaign [which] promotes false fears about cleaning products, which play an essential role in our daily lives.”
Manufacturers like Procter & Gamble are taking their own steps to disclose product ingredients. The company has made public a list of substances that it uses in its fragrance formulations since 2012. Just recently, they also disclosed a list of fragrance ingredients not used in its products.
SC Johnson also has newly introduced a product line, disclosing all the fragrance ingredients.
https://chemicalwatch.com/46583/ewg-updates-guide-to-cleaning-products
-
US Apparel Group Updates Restricted Substance List
Apr 14, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA) has published the 17th edition of its restricted substance list (RSL).
The list is updated every six months, and outlines international bans and restrictions of chemicals and substances, for use in consumer textiles, apparel and footwear.
The 17th edition of the RSL covers 12 chemical categories with more than 250 chemicals. Changes since the last edition include alterations to the listing of flame retardants and phthalates.
The AAFA offers the entire apparel and footwear industry free access to the RSL. It can be downloaded from the association’s website.
https://chemicalwatch.com/46580/us-apparel-group-updates-restricted-substance-list
-
Review Measures Value of AOPs for Regulators
Apr 14, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Even partially complete adverse outcome pathways (AOPs), with unknown molecular initiating events, can be “valuable” to regulators, according to a review by a multinational team.
Scientists from industry and academia, including the European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC), reviewed four AOP case studies, focusing on AOP completeness and the degree of scientific confidence.
The review, published in Toxicological Sciences, found that scientific confidence in AOPs can be increased with “unconventional information”, such as using computer models to predict a pathway's possible molecular initiatiors.
Edward Perkins from the US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg Mississippi, led the review team, which included Aude Kienzler from the EU's Joint Research Centre.
https://chemicalwatch.com/46572/review-measures-value-of-aops-for-regulators
-
Apr 14, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Updated IT tools in pipeline
New versions of Iuclid, and the chemical safety assessment and reporting tool Chesar, are to be published in the last week of April. An update of the dossier submission and communication tool REACH-IT will follow at the end of June.
Echa says the new tools will be "simpler to use and more intuitive, which will particularly help small- and medium-sized companies registering their chemicals for the last REACH registration deadline of 31 May 2018."
Opinion trees and checklist for evaluating applications for authorisation
The agency has published opinion trees for to help its Committees on Socio-economic Analysis (Seac) and Risk Assessment (Rac) conclude authorisation opinions and make consistent recommendations.
It has also published a checklist to help Rac rapporteurs appraise applications for authorisation. A similar checklist for Seac rapporteurs has already been published. Echa says it hopes that these documents will also help applicants understand how the committees evaluate applications.
Substitution survey
Echa has asked industries and consultants to take part in a survey that aims to better understand the current capacity of companies to substitute hazardous chemicals. The agency hopes the survey will help determine capacity building needs. It is being carried out with the European Commission's DG Environment, the University of Massachusetts Lowell and Risk & Policy Analysts Ltd.
Roadmap 2018 review
The agency has released a progress report on its REACH 2018 roadmap. The document reviews and reflects upon the status at the end of January 2016.
It follows the seven-phase structure of the original roadmap. For each phase, it describes the following:
changes affecting the scope/content of the phase;
progress made under 2015; and
updated milestones.
Guidance consultations
The agency has sent a draft update to Part D (Framework for exposure assessment) of its Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment (IR&CSA) to the Member State and Risk Assessment committees (MSC and Rac), as well as the Forum for consultation.
It has also sent a draft update to its Guidance on Data sharing to the Partner Expert Group (PEG) for consultation.
Updated list of substances (potentially) subject to compliance checks
Echa has updated its list of substances potentially subject to compliance checks.
It invites registrants to review their related registration dossiers, and update them with any new and/or relevant information including, where applicable, an update of the CSR.
The deadline for updated dossiers is 13 June.
Restriction intention: lead in shot
The European Commission has asked Echa to prepare an Annex XV dossier on the use of lead in shot in wetlands. It says it wants the dossier to show that action is needed, beyond any measures already in place on a EU-wide basis.
The scope of the intended restriction says that harmonising the conditions of use is a priority.
It points out that national legislation has already been enacted by some member states, further to international action through the Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA), under the auspices of the UN Environment Programme (Unep) to which the EU is a party.
Echa is expected to submit the dossier on 12 April 2017.
https://chemicalwatch.com/46562/echa-round-up
-
Study: North America NGLs Will Drive Midstream Investments of $43-55 Billion During 2015-35
Apr 14, 2016 | Chemical Week
By Clay Boswell
Over the next 20 years, North American midstream companies will need to spend $471-621 billion on infrastructure to keep up with natural gas, crude oil, and natural gas liquids (NGLs) production, according to a new study commissioned by the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA). NGL infrastructure – pipelines and facilities for pumping, fractionation, and export – will alone require investments totaling $43-55 billion during 2015-35.
The study, North American Midstream Infrastructure through 2035, considers two scenarios: a high case in which a rebound in global economic activity spurs increased use of natural gas and oil and more robust pricing, and a low case in which a slower economic recovery reduces the need for oil and gas and pipeline development.
In the high case, 12,100 miles of takeaway pipeline with 2.3 million bbl/day of capacity is added in the United States and Canada during 2015-35 at a cost of $26.3 billion, including about 550,000 bbl/day installed in 2015. Most of it is installed in the Midwest, Northeast, and Southwest, and the majority before 2020. By contrast, about 5.4 million bbl/day of incremental capacity was added during 2010-14, says the study. Investment in fractionation during 2015-35 totals $20.2 billion, and in export facilities, $8 billion.
In the low case, 9,700 miles of takeaway pipeline with a totaled capacity of 1.1 million bbl/day is added at a cost of $20 billion. Because of the uncertain environment of the low case, no new NGL pipelines are projected beyond 2020, and rail and truck transport continue to dominate. Investment in fractionation totals $16.3 billion, and in export facilities, $7 billion.
Regionally, the investments vary by case. For example, in the high case, $4 billion of Appalachian takeaway capacity is built to transport raw NGLs for processing in the Gulf Coast. The low case, however, cannot support the pipeline because of lower production growth, and higher fractionation capacity is required to process NGLs production growth locally.
http://www.chemweek.com/home/top_stories/Study-North-America-NGLs-will-drive-midstream-investments-of--55-billion-during-2015-35_78543.html
-
Senate Plots Return to Energy Reform Bill Without Flint Aid
Apr 14, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
Months of negotiations over the Senate energy reform package yielded a surprise agreement yesterday to bring the measure back to the floor as early as next week, after lawmakers decided to put off fights on offshore drilling and money for Flint, Mich.
Under a unanimous consent agreement last night, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will determine the timing for debate on amendments and the overall legislation.
A GOP aide said movement could happen as early as Tuesday. About four hours of debate and votes are likely before final passage of the energy bill, S. 2012.
The bipartisan package has been stuck since February over a push by Michigan Democratic Sens. Debbie Stabenow and Gary Peters for an amendment to help Flint residents cope with the city's drinking water crisis.
Although the pair lifted their hold yesterday, they didn't give up quietly. They criticized Sen. Mike Lee, who objected to the Flint aid over spending concerns. Weeks of negotiations did not satisfy the Utah Republican.
"It's totally unacceptable that Sen. Lee continues to block a vote on our fully-paid for, bipartisan agreement to help Flint and other communities across the nation who have serious lead and water problems," Stabenow said in a statement.
Peters said the pair "will continue to seek a path forward for our legislation to help the people of Flint, who are still living without clean, safe water."
Lee's office declined to comment.
Also facilitating yesterday's agreement was removal of a planned vote on an amendment by Sens. Bill Cassidy and David Vitter, both Louisiana Republicans, to expand offshore drilling revenue sharing.
A spokeswoman last night said Cassidy "is glad the energy bill is moving forward. Stay tuned for details on his revenue sharing plan."
A competing amendment by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) to cancel revenue-sharing under a 2006 law is now also off the amendment list, according to the agreement.
With the Cassidy-Vitter amendment off the table, Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson subsequently lifted his own hold against moving forward with the energy bill.
Nelson last night told E&E Daily that he didn't think Cassidy and Vitter were anywhere close to getting the 60 votes necessary for adoption but that he wasn't willing to risk it. Nelson thinks expanded revenue sharing could encourage drilling off Florida's coast.
Planned amendments
Under the deal, senators plan to take roll call votes subject to 60-vote thresholds on the following amendments:
An amendment from Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) to address public land conveyances in Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona.
An amendment by Sens. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.)and Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) to allow energy cost savings to be considered in determining home values.
An amendment by Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) to address Corolla wild horses.
An amendment by Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) to limit land acquisition under the Land and Water Conservation Fund until certain requirements on public land maintenance are met.
An amendment from Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.) to impose reporting requirements on transmission infrastructure projects.
An amendment from Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) to require the Treasury secretary to develop a plan for issuing "Clean Energy Victory Bonds."
An amendment from Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), which was unavailable last night. Paul's office did not respond to a request for comment.
An amendment from Markey and Cassidy to authorize the Department of Energy to increase drawdowns and sales from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to maximize the financial return to the Treasury.
Senators will also vote en bloc on the following amendments:
An amendment from Cantwell to strike provisions relating to technology demonstration on distribution systems, geothermal facilities and biopower initiatives.
An amendment from Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) to promote development of renewables on public land.
An amendment from Vitter to require a Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement review of the economic impact of the blowout preventer rule.
An amendment from Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) to exclude certain power equipment from efficiency standards.
An amendment Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) to encourage minority serving institutions be included in a strategy for developing an energy workforce.
An amendment from Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) to modify provisions establishing a coal technology program.
An amendment from Cantwell setting a "sense of the Senate" to accelerate energy research.
An amendment from Cantwell to improve energy response efforts at the Energy Department.
An amendment from Vitter to require a Government Accountability Office report on the statutory and regulatory authorities of Interior's BSEE to procure helicopter fuel.
An amendment from Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) to convey federal lands within the Swan Lake hydroelectric project in his state.
An amendment from Vitter to establish a community college or two-year "Center of Excellence" to promote the energy and maritime workforce around the country.
An amendment from Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) to remove land-use restrictions on land in Rockingham County, Va.
An amendment from Kaine to allow interagency transfer along the George Washington Memorial Parkway in Virginia.
An amendment from Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) to establish a National Science and Technology Council subcommittee for high-energy physics.
An amendment from Udall to establish a voluntary WaterSense program within U.S. EPA.
An amendment from Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) to require a study of waivers of certain DOE cost-sharing requirements.
An amendment from Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) to authorize the entire active capacity of Fontenelle Reservoir to be made available to use.
An amendment from Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) to change the calculation of fuel economy standards for dual-use vehicles.
An amendment from Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) to add a provision limiting the use of certain grants to fund building construction.
An amendment from Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) to establish a pilot project within the Western Area Power Administration to improve transparency of power costs.
An amendment from Flake to create a program to reduce the potential impacts of solar facilities on certain species.
An amendment from Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) to require the Interior Department to make recommendations to Congress on incorporating internet-based lease sales for some federal oil and gas offerings.
An amendment from Murkowski to clarify provisions related to the natural gas pipeline in Denali National Park and Preserve.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/04/14/stories/1060035589
-
Clinton-Sanders Fracking Fracas Heats Up
Apr 14, 2016 | Politico Pro
By Elana Schor
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are feuding over fracking as they head toward primaries in gas-rich New York, Pennsylvania and Maryland — exposing a rift among Democrats that could haunt her at the party’s convention in July and beyond.
The presidential hopefuls’ positions don’t seem vastly different on the surface: Sanders vows to ban the controversial oil- and gas-production technology outright, while Clinton has said she would regulate it so thoroughly that “I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place.” But Sanders’ pledge is the one that has caught fire with grass-roots green activists, who feel emboldened in their crusade against fossil fuels after pushing President Barack Obama to kill the Keystone XL oil pipeline and block drilling off the East Coast.
Story Continued Below
Sanders’ supporters hope his message will be especially powerful in Tuesday’s primary in New York state, where Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo banned fracking in 2014 as a risk to public health.
But even if Sanders doesn’t seize the nomination, the fervor surrounding the issue threatens to back Clinton into a corner, toward an uncompromising anti-fossil-fuel stance that could harm her with moderate voters in November — especially in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio, where the fracking boom has created thousands of jobs.
The split could also hamper efforts to unify the squabbling Clinton and Sanders camps at the Democratic convention in Philadelphia, where green groups plan to bring thousands of protesters to press the party for a nationwide fracking ban.
Fracking’s opponents say this is no time for compromise, arguing that the threat of climate change demands a wholesale switch away from fossil fuels. They also say the underground injection of vast volumes of water, sand and chemicals to pry open oil- and gas-rich shale foundations is inherently unsafe, no matter its economic benefits.
"If we want a chance at protecting our nation’s coastal cities — including New York, where this week’s Democratic debate is being held — then we must keep fossil fuels in the ground," the climate group 350 Action wrote on Tuesday while pleading for the Clinton Foundation to forswear donations from fossil-fuel interests. "That’s going to take a lot of backbone."
Sanders has that backbone, Oregon Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley said Wednesday while endorsing the Vermont senator in a New York Times op-ed. “He has passionately advocated for pivoting from fossil fuels to renewable energy to save our planet from global warming — the greatest threat facing humanity,” Merkley wrote.
Clinton’s allies say the ban's proponents are being unrealistic, noting that even as president Sanders would not have the power to prohibit fracking nationwide. They say Sanders and his backers are also ignoring the benefits that the fracking-fueled oil and gas boom has created on Obama’s watch — not just jobs, exports and sharply falling energy prices, but also a cut in greenhouse gas pollution as natural gas eats into coal’s share of the U.S. power supply.
Banning fracking is "a siren song for the numbers of Americans who don't like fracking," said John Hanger, a consultant who served as environmental secretary to former Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell. "It's bad policy. It would actually create more pollution and raise the price of gas. It's economically unjust, which is ironic given the Sanders campaign's focus on economic injustice.”
At an oil industry symposium Wednesday, West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin paraphrased a favorite quote of former Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer — that "unless you're naked, sitting in a tree, eating nuts, you're using energy. And I think Bernie might be naked, sitting in a tree, eating nuts."
As for Clinton, Manchin said, greens have “tried to push her further left than where she’s comfortable.”
The Democratic front-runner has already veered considerably leftward during her primary campaign, however, coming out against the Keystone pipeline as well against the Obama administration’s initial willingness to drill off the Arctic and Atlantic coasts. In a debate last month, she also laid out a series of conditions she would require fracking operations to meet, including steps to prevent water pollution and leaks of greenhouse gases.
“We have to regulate everything that is currently underway, and we have to have a system in place that prevents further fracking unless conditions like the ones that I just mentions are met,” Clinton said during the debate in Flint, Mich., answering a question on whether she supports fracking.
Sanders replied: "My answer is a lot shorter. No. I do not support fracking."
In a statement Wednesday, Clinton’s campaign sought to minimize her differences with Sanders, saying she supports New York state’s ban, would tighten federal fracking regulations “and will stand with any community or state that decides they don’t want to allow fracking in their backyards.”
“Our real enemy in this fight is Republicans like Donald Trump who deny that climate change is happening, block attempts to crack down on polluters and refuse to support clean energy like wind and solar because they are in the pocket of big oil and gas companies,” the Clinton campaign added.
Both Democrats’ positions contrast with the frequent cheerleading that Obama has offered for the oil and gasboom, including during several State of the Union addresses. In his 2012 speech to Congress, he boasted that the boom has created “a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly 100 years.”
But former Obama energy and climate adviser Heather Zichal said the public has since become disenchanted with the dangers posed by oil and gas production, and the Democrats are debating how best to deal with that.
"There is a lack of trust with people when it comes to the oil and gas industry, and it’s how Democrats thread that needle,” Zichal said at Wednesday’s energy forum, adding that “the industry could do a better job, frankly, of communicating the risks and what they’re trying to do to manage that.”
Zichal, a Clinton supporter, said in an earlier interview that she sees “a big difference” between the two candidates’ positions, arguing that Clinton’s call for tougher regulations creates “so much opportunity to do really important things.”
“It’s easy to say 'let’s ban it,' but I don't know that that’s going to amount to much,” she said.
Recent polls show Clinton leading Sanders in New York, as well as in the April 26 primaries in Maryland and Pennsylvania.
The politics of fracking differ sharply in the three states, however. Similar to the ban in New York, Maryland has imposed a two-year fracking moratorium that Republican Gov. Larry Hogan allowed to become law without his signature. Opinions are divided in Pennsylvania, which became a major natural gas producer thanks to fracking: A February poll from Muhlenberg College found 50 percent of voters support the practice but 62 percent favor new taxes on the industry.
Even in Pennsylvania, though, insurgent Democratic Senate candidate Joe Sestak is leading polls for this month’s primary while pushing for a fracking moratorium. Katie McGinty, who has the support of the Democratic establishment, is facing attacks for her ties to oil and gas companies, similar to the jabs Clinton has faced over the Clinton Foundation’s $1 million-plus in donations from ExxonMobil.
Obama has added to Clinton’s woes by abandoning his once-pragmatic praise for natural gas as a way to wean the nation off coal. The Obama who praised gas for creating "cleaner power and greater energy independence" in 2013 has fallen from view as his administration spends its final year pursuing new regulations on the industry's methane emissions.
Environmentalists, meanwhile, are somewhat divided on fracking’s place in the presidential race.
Food and Water Watch spokesman Seth Gladstone, whose green group is helping organize the anti-fracking march in Philadelphia, pointed to a Gallup poll two weeks ago that found national opposition to the practice spiking to 51 percent. "We’re finally seeing the political conversation catch up with the science, catch up with public opinion," he said.
But the national branches of several major environmental groups have not joined Gladstone's group, 350.org, Greenpeace and other smaller activist nonprofits in their formal alliance against fracking. The League of Conservation Voters, one of the environmental movement’s biggest political players, has already endorsed Clinton.
One pro-Clinton environmentalist described Sanders' call for a nationwide fracking ban as "a slogan instead of a policy."
"There are all kinds of ways to do this right," the environmentalist added, "but it's important to note that unless one’s proposing to eliminate the use of fossil fuels right now, today, one can’t do it without creating some pollution."
The split among the greens offers the fossil-fuel industry an opportunity to remind voters of the economic gains the U.S. has received from fracking, including record-high exports of oil and gas in December.
"What you likely won’t be hearing from Sen. Sanders … is that New Yorkers need to turn off the gas in their homes, or start paying more for their electricity," said Steve Everley, a senior adviser to the industry-backed project Energy in Depth. "That’s what 'ban fracking now' is really about, and he’s banking on the press never asking him to map out exactly where energy comes from."
As for Clinton, the industry is looking for her to veer back to the center even before November. The American Petroleum Institute's top lobbyist, Louis Finkel, recently suggested that Clinton would moderate how far she pushes her promise for ultra-tight regulations on fracking.
"I don't think she provided much clarity about the conditions she set forth — she talked very broad-brush," Finkel told reporters.
Still, fracking opponents say they won’t let up the pressure on Clinton even if she wins the White House. Lena Moffitt, the Sierra Club's fuels campaign director, described greens' increased focus on natural gas as a way to push the next president to come down as hard on the fossil fuel as Obama eventually did on Keystone.
"Folks are realizing this is the next frontier of the climate movement," Moffitt said in an interview.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2016/04/clinton-sanders-fracking-fracas-heats-up-106782
-
The Most Important Mystery About U.S. Climate Change Policy
Apr 14, 2016 | Washington Post
By Chris Mooney
On the surface, it looks like extraordinarily good news. The United States isburning less coal — less of the fuel that contributes the most carbon dioxide to the atmosphere when burned. Instead, we’re swapping in cleaner burning natural gas, which could serve as a “bridge” to an era in which wind and solar provide the bulk of the nation’s power. And carbon dioxide emissions are already lower as a result.
Yet there’s a nagging problem here that just won’t go away. Environmentalists have charged for some time that the fracking boom — the rise in unconventional natural gas that is the key driver of all of this — has a dark underbelly. Natural gas’s principal component is methane, which is also a greenhouse gas. And if it gets to the atmosphere unburned, it has a much larger warming effect than carbon dioxide does, over a period of about 10 years.
So if there are enough leaks from the new wave of unconventional oil and gas drilling operations, it is possible to substantially undermine the climate benefits that accrue from less burning of coal — and moreover, to do so over the crucial next few decades, when all the key changes have to be made if there’s any hope of averting the worst climate damage.
Recent events and recent science alike are now forcing this issue. The Aliso Canyon natural gas leak near Los Angeles was simply enormous, pouring nearly 100,000 metric tons of methane into the atmosphere. It was the “largest methane leak in U.S. history,” according to a recent report by the scientific advisory panel of the Climate & Clean Air Coalition, a group of countries and partners trying to reduce emissions of short-lived climate change pollutants, such as methane. Similarly, a recently released infrared camera survey, conducted by helicopter, of some 8,000 U.S. oil and gas well pads in a number of high producing regions found leaks at 327 pads, or 4 percent overall. It concluded that the EPA “may be underestimating” emissions caused by oil and gas tanks on these sites in particular.
Meanwhile, still more recent satellite research is suggesting that U.S. methane emissions are on a big upswing — even as the EPA is expected tosoon report new totals for methane emissions from oil and gas, as part of its broader annual inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions submitted to the United Nations. And if it sticks with preliminary figures, it will revise 2013 emissions upward by more than 25 percent, according to an analysis by the Environmental Defense Fund. (What happens with other years remains to be seen).
In the meantime, the numbers have already been disputed. “The release of these partially revised numbers is misleading,” said the American Petroleum Institute’s vice president for regulatory and economic policy, Kyle Isakower, in March. “We have every reason to believe that the final data, when issued, will still indicate a significant downward trend in emissions even as oil and natural gas production has risen.” So the question is both urgent, and also difficult: Is the U.S. undermining its climate progress with invisible leaks of a second, even more potent greenhouse gas?
“A little bit of a mystery right now”
Let’s start with the basics: Globally, concentrations of methane in the atmosphere, just like concentrations of carbon dioxide, are rising. The rise hasn’t been as steady, though — it actually appeared to stall in the 2000s. However, it is now on a major upswing again, which is certainly very bad news for the climate, and bad news that couldn’t come at a worse time.
But the question is, why?
That’s where things get complicated. Methane could definitely rise in the atmosphere because of more leaks from oil and natural gas operations. But it could also rise because there are more cows belching it into the air, or the world has changed how it feeds cows, or manages their manure — or, how it manages rice agriculture. Methane has many sources.
Scientific literature is somewhat contradictory about all this.
For instance, a blockbuster and much cited study in Geophysical Research Letters earlier this year used satellite observations to pick up an apparently huge boom (30 percent) in U.S. methane emissions from 2002 to 2014, one large enough to explain 30 to 60 percent of the recent trend. Seeking to trace the source of the emissions, the research targeted a broad region “in the central part of the country.” While the study pointedly noted that the time period in question is one that includes the fracking and natural gas boom, it also added that “the spatial pattern of the methane increase … does not clearly point to these sources.”
“It would be very tempting to say it’s the rise in oil and gas production, the fracking, and so on,” says Daniel Jacob, a Harvard researcher who is one of the study’s authors. “But the pattern is not necessarily that. It could also be an underestimate of livestock emissions, those tend to be regionally overlapping.”
“It’s a little bit of a mystery right now,” Jacob continues. However, he adds, “why would livestock emissions have increased a lot? I don’t really know why that would be.”
Yet also earlier this year, a much noted study in Science came to a different conclusion — neither pointing the finger at oil and gas, nor at the United States. The research used an examination of the ratios between different isotopes of carbon in methane, and at least tentatively attributed increasing global emissions to agriculture. The findings “rule out fossil fuel production as the major cause in the rise of methane levels in the atmosphere since 2007,” according to New Zealand’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, whose atmospheric scientist Hinrich Schaefer led the research.
Weighing the evidence
Faced with contradictory studies like this, it helps to turn to expert assessments of the weight of the evidence. One example comes in the form of a recent annual report by the scientific advisory panel of the Climate & Clean Air Coalition. That board is comprised of a star-studded, international group of 14 scientists and experts, led by Drew Shindell of Duke University.
And this group is unprepared to let U.S. oil and gas off the hook. Its report asserts that atmospheric methane levels are rising “rapidly” and that the cause “is likely due to a number of factors, including increased emissions from agriculture activities, large increases in natural gas extraction and associate leaks.”
Duke’s Drew Shindell, chair of the panel, further alluded to oil and gas in an interview. “I think what all these results are suggesting is that, to first order, their efforts to reduce emissions from the oil and gas industry are a good thing, and they should keep going with that,” he said. “But the next level is that they need to make more progress and prevent overall methane emissions from going up as we exploit natural gas resources more, which is what appears to have been happening in the US.”
“The US story is, CO2 is decreasing, and we’re making more progress than most countries in the world,” Shindell continued. “But methane is going up, and it appears to be going up enough to offset the bulk of the benefit from reducing the CO2.”
However, the issue remains hotly debated and the industry, at least for now, has a different point of view. The American Petroleum Institute’s Isakower last month not only questioned the new, preliminary EPA figures, but argued that “even as oil and natural gas production has risen dramatically, methane emissions have fallen, thanks to industry leadership and investment in new technologies.”
The EPA’s upward revisions?
If U.S. oil and gas operations – including unconventional gas operations tied to the fracking boom — are emitting more, then that should be recorded by the U.S. government. In particular, the EPA keeps an annual inventory (with a time lag) of all of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions.
In previous inventories, the EPA has found “no significant trend in U.S. anthropogenic methane emissions from 2002 to present,” notes Jacob’s recent study – which challenges that conclusion.
It’s not the only one. “Comparison of recent estimates of methane emissions with existing inventories such as that of the USEPA shows that current inventories underestimate methane emissions due to inaccurate measurements in some emissions sectors,” such as oil and gas, concludes the recent document from the science advisory panel to the Climate & Clean Air Coalition.
“I do think that the evidence is strong that EPA has underestimated methane emissions,” adds Rob Jackson, a researcher at Stanford who contributed to the recent helicopter based infrared camera study that found leaks at 4 percent of over 8,000 well pads in key U.S. drilling regions.
In a sign that the agency is taking note, a draft version of the annual report’s latest installment bumped up 2013 emissions by 27 percent, from 7.3 million to 9.3 million metric tons, according to an analysis by the Environmental Defense Fund. A final EPA inventory up through 2014 is expected soon, and the numbers will be watched very closely.
“Their revision is going to bring their emissions up, I don’t know how much. I don’t think it’s going to bridge the gap, but it’s going to go in the right direction,” says Harvard’s Daniel Jacob.
If it’s oil and gas, it ought to be fixable
The good news, suggests Jackson, is that while it’s very hard to do anything about a global trend in agricultural emissions, it’s not so hard to clamp down on U.S. oil and gas leaks, which his latest study suggests are worse in some key areas — which means they can be targeted.
“We’re democratizing leak detection,” says Jackson. “New technologies, cheaper sensors, we’re entering an era where citizens will have cameras they can use to film wellpads. We’re close to having satellites that we’ll be able to image single wellpads or clusters of wellpads. We’ll crack this nut.” If so, that would mean that the long term emissions problem remains carbon dioxide, and that while U.S. methane may have seen a temporary increase, it’s controllable, despite any near term setbacks.
Mark Brownstein, who heads the oil and gas program at the Environmental Defense Fund, argues that ultimately, the question of whether emissions are now going up due to fracking in the U.S. is somewhat of a “red herring” — the fact is, there are substantial emissions from the oil and gas sector, and they’re fixable, he argues. You simply have to regulate the industry, rather than let it police itself voluntarily — something President Obama pledged to do along with Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau in March.
And if you fix methane, then unlike what happens with carbon dioxide, the stuff doesn’t remain too long in the atmosphere, so the problem substantially cleans itself up over time (assuming, that is, that there isn’t a spike from some other source, such as agriculture).
Until that happens, though, more studies will likely continue to probe the methane problem — and more activists will continue challenging fracking operations, and questioning whether we’ve undermined our gains from cutting back on coal.
“The methane issue is front and center on the debate around the legitimacy of natural gas, as an energy source, at least in the near term,” says Brownstein.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/04/13/the-most-important-mystery-about-u-s-climate-change-policy/
-
Pa. Lawmakers Criticize Proposed Drilling Rules
Apr 14, 2016 | E&E Energywire
Pennsylvania state legislators formally disapproved of new drilling rules Tuesday, criticizing the regulatory process.
The disapproval votes do not upend the state Department of Environmental Protection's proposed reform to the state's operating standards for both Marcellus Shale and traditional oil and gas companies but hints at a troubled path forward. The state House and Senate energy committees urged the state's Independent Regulatory Review Commission to reject the rules when it considers them on April 21.
The rules have been in the works for five years and would enhance cleanup for spills, add protection for public resources near well sites and forbid some waste pits, among other changes.
Some legislators viewed the agency's rulemaking as illegal, accusing the agency of missing deadlines and not properly differentiating between large- and small-scale shale operations.
"They blatantly ignored the law," said Republican state Rep. Martin Causer.
Several Democrats defended the regulations, saying they are common-sense public health protections that are long overdue. But Democratic state Sen. John Yudichak agreed that the environmental agency "circumvented" the regulatory process.
Department of Environmental Protection Secretary John Quigley said the regulations "have been written with an unprecedented amount of public participation" and that he was confident the review commission would approve the rules.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/04/14/stories/1060035550
-
Bakken Oil Industry Has 'Hardly Even Begun the Race' -- State Regulator
Apr 14, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
Oil's rebound will be strong and quick, so this once-booming micropolis had better be prepared, the state's top energy regulator said yesterday.
Speaking to local business owners gathered at the city's brand-new workforce training facility, Department of Mineral Resources Director Lynn Helms said he expects statewide oil production to once again reach 1 million barrels per day by the end of the year, depending on prices. While his last report showed daily output of 1.15 million barrels in December 2015, low crude prices continue to cause that figure to slide, Helms said.
But with 11,000 Bakken and Three Forks wells in the ground and an estimated 65,000 wells needed to fully develop the resource, North Dakota's oil industry isn't dead yet, he said.
"If this was the Daytona 500, we'd be on lap 100. So we're only about 20 percent into the race," Helms said. "And we've had a massive wreck. There's car parts all over the track. The caution flag is out. Everybody's driving slow right now. Driving extremely slow. But we've hardly even begun the race."
In May 2012, North Dakota's rig count reached 218, an all-time high, according to state data. Helms said the current count stands at 31. It's a positive sign that number hasn't dipped all the way to zero: It means North Dakota is well-positioned for a comeback, and Williston will be at the center of it all, he said.
In the long term, Helms projected Williston would gain 40,000 permanent oil jobs -- nearly twice the city's 2012 population, according to U.S. Census Bureau data.
"Have you been thinking about that, or are you just thinking about how bad things are today?" Helms asked the audience. "Because the trouble is, if you're just thinking about how bad things are today, you're not going to do the right thing to have a Bismarck-sized community. That's the opportunity that's in front of you."
Helms asked the city to think about long-term planning to avoid the growing pains of the last boom.
"I wouldn't be too quick to tear everything down and mothball everything, because we're not very far from what I think is going to be a pretty substantial and pretty rapid recovery. We have to plan for that," he said. "What did you do right and what did you do wrong last time? Try to do the right things and avoid the wrong things. Let's not fill the Wal-Mart parking lot and the little park over there by the library with tents and campers this time."
The oil industry's major players will pay to bring their employees back to the Bakken, but with temporary workforce housing on the chopping block in Williston, Helms said city officials need to consider where its new employment base will live.
The transition will be painful for developers that can't afford to have empty units sitting idle during this downturn or any others that will almost certainly occur in the near future, he said.
"Of course, Helms is crazy because all I can do is make this nice smooth projection, and guess what? We're going to fall down again at some point out here," he said. "And those hurt when you fall and have to get back up. So it's not going to be smooth like that, but I can't predict what the next tumble will be."
To soften those future blows, Helms recommended a revival of economic diversification efforts.
"We've sort of lost that in this price collapse," he said. "We've lost that eagerness to get a plastics company in here, to get fertilizer producers to look at all those things. We need to get that fire back in our belly to do those things."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/04/14/stories/1060035554
-
2 Killed, 1 Injured in Texas Pipeline Accident
Apr 14, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
As workers repaired a South Texas gas pipeline, an unexpected high-pressure release occurred, leaving two dead and injuring a third.
The incident happened Tuesday at a Southcross Energy Partners plant near Woodsboro, according to Refugio County officials.
A piece of line came loose while two men were in a hole working on the pipeline, causing the release of about 800 pounds of pressure, said Justice of the Peace Lorraine Lopez.
While the names of the victims were not immediately released, a statement from Dallas-based Southcross said one of the workers killed was an employee and the other was a contractor.
One died at the site of the accident, and the second man died at a hospital.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/04/14/stories/1060035603
-
EPA's Stricter Ozone 'Nonattainment' Findings Preempt Advocates' Suits
Apr 14, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA has issued a final rule placing the Atlanta, Chicago, Denver and New York City metropolitan areas, among others, into a more severe state of "nonattainment" with the agency's national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone, preempting threatened environmentalist lawsuits seeking to force EPA to act.
Environmental groups have been pressuring EPA to finalize the rule, proposed Aug. 27 and finalized April 11, because they said EPA has missed a statutory window to act.
WildEarth Guardians and Sierra Club earlier filed separate notices of intent to sue the agency, citing its failure to discharge a non-discretionary duty under the Clean Air Act to adjust the nonattainment status of areas previously labeled "marginal" nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, set at 75 parts per billion (ppb). A source with WildEarth Guardians says the agency's rule obviates the need for that group's threatened lawsuit.
However, environmentalists, states or industry may still choose to challenge the final rule in court with respect to designations they feel are wrong. The deadline for lawsuits will be 60 days following the rule's eventual publication in the Federal Register.
Litigation delayed implementation of the 75 ppb standard for years, and EPA therefore modified the attainment schedule set out in the air law to allow for this. Areas designated as "marginal" have three years to attain the standard, and EPA may extend this period by one year in certain circumstances where an area is close to attainment.
Marginal areas must craft overarching "infrastructure" state implementation plans (SIPs) showing how they will attain the NAAQS. However, if they fail to attain the standard by the applicable deadline, EPA must downgrade their status to "serious" nonattainment, and this brings with it more onerous SIP requirements for states and regulated industry, including potentially costly new emissions controls.
The agency can also find that areas have met the NAAQS and shift them into "attainment," with the caveat that "backsliding" through lifting of existing emissions controls is not permitted.
In the rule, EPA finds that 17 marginal areas attained the NAAQS by the three-year deadline for July 20, 2015. The agency grants a one-year extension for eight areas, which must now attain by July 20 this year. Eleven areas are, as proposed, reclassified to "moderate," and the states containing all of part of these areas must submit nonattainment SIPs to EPA by Jan. 1, 2017.
Among the areas getting "bumped up" are the New York and Denver areas, which experience stubbornly high ozone levels. Environmentalists pressed EPA to reclassify these areas as being in more serious nonattainment, although Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) has in recent public statements decried EPA ozone standards as impossible to meet in his state because of high levels of naturally-occurring "background" ozone.
EPA in the final rule chooses the stricter of two options it floated as a deadline for marginal areas to submit their SIPs -- Jan. 1, 2017. The other option would have required state air agencies to submit the required SIP revisions "as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the beginning of the ozone season in 2017 for each respective area." The ozone season typically begins in late spring or early summer, depending on the area. EPA is taking this step after receiving public comments critical of the proposed later deadline.
Other areas reclassified as moderate include: Atlanta; Chicago-Naperville (IL-IN-WI); Greater Connecticut; Imperial County, CA; eastern Kern County, CA; Mariposa County, CA; western Nevada County, CA; Phoenix-Mesa, AZ; and San Diego County, CA.
Areas granted a one-year extension are: Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH; Houston-Galveston-Brazoria; Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City (PA-NJ-MD-DE), Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA; eastern San Luis Obispo, CA; Sheboygan County, WI; St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL; and Washington, DC-MD-VA.
Computer Modeling
The latest computer modeling by the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) of 12 Mid-Atlantic and Northeast States indicates that some of these areas may not only attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by their target date, they may in fact attain the tougher ozone NAAQS of 70 ppb set by EPA Oct. 1.
At a meeting of the OTC's technical subcommittees on stationary sources, mobile sources and air quality modeling in Washington, D.C., April 12, OTC staff unveiled new data projecting that New York City and surrounding areas of New Jersey and Connecticut will likely experience continued ozone NAAQS violations, while other areas such as Washington, D.C., may attain the new NAAQS more easily. Some counties in Maryland and Pennsylvania will also likely be in nonattainment.
Under the timeline established by the Clean Air Act, EPA must make final attainment designations for the 2015 NAAQS by October 2017, with infrastructure SIPs due from states by October 2018. These SIPs must include "good neighbor" provisions that ensure states mitigate their emissions that contribute to NAAQS attainment problems in other states.
Areas designated "marginal" for the new standard would have to attain by 2020, and those in moderate nonattainment by 2023. Areas in "serious" nonattainment would have until 2026, but OTC staff does not expect any areas in the region to be designated serious. Jeff Underhill, a New Hampshire air regulator, said OTC states "are going to be very hard pressed" to craft SIPs in time to meet these deadlines, given the technical analysis that may be required. A new modeling "platform" may be required, with updated inputs, and this will take time, Underhill said.
OTC states remain concerned that in some areas, ozone drifting in from outside the region will compromise their NAAQS attainment. Because much of this is ozone formed from nitrogen oxides (NOx) emitted from vehicles across a wider area of the country, "if we don't get some help from EPA, I don't see those deadlines for 70 ppb working," said George "Tad" Aburn, air policy director for Maryland.
To that end, OTC states, along with California, continue to push EPA for a new rule limiting the NOx emissions of heavy-duty road vehicles, tougher than the last one finalized in 2010. Also, OTC continues to support federal measures to support retrofitting of old vehicles and equipment with new, low-emitting diesel engines, OTC officials said.
Expanded OTC
Meanwhile, industry representatives at the OTC meeting pushed back against a drive by nine OTC member states to expand the OTC region, within which tougher pollution controls apply than elsewhere. The nine states wrote to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy April 6, asking for a response to their 2013 petition for an OTC enlargement to include nine additional states.
One of the nine states that the petition seeks to include in the OTC area is North Carolina, which sued EPA March 30 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina's Western Division, to force EPA to respond to the OTC states' petition. Sources within OTC states say North Carolina appears to want a quick response by the agency that would ensure the state is excluded from any OTC area expansion.
The suit, Van der Vaart, et al. v. Gina McCarthy, is still in the procedural motion phase. Although the petitioning OTC states have not yet intervened in the litigation, it is possible that they will do so, given their interest in a quick, affirmative response to their petition.
Speaking at the OTC meeting, attorney Gene Trisko, representing the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, pushed back against the idea of any OTC expansion. Trisko produced data showing sharp falls in NOx emitted by coal-fired power plants -- the primary stationary source of the gas -- in the nine states targeted by the petition, which are: Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia.
Among these states, coal plant NOx emissions fell by 38 percent from 2008 to 2015, Trisko said. Only West Virginia showed an increase, due to the construction of a new baseload coal plant. In general, however, coal plants have been retiring or switching their fuel source to natural gas, Trisko said. In 2008 the nine target states had 458 coal-fired electric generating units, while in 2015 they had only 335, according to Trisko.
This has implications for OTC's emissions modeling, which points to large coal plants in the nine states that are sometimes not running their existing pollution controls, resulting in interstate NOx and ozone issues. "This suggests unit-level focus is basically irrelevant and misses the point," Trisko said. NOx emissions from the nine states continue to fall, and expanding OTC to include them would therefore achieve little, he argued.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epas-stricter-ozone-nonattainment-findings-preempt-advocates-suits
-
State Regulators Applaud Proposed Ozone Rule Delay
Apr 14, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Several state environmental regulators voiced support at a hearing this morning for legislation to delay implementation of U.S. EPA's new ozone standard, saying compliance would be costly, if not impossible, to achieve in some cases.
"Our stance as an agency is typically to cooperate with EPA wherever we can," Misael Cabrera, director of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, told members of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power. But in this case, Cabrera said, none of the mechanisms that EPA provides for compliance challenges outside of states' direct control "work well for air quality."
Also raising concerns were leaders of the Utah and Texas environmental agencies. But a top Delaware air quality official objected to the bill, H.R. 4775, and Rep. Bobby Rush of Illinois, the subcommittee's top Democrat, said the legislation would "unacceptably" delay implementation of the new 70-parts-per-billion standard by eight years and roll back important Clean Air Act provisions.
"There's no benefit to the public interest," Rush said. Numerous public health groups are also opposed; in a statement posted on the committee's website before the hearing, acting EPA air chief Janet McCabe called the bill "unnecessary and harmful to public health and the environment."
The bill is the latest in a series of Republican-led measures to delay or relax EPA air quality regulations. The White House has already threatened to veto two House-passed bills that would relax emissions standards for power plants that burn "coal refuse" and effectively freeze implementation of new rules for brick makers until all legal challenges are resolved. Both are now awaiting Senate action.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy set the 70 ppb standard last October, citing fresh scientific evidence on the health effects of ozone, the main ingredient in smog and an irritant for lung passageways. The previous standard, set in 2008 under President George W. Bush's administration, had been 75 ppb.
H.R. 4775, introduced last month by Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas), would delay states' initial attainment recommendations for the new threshold from this October until 2024 and also revamp the timetable for reviewing air quality standards for ozone, lead and four other "criteria" pollutants from once every five years to once every decade.
"We all want clean air," Olson said at this morning's hearing, before again raising concerns about the potential economic cost of meeting the new ozone standard. While the Clean Air Act is "hugely important," he said, it's "not perfect."
Ali Mirzakhalili, air quality director of the Delaware Department of Natural Resource and Environmental Control and the one witness to oppose the bill, singled out a provision that would allow EPA to take technological feasibility into account as a secondary factor when setting standards for ozone and other pollutants in the future. Currently, the sole criterion is public health.
"I believe this provision would unravel the entire framework of this Clean Air Act," Mirzakhalili said.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/04/14/stories/1060035623
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested