Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 4/19/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) A Look at the Future of Flexible Film Recovery
Apr 18, 2016 | Waste Dive
By Arlene Karidis
The American Chemistry Council (ACC), along with PepsiCo, Procter & Gamble, and other big consumer brands, are on a joint mission: to double polyethylene film recycling by 2020 while expanding collection of other hard-to-recycle films. -
Congressional Compromise Possible on Toxic Substances Control Act
Apr 19, 2016 | Morning Consult
By Colin O'Mara
Nearly forty years ago, Congress passed the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) with the intent of protecting our communities, environment, and fish and wildlife from harmful toxic chemicals. -
House Committee Queries EPA on Scientific Expert Appointments
Apr 19, 2016 | Chemical Watch
A House of Representatives' committee is seeking information on the EPA’s conflict of interest vetting process when identifying experts to serve on its Science Advisory Board (SAB). -
Lights Out for Harmful Chemicals in School Lights?
Apr 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The use of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)-containing fluorescent light ballasts in schools and day care centers may be revoked under an Environmental Protection Agency rulemaking. -
EU Chemicals Agency: New Techniques Could Cut Animal Tests
Apr 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
Animal testing to generate data for REACH registration dossiers could be reduced if companies are able to take advantage of a new wave of techniques for predicting the effects of exposure to chemicals... -
PFOA Cancerphobia Claim May Proceed Against DuPont
Apr 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
A bellwether plaintiff in multi-district litigation against DuPont over drinking water contaminated with perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) may pursue a fear of cancer claim.... -
Michigan Governor to Drink Flint Tap Water for a Month
Apr 19, 2016 | New York Times
By Mitchell Smith
Gov. Rick Snyder of Michigan, facing persistent criticism of his handling of the water crisis in Flint, on Monday took home five jugs of filtered tap water from the city and said he planned to drink it and cook with it for at least the next month. -
Senate Reform Bill Back on Floor This Afternoon
Apr 19, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
The Senate's nine-year drought in passing comprehensive energy reform legislation appears poised to end as soon as today. -
Mr. Sanders’s War on Clean Energy
Apr 18, 2016 | Washington Post
By Editorial Board
Can the country do without nuclear power and natural gas? Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) thinks so. But his position would set back the fight against global warming. -
Keep On Fracking: Our View
Apr 18, 2016 | USA Today
By Editorial Board
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has made opposition to fracking a key part of his campaign in Tuesday’s primary in New York, which along with Vermont has banned the controversial process... -
Scalise Warns of Managing Offshore Drilling from Washington
Apr 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) leaned over the railing of the Chevron Corp. oil platform floating in inky blue waters 250 miles off the Louisiana coast and marveled to a cluster of lawmakers that it produces 75,000 barrels of crude every day. -
House Members Urge Consideration of Anti-Energy Tax Measures
Apr 18, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Naomi Jagoda
A group of House members is pushing for expedited floor consideration of two resolutions that oppose taxes targeting the oil and gas industry. -
State Court Rejects PA Legacy Producers Lawsuit to Stop New Oil/Gas Regulations
Apr 18, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
A state Commonwealth Court judge has denied the Pennsylvania Independent Petroleum Producers Association's (PIPP) lawsuit to stop a package of new oil and natural gas regulations... -
Oil & Gas Industry, Regulators Need to Partner to Make Offshore Drilling Safer
Apr 19, 2016 | Claims Journal
By Cain Burdeau
Companies that drill for oil and gas in U.S. waters should be required to work more closely with rig workers and regulators, as they do in Norway and the United Kingdom, to reduce the risk of accidents, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board says. -
Calif. Dems Eye Change to Criminal Code for Violators
Apr 19, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Hess
California Democratic Reps. Janice Hahn and Jackie Speier want to give the Department of Justice more power to criminally prosecute pipeline operators, adding a new wrinkle to the debate over reauthorizing... -
Houston Ship Channel Reopens; 21 Inbound Vessels in Queue
Apr 19, 2016 | Platts
By Deepa Vijiyasingam
The Houston Ship Channel reopened at 2:15 pm CDT (1915 GMT) Monday after shutting Sunday due to severe storms. -
(ACC Mentioned) Ozone Bill Supported by 215 Industry Associations
Apr 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A coalition of 215 industry associations urged lawmakers to support legislation that would delay implementation of the 2015 ozone standards and alter the process by which the Environmental Protection Agency... -
EPA Adds SO2 Sources to States' Air Modeling Lists
Apr 19, 2016 | InsideEPA
EPA has added several industrial sources of sulfur dioxide (SO2) to the list of polluters states must either model or monitor to determine their air emissions for the purposes of compliance with the SO2 national... -
EPA Details CWA Factors Supporting Denial Of Advocates' Nutrient Petition
Apr 18, 2016 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
EPA is detailing the “statutory factors” it used in deciding not to substantively respond to environmentalists' petition seeking stringent federal Clean Water Act (CWA) nutrient standards for states in the Mississippi River Basin... -
Doctors Issue Call to Combat Climate Change
Apr 18, 2016 | U.S. News & World Report
By Dennis Thompson
Climate change is already harming people's health by promoting illnesses linked to warmer temperatures and changing weather patterns, a leading group of U.S. doctors says in a new position paper.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) A Look at the Future of Flexible Film Recovery
Apr 18, 2016 | Waste Dive
By Arlene Karidis
The American Chemistry Council (ACC), along with PepsiCo, Procter & Gamble, and other big consumer brands, are on a joint mission: to double polyethylene film recycling by 2020 while expanding collection of other hard-to-recycle films.
However the groups have some road blocks to push past as they engage in their "Materials Recovery for the Future" (MRFF) project. One big barrier is that MRFs, already inundated with these lightweight, pliable plastics, can’t handle polyethylene and other flexible films. And the films are a real nightmare when they float into paper streams, turning to sludge as they mix with paper fiber-dissolving solutions.
Even if the contamination problems get fixed, flexible film can present another recycling headache: many of these materials are highly engineered to meet specific manufacturers' needs, which requires mixing resins that are hard to separate, explained Moore Recycling Associates Managing Director Nina Bellucci Butler.
These materials do, however, have redeeming qualities. Production of these flat, lightweight films generates less carbon emissions than other plastics, results in higher product-to-package ratios, and requires fewer trucks to transport.
Additionally, film is actually recyclable and valuable with the proper equipment, said Shari Jackson, director of Film Recycling for the ACC Flexible Film Group. "But for now we have to leverage a unique collection infrastructure, at least until MRFs are retrofitted or built to handle it."
What can be done?
Currently, Jackson's Flexible Film Group is working to set up consolidation points to get the material to the few specialized converters that can handle it—namely grocery stores that collect it send it to distribution centers where it's baled. "Then, converters like Advanced Environmental Recycling Technologies (AERT) and Trex see to it that it’s turned into something interesting and durable, like benches and decking material," said Jackson.
Even a few malls have begun to take ownership of film recycling programs at their sites, and ACC says it will soon have a report on how these early pilots are working out.
The good news is that most flexible film products are made of polyethylene, which can be mixed in one stream—representing a lot of goods that can be tossed in one bin, from plastic bags to wrap-around diapers and feminine products.
The bad news is most people, not even retailers who put out the big collection bins, know this. So the matter of education is another element of what Jackson's Flexible Film Group is working on.
Getting companies on board
ACC, Trex, Safeway, and the city of Vancouver, WA worked on a public outreach campaign in 2015 in and near Vancouver. 12 Safeway stores there put out well-distinguished polyethylene bins next to trash cans, and customers couldn’t miss them; not only were they huge—holding 40 to 60% more than the ones they replaced—but signs at the registers told them what the bins were for. The end result was a 500% jump in plastic films recovery, from 1.75% to 9%.
But collectors and processors face a daunting task, as different films have different resins and it is impractical to collect by resin type.
"If you try to narrow to one specific resin it may take forever to make a load [film is very lightweight] and you would confuse the public along the way," said Butler. This is where the MRFF partners come in. They are consumer goods brands Amcor Flexibles, Dow Chemical Company, Nestle Purina, Nestle USA, Proctor & Gamble, SC Johnson, Sealed Air Corporation, and PepsiCo.
"Together, we are looking for ways to separate materials and to differentiate that separation," said Brad Rodgers, PepsiCo’s Global Food Packaging R&D director. The company is doing test runs through sorters with their own products to see if they separate from other materials.
"By the end of this summer we plan to put out a public report with initial recommendations for MRFs," he said. "But what would happen today if you put flexible film in a MRF, is it would get separated with paper and contaminate it. We are looking to see if we can do a secondary separation through optical sortation."
Next they will take it up a step, trying to fine-tune the sorters to separate films made from polyethylene, polypropylene, and PET.
Laminated film will be a brain teaser. The multiple layers of materials confuse the optical sorter, which looks for colors and chemical fingerprints each unique to paper, a particular plastic, or other material.
But ferreting out solutions is worth the time and money, figure stakeholders.
"If we have more supply we can expand current applications like composite lumber," said Rodgers. "Then there are brand new possibilities, like use for auto parts, road signs, or other durable products."
http://www.wastedive.com/news/a-look-at-the-future-of-flexible-film-recovery/417595/
-
Congressional Compromise Possible on Toxic Substances Control Act
Apr 19, 2016 | Morning Consult
By Colin O'Mara
Nearly forty years ago, Congress passed the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) with the intent of protecting our communities, environment, and fish and wildlife from harmful toxic chemicals. Unfortunately, the law has proven woefully inadequate to protect against the risks posed by chemicals we all agree are dangerous, like asbestos. An overhaul is more than overdue.
Despite gridlock on many issues, key Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives have been working together to reform and strengthen this complex environmental law. A range of public health and conservation organizations, among them the National Wildlife Federation, as well as industry leaders, also are working hard on this effort.
While most products are safe, each of us every day is exposed to harmful chemicals, whether in cleaning products, paints, jewelry, toys, or other products—and we wrongfully assume such products are reviewed, tested, and deemed safe to use. As outdoor enthusiasts and sportsmen, we are concerned because many of these chemicals eventually find their way into our lakes, rivers, streams, and soils which significantly affect fish and wildlife immune systems, hormone levels, and reproductive systems—all of which impede normal development and can lead to death. These impacts do not just affect wildlife, but also human health, especially for hunters and anglers that depend on healthy fish and game.
Between 500 and 1,000 new chemicals enter the market each year. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) currently is not required to review or test their safety prior to their becoming commercially available. The conditions under which EPA could conduct such a review are burdensome, at best. Thus, the safety of these new chemicals deserves special attention in this process of updating current law to truly protect us from potential harm.
Under the proposed reforms, EPA would be required to evaluate and affirmatively find that new chemicals are safe before they enter the marketplace. In other words, a new chemical only would be able to proceed to the manufacturing stage, if it is likely to meet the safety threshold. The review process would be efficient, expeditious, and practical to ensure both chemical safety while not inhibiting innovation. The most dangerous chemicals also would then be prioritized for management and consequent protections of people, the environment, and wildlife.
During this time of deeply divided politics, it would have been to assume that finding a bipartisan compromise to overhaul a complex environmental statute would not be possible. But, leaders like Senators Udall and Vitter, and Congressmen Shimkus, Pallone, Upton, and Tonko are proving otherwise. In both the House and Senate, reform bills that include numerous advancements over the status quo passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. These members must continue the progress achieved thus far to address long-standing public health and wildlife concerns, while also setting up a transparent, pragmatic, and predictable chemical evaluation process for industry.
Now is the time to complete work on this vital legislation by reconciling the differences through conference committee and sending a strong bill to the President’s desk. Meaningful, bipartisan compromise is all too rare in Washington these days and, while no compromise is ever perfect, the key members of Congress have displayed courage in championing this important issue. It’s critical that these members continue to work together, mindful of the important issues at hand, to bring the results of their efforts to fruition by ensuring this legislation moves through the final phases of bicameral negotiations and becomes enacted into law as soon as possible – in a manner that truly protects human health, the environment, and wildlife for the next 40 years and beyond.
Delay is not an option. The number of days remaining for Congress to act are shrinking. We must seize this once-in-a-generation opportunity to better protect public health, the environment, and our nation’s cherished wildlife by reducing the threats posed by the most toxic chemicals.
https://morningconsult.com/opinions/congressional-compromise-possible-toxic-substances-control-act/
-
House Committee Queries EPA on Scientific Expert Appointments
Apr 19, 2016 | Chemical Watch
A House of Representatives' committee is seeking information on the EPA’s conflict of interest vetting process when identifying experts to serve on its Science Advisory Board (SAB).
The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has requested that the agency furnish financial disclosure forms to help it "understand the reliability of EPA’s conflicts assessment" for SAB appointees.
A letter from the committee says the non-EPA experts who serve on the SAB "broadly advise the agency on scientific and technical matters and conduct peer review of EPA science and regulations".
The law, it says, requires that prospective experts disclose all activities that could present a conflict of interest or "raise an appearance of a lack of impartiality".
The agency must respond to the committee's request by 25 April.
Earlier this year, the oversight committee initiated a review of the EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).
https://chemicalwatch.com/46684/house-committee-queries-epa-on-scientific-expert-appointments
-
Lights Out for Harmful Chemicals in School Lights?
Apr 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The use of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)-containing fluorescent light ballasts in schools and day care centers may be revoked under an Environmental Protection Agency rulemaking.
The EPA is reassessing the use in schools and day care centers of PCBs in small capacitors in fluorescent light ballasts. The ballasts regulate the current to the lamps and provide sufficient voltage to start the lamps.
The agency intends to propose by November a rulemaking addressing that use, the EPA said in an April 14 postingon its Regulatory Development and Retrospective Review Tracker (RIN: 2070-AK12).
“This is a big issue in older buildings, especially schools, where the fluorescent light bulbs have not been replaced for years,” David Carpenter, a public health physician and director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany, N.Y., told Bloomberg BNA in an April 18 e-mail.
PCBs Targeted for Global Phaseout
PCBs, a family of 209 chemicals, are classified as persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic.
The chemicals were part of the original “dirty dozen” persistent organic pollutants (POPs) targeted for global phaseout under the Stockholm Convention on POPs.
PCBs are reasonably anticipated to cause cancer in people, according to the federal Report on Carcinogens.
Laboratory animal and some human studies have shown early-life exposures can harm the immune and neurological system among other biological functions, other according to EPA information.
Children, teachers and other people in schools and day care centers may be exposed to PCBs in fluorescent light ballasts that were made before 1979 when the EPA phased out most processing and use of the chemicals, the EPA says on a school buildings information website.
Other exposures may result from the use of small capacitors in fluorescent light ballasts, which the EPA authorized in 1982, the website says.
PCBs Dripped Onto Student
Carpenter, the public health physician, said he knows of PCBs having leaked out of a ballast onto a student. The Staten Island incident was widely reported by news organizations in 2012.
Beyond obvious leaks, however, is the larger concern about undetected leaks that cause PCBs to be released into the air students breathe, he said.
“PCBs cause cancer and other diseases, but the biggest concern in schools is that they reduce IQ, shorten attention spans and increase bad behavior,” Carpenter said.
The amount of PCBs in the ballasts isn't large, but any amount of PCBs is dangerous, he said.
Leaking ballasts can continue to release PCBs over years, generating elevated concentrations in the air, the EPA's school website says.
EPA recommends all PCB-containing fluorescent light ballasts be removed from lighting fixtures.
Schools serving poorer communities have a harder time following that recommendation, Carpenter said.
The EPA will consider the health risks the chemicals pose to children, to women of childbearing age, and to the offspring of pregnant women as it reviews the use of PCBs-containing fluorescent light ballasts in schools and day care centers, the agency said in its rulemaking description.
Separate, Broader Rule Under Development
The PCBs-containing fluorescent light ballasts rulemaking complements a separate regulation the agency intends to propose by July (RIN 2070-AJ38).
That broader rulemaking involves the agency's first update since 1998 of its authorized uses of PCBs in electrical equipment and other equipment.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=87724201&vname=dennotallissues&fn=87724201&jd=87724201
-
EU Chemicals Agency: New Techniques Could Cut Animal Tests
Apr 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
Animal testing to generate data for REACH registration dossiers could be reduced if companies are able to take advantage of a new wave of techniques for predicting the effects of exposure to chemicals, officials from the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) said April 18.
In an online briefing ahead of an April 19-20 ECHA scientific seminar, Mike Rasenberg, head of the ECHA computational assessment and dissemination unit, said that better understanding of how chemicals are likely to affect the human body would give companies and regulators more confidence to use non-animal weight-of-evidence and read-across techniques.
ECHA said in a statement April 18 that new approaches included genomics, proteomics (the study of proteins) and metabolomics (the study of the outcome of metabolic processes), which could “help to address frequently occurring knowledge gaps when assessing the hazards of chemicals.”
Derek Knight, ECHA senior scientific adviser, speaking alongside Rasenberg, said that use of new techniques enabled “integrating data, integrating evidence to come up with an overall forecast” of the behavior of chemical substances.
He added that use of new techniques could lead to lower compliance costs for companies because “if you can get more read-across, that's an immediate cost saving,” compared to animal tests.
Toxicodynamics and Toxicokinetics
Knight said that new predictive techniques can be effective to understand chemical toxicodynamics—or how substances are absorbed and their effects, such as how a substance might cause a skin rash—but were so far less good at predicting toxicokinetics, or how a chemical might be diffused around a human body and transformed within the body.
It was harder to monitor toxicokinetic effects without animal tests, and the use of new techniques in this respect was at an early stage, Knight said.
He added that the European Union's REACH law (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals) “already allows companies to use nonstandard information,” in registration dossiers, as long as that information was sufficient to enable uses of potentially hazardous chemicals to be risk assessed.
Rasenberg said it was an objective of REACH to minimize animal tests, but non-animal techniques for assessing chemicals would have to be able to provide the same degree of confidence about substance properties as animal tests.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=87724181&vname=dennotallissues&fn=87724181&jd=87724181
-
PFOA Cancerphobia Claim May Proceed Against DuPont
Apr 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
A bellwether plaintiff in multi-district litigation against DuPont over drinking water contaminated with perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) may pursue a fear of cancer claim, the Southern District of Ohio ruled (In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. C-8 Pers. Injury Litig., S.D. Ohio, No. 13-md-02433, 4/15/16).
While Ohio doesn't allow an independent cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress, fear of cancer may constitute a separate injury that may be compensated as a portion of damages in the plaintiff's negligence claim, the court said.
The court rejected DuPont's argument that David Freeman's cancerphobia claim should be dismissed as unreasonable because his cancerous testicle was removed and he has been cancer-free for 16 years.
PFOA, also known as C8, was used in the manufacture of many products, including Teflon.
The MDL began as a class action filed in 2001 in West Virginia (Leach v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (W.Va. Cir. Ct.) (103 DEN A-18, 5/29/13).
A court-approved science panel linked PFOA to six adverse human health effects—pregnancy-induced hypertension and preeclampsia, testicular cancer, kidney cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, and high cholesterol.
Judge Edmund Sargas Jr. issued the opinion.
Cory Watson Crowder & DeGaris in Birmingham, Ala. represents Freeman.
Squire Patton Boggs (U.S.) LLP in Cincinnati, Ohio represents DuPont.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=87724188&vname=dennotallissues&fn=87724188&jd=87724188
-
Michigan Governor to Drink Flint Tap Water for a Month
Apr 19, 2016 | New York Times
By Mitchell Smith
Gov. Rick Snyder of Michigan, facing persistent criticism of his handling of the water crisis in Flint, on Monday took home five jugs of filtered tap water from the city and said he planned to drink it and cook with it for at least the next month.
Mr. Snyder said he would restock on Flint water during regular trips to the city, which is reeling from elevated levels of lead and other contaminants after a state-approved switch of drinking water sources in 2014. He said he hoped his decision to drink tap water would “alleviate some of the skepticism and mistrust” that has left many residents scared to drink or even shower.
“Flint residents made it clear that they would like to see me personally drink the water, so today I am fulfilling that request,” Mr. Snyder said in a statement.
Mr. Snyder, a Republican, is following a familiar playbook for elected officials seeking to make a point. Gov. Hugh L. Carey of New York onceoffered to drink a glass of PCBs amid concern about pollution in Hudson River water. Mayor Jane M. Byrne of Chicago briefly moved into the Cabrini-Green public housing project in the 1980s during a wave of gun violence there. And more recently, according to The Denver Post, Gov. John Hickenlooper of Colorado boasted in 2013 of having once ingested fracking fluid as he argued for state regulation of natural gas production.
For his foray into experiential politics, Mr. Snyder picked up his first batch of filtered Flint water on Monday from a home where tests of untreated water once far exceeded the federal action for lead.
Michigan officials, who have distributed lead-removing filters to residents in recent months, have insisted that those who have received them can safely drink filtered tap water. But many residents have resisted using any tap water, filtered or not, and experts warn that a drop in water use may slow Flint’s recovery.
State Senator Jim Ananich, who represents Flint and has criticized the governor’s response to the water problems, said he was happy to hear Mr. Snyder would be drinking the water and hoped it would give “him a little taste of what people in Flint have been living with.”
But Mr. Ananich said the governor’s efforts would be better spent securing more funding from Congress to aid the city’s recovery.
“We’re very quick to do press releases and press events and very slow after that to get the resources,” Mr. Ananich said.
Mr. Snyder has apologized repeatedly for his administration’s assurances that Flint’s water was safe in the months before elevated lead levels in children were reported. He has resisted calls to resign, and said he was misled by state scientists. State workers have been fired, federal and state investigations are proceeding and some voters have sought to recall Mr. Snyder.
Ari Adler, a spokesman for Mr. Snyder, said the governor would use water from different locations around Flint at his home in Ann Arbor and his offices in Lansing. Mr. Adler said, “We need to get people to understand that the filters are making the water safe.” But, he added, “There is a hesitancy there, and I understand that.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/19/us/michigan-governor-rick-snyder-to-drink-flint-tap-water-for-a-month.html?_r=0
-
Senate Reform Bill Back on Floor This Afternoon
Apr 19, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
The Senate's nine-year drought in passing comprehensive energy reform legislation appears poised to end as soon as today.
Senate leadership aides say the bipartisan package -- S. 2012, which was passed by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee last summer -- will resurface this afternoon.
Last night, senators overwhelmingly voted to end debate on the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill. They will likely vote on final passage at around noon. The energy bill will return after that, aides said.
Committee ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) said the bill may be done "before the New York primaries are over with" -- referencing today's much-anticipated voting in the Empire State.
Disagreement over aid to help Flint, Mich., recover from its drinking water crisis helped paralyze the energy bill. Now that it is back on the agenda, lobby groups have restarted their push over provisions.
The League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife and other environmental groups have weighed in on some of the amendments under consideration as part of an agreement last week on the energy bill's return (E&E Daily, April 14).
In a letter to Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Cantwell, the groups took issue with an amendment by Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) to require the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement to review the effect of its new well control rule on small businesses.
They are opposed to West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin's carbon capture and sequestration amendment, which they say assumes that co-firing biomass and trapping CO2 "automatically creates negative carbon emissions."
Also drawing objections is North Carolina Republican Sen. Richard Burr's amendment related to management of Corolla wild horses in his state's Outer Banks.
The groups say the proposal "obstructs science-based management and could compromise habitat for wildlife protected under the Endangered Species Act" by requiring the Fish and Wildlife Service to enter into an agreement to manage a non-native species in the Currituck National Wildlife Refuge.
In a separate letter, the National Wildlife Refuge Association, the National Wildlife Federation and other groups also urged senators to oppose Burr's plan.
Additionally, green groups are opposed to Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford's proposal to limit land acquisition under the Land and Water Conservation Fund until the administration meets certain requirements on public land maintenance.
They are against an amendment by Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.) requiring a study of the so-called Clean Line transmission project and Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul's amendment to create economic freedom zones that would allow exemptions from what groups call "bedrock environmental protections."
Environmentalists are backing an amendment by Sens. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) to allow federal mortgage lenders to consider a home's energy efficiency and monthly energy bills when determining a homebuyer's ability to make payments.
Also earning support from the environmental movement is an amendment by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) to direct the Treasury Department to submit a report to Congress on the establishment of Clean Energy Victory Bonds and a proposal by Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.) to hand the Department of Energy more flexibility in selling crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve so sales occur when prices are high.
Meanwhile, the conservative Heritage Action for America yesterday issued a revised "key vote alert" against the Senate bill, which the group opposed in January.
Heritage Action singled out a number of amendments that lawmakers plan to consider en bloc, saying the package "doubles down on the big government interventionism embodied in the underlying bill."
The group is separately telling allies to oppose the Bennet-Isakson amendment, which Heritage Action says would effectively increase loan applicants' income because underwriters would have to reduce their estimated future living costs.
"The net effect of this amendment would be to inflate home prices, burden individuals with higher loans than they need or can afford, and increase the number of risky government backed-mortgages in the housing market -- all at the taxpayer's expense," said the group.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/04/19/stories/1060035838
-
Mr. Sanders’s War on Clean Energy
Apr 18, 2016 | Washington Post
By Editorial Board
Can the country do without nuclear power and natural gas? Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) thinks so. But his position would set back the fight against global warming.
While campaigning in New York, Mr. Sanders has played up his opposition to nuclear power, and in particular the Indian Point power station 25 miles north of Manhattan, which provides a quarter of the city’s electricity. The plant is a “catastrophe waiting to happen,” he declared. His criticism came as little surprise; he had already promised to phase out nuclear power nationwide by steadily retiring existing reactors.
Mr. Sanders has also attacked fracking, the process of fracturing shale formations deep underground in order to extract natural gas. After years of contentious debate, New York’s state government banned the technique, which drillers use widely in neighboring Pennsylvania. As with nuclear power, Mr. Sanders was not just bowing to New York environmentalists; he had long insisted that the federal government should ban fracking across the country “if we are serious about safe and clean drinking water and clean air.”
In fact, if we are serious about global warming, we will ignore Mr. Sanders’s sloganeering.
When burned, natural gas produces about half the carbon dioxide emissions of coal. The recent fracking boom contributed to a reduction in national carbon dioxide emissions over the past several years, as utilities switched from cheap coal to now-cheaper gas. It is true that some concerns remain. Methane leaks from natural gas wells and pipelines. Many worry about drinking water near fracking operations. But the government can require drillers to address these issues without shutting the industry. It is also true that natural gas is a waystation; though it is cleaner than coal, natural gas still produces carbon dioxide emissions. Yet gas’s price and emissions profile is still attractive enough that the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan, the most aggressive global warming policy the country has ever had, relies on gas displacing coal to meet medium-term emissions goals.
Mr. Sanders’s rhetoric on nuclear power is even more concerning. Nuclearaccounts for about a fifth of the country’s electricity, and it is practically emissions-free. Shutting down that much clean electricity generation would put the country into a deep emissions hole. Mr. Sanders argues that he will invest heavily in renewables. Yet every dollar spent to replace one carbon-free source with another is a dollar that could have been spent replacing dangerous and dirty coal plants. Under Mr. Sanders’s vision, either the country would fail to maximize emissions cuts, or it would waste huge amounts of money unnecessarily replacing nuclear plants. Unsurprisingly, the Clean Power Plan relies on nuclear, too, assuming that the country will get about the same amout of electricity from nuclear in 2030.
Mr. Sanders is right that climate change demands an aggressive response, and he is right to favor a carbon tax. He should leave it at that: put a price on carbon, insist on adequate regulation and let the market find the fastest and most efficient road to slowing the warming of the planet.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mr-sanderss-war-on-clean-energy/2016/04/18/f2e0cef0-05ac-11e6-a12f-ea5aed7958dc_story.html
-
Apr 18, 2016 | USA Today
By Editorial Board
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has made opposition to fracking a key part of his campaign in Tuesday’s primary in New York, which along with Vermont has banned the controversial process of producing oil and natural gas by cracking open rock formations with a high-pressure mix of water, sand and chemicals.
The campaign trail is unfriendly to nuance, and the argument over hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a prime example of a complex issue that gets oversimplified. When rival Hillary Clinton answered a debate question by listing the various ways she would regulate fracking, Sanders said: “My answer is a lot shorter. No, I do not support fracking.”
Voters deserve a more thoughtful answer. Fracking has gone from an exotic drilling technique to a commonplace procedure that has spurred a remarkable U.S. energy boom and now produces about half of all U.S. oil and gas. This boom has created jobs, boosted domestic manufacturing and brought the USA closer to energy independence.
Moreover, natural gas from fracking has displaced coal as a primary producer of electricity, significantly reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Giving up fracking, as Sanders demands, would have enormous costs. Is it worth it?
In this case there is a simple answer: No.
The case against fracking rests on two criticisms. One is that the nation should be using less oil and gas, and more renewables such as solar and wind. Second, fracking is supposedly so dangerous and destructive that no amount of regulation can make it safe. Both of these objections are weak.
Solar and wind represent America's energy future, but right now they supply just2.4% of the nation’s energy needs. It will take years for better and cleaner energy sources to displace the oil and gas that fuel the nation’s quarter of a billion vehicles, provide about a third of its electricity, and heat homes and commercial buildings.
Giving up fracking in the belief that solar and wind can easily take over is like shooting yourself in the foot because you believe you can fly. A carbon tax would make renewables more competitive with fossil fuels. But it’s so much easier to say, “No fracking.”
The idea that fracking is too dangerous ignores science and the experience of tens of thousands of fracked wells. A landmark Environmental Protection Agency study last year found some cases of groundwater contamination from fracking, but no evidence of widespread problems — proof that fracking can be done safely. Fracked or not, any oil or gas well can leak contaminants into groundwater if the well is handled poorly, but safe drilling methods have been widely understood and used for decades.
What about methane leaks from gas wells, a potentially significant greenhouse gas problem that can offset natural gas’ advantage over coal? Careful regulation and tight connections will minimize leaks, many of which come from an identifiable subset of rogue operations.
As with any energy production, fracking comes with cost and inconvenience. Drilling booms in parts of the country unused to the associated noise, smells and traffic can rattle homeowners, as can minor earthquakes triggered by re-injection of wastewater. Just because drillers can site a well right next to a property line doesn’t mean authorities should let them do that.
Aggressive regulation and research of drilling practices and quality-of-life issues can ensure that fracking’s benefits outweigh the costs. So far, at least, the sort of destructive impacts that Bernie Sanders and other critics claim to have found seem exaggerated or non-existent.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/04/18/fracking-natural-gas-hydraulic-fracturing-shale-our-view-editorials-debates/83199964/
-
Scalise Warns of Managing Offshore Drilling from Washington
Apr 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) leaned over the railing of the Chevron Corp. oil platform floating in inky blue waters 250 miles off the Louisiana coast and marveled to a cluster of lawmakers that it produces 75,000 barrels of crude every day.
Scalise is one of the oil industry's busiest tour guides in Congress. Eight times, he has lured colleagues onto helicopters bound for remote drilling rigs and production facilities in the Gulf of Mexico. His motive: to persuade even Democrats to overturn Obama administration rules that will add costs to offshore drilling.
“Some bureaucrat in Washington that's never drilled before comes up with this standard and says ‘This is how you drill every well in the Gulf,’ ” Scalise told his colleagues. “It makes absolutely no sense.”
For oil and gas companies plumbing Gulf waters, Scalise is an evangelist of growing importance. First appointed in 2008 to finish the term of Bobby Jindal, who had been elected Louisiana's governor, Scalise climbed the Republican leadership ladder and has emerged as the oil industry's leading congressional ally—a role that has taken on new significance in an uncertain presidential election year.
‘Special Interest.’
Republican presidents are usually reliable supporters of the oil industry, but the party's 2016 front-runner, real estate developer Donald Trump, has disparaged the sector as a “special interest.” Democratic challengers Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, meanwhile, have courted environmentalists with promises to block offshore drilling in the Arctic and Atlantic.
Scalise, 50, the third most powerful Republican in the House, represents a southeastern Louisiana district that encompasses the full chain of oil and gas development—from upstream production to downstream refining, and the pipelines and terminals that connect the two. Energy interests have helped fund Scalise's legislative career, with the industry giving $204,750 to his 2016 re-election bid so far, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington campaign watchdog.
The biggest of those donors are employees, lobbyists and political action committees associated with Hess Corp., Pioneer Natural Resources and Koch Industries Inc.
‘Rock Star.’
“He's a rock star on our stuff, there's no question about it,” said Stephen Brown, vice president of federal government affairs for Tesoro Corp., which refines and markets petroleum products. “He's probably your go-to person for the oil and gas industry. If he can't be for it, it's not going to happen.”
Scalise's rise was almost derailed two years ago after the disclosure of a 2002 speech to a white supremacist group, an episode that could have sunk any lawmaker's career. But he said that making the speech had been a mistake and was able to persevere, now serving in a Republican leadership team headed by House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.).
That has turned out to be good news for the oil industry at a time when it can use some friends in Washington.
On April 14, the Obama administration issued sweeping new regulations (RIN 1014-AA11) on offshore drilling, imposing tough requirements for coastal wells and the emergency equipment meant to keep them in check (73 DEN A-5, 4/15/16).
The new rule comes almost six years after the blowout of a BP Plc well in the Gulf triggered an explosion that killed 11 workers and unleashed the worst oil spill in the U.S.
Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron, Anadarko Petroleum Corp. and other oil companies had lobbied against the mandates, warning they would impose potentially tens of billions of dollars in new costs and may pare drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, which accounts for about 17 percent of U.S. crude production.
Drilling Rules
Back in Washington, Scalise coordinated a congressional attack on the rules by enlisting Republican committee chairmen to hold hearings and send a letter insisting the regulations be proposed anew. Now that the Obama administration has rebuffed the request, they are ready to fight.
“We are trying first to get the administration to back away from this rule by pointing out to them just how devastating and dangerous it will be,” Scalise said in an interview before the regulation was imposed. “We've made it clear that if they don't back away, we're going to move forward with legislation, including riders in our appropriations bills, to reverse it.”
Scalise's job as the House majority whip requires him to build support for Republicans’ legislative priorities, counting votes and cajoling colleagues to back individual bills. That allowed him to play a major role helping the oil industry secure a monumental legislative victory in 2015: the repeal of a decades-old ban blocking crude exports.
Export Ban
Scalise was an ambassador for the measure in meetings with House leaders, including Ryan. He collaborated with Texas Representatives Joe Barton, a Republican, and Henry Cuellar, a Democrat, to lure supporters.
“Scalise, from his leadership job, was assembling whip meetings on the Hill, and he wasn't just bringing in Republicans, he was bringing in Democrats,” said Louis Finkel, executive vice president of the American Petroleum Institute.
Scalise doesn't use the bombast and arm-twisting that were hallmarks of some of his predecessors, including former House Majority Whip and Speaker Tom DeLay of Texas, nicknamed “the Hammer” for his demanding insistence that fellow Republicans fall in line.
Avoiding Conflict
In fact, some oil industry leaders say Scalise isn't combative enough.
“If you're Steve Scalise, and your entire social network—lobbyists, staffers and fellow members—all tell you to avoid conflict, you're going to avoid conflict,” said Michael McKenna, a Republican strategist and lobbyist for Koch Companies Public Sector, Suez and other clients. “The thing that DeLay and Newt Gingrich got instinctively is this is the game we're in. We're in the conflict game.”
At least one of Scalise's ideas has provoked conflict: a non-binding resolution asserting that a carbon tax would be “detrimental” to American families and businesses (37 DEN A-9, 2/25/16).
The measure, which could reach a floor vote later this year, is supported by nearly two dozen free-market advocacy groups but it is viewed warily by Exxon Mobil Corp. and the API.
Floating Platform
Some lawmakers undertake fact-finding missions to the beaches of Cuba and Thailand, but the seven joining Scalise's trip in April had a decidedly less glamorous destination: Chevron's 75,000-ton Jack/St. Malo production facility. For just over a year, the platform has been sucking crude from rock 27,000 feet under the surface of the sea.
As a Sikorsky S-92 helicopter thudded over canals snaking through once-lush green marsh on the 90-minute trip to the platform, Scalise ticked off the benefits of offshore drilling. Salt water is eating away at Louisiana's coastal wetlands and driving the disappearance of a football field worth of land every hour, he said. The state has vowed to dedicate its share of federal revenues from offshore oil and gas development to coastal restoration.
“Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico actually will help us restore these wetlands,” Scalise told his colleagues.
Once on the platform, where donned hardhats and ear plugs, Scalise outlined the dangers of managing offshore drilling from Washington.
“When they're drilling, things change dynamically; you want to be able to respond to it on the spot, you don't want to be worried that you're violating some federal regulation that's unmanageable,” he said. “In the meantime, you get a blowout, and they're going to blame you, and you say ‘Look, I'm trying to comply with the stupid rule.’ ”
Warm Crude
The issue might have been theoretical for some of the lawmakers who accompanied Scalise offshore. But cradling an 8-ounce vial of warm, freshly extracted crude oil—and touching the top of the 24-inch pipeline that will ferry it 137 miles (220 km) away for refining—brought it into focus.
“It's different than just hearing about it. Actually coming to see it gives me a completely different perspective,” said Rep. Marc Veasey, a first-term lawmaker from Texas and one of two Democrats on Scalise's excursion. “To see what these guys do each and every day really makes you appreciate that we can go put gas in our tank and turn on the lights—and the work that goes into making sure we have those things.”
Visiting oilfields and processing facilities is as valuable for freshman lawmakers from non-producing areas as it is for congressional veterans with major energy businesses in their districts, API's Finkel said.
“When you better educate these folks who have been generally supportive, they become great ambassadors and can tell other members they've been there, they've seen it,” Finkel said. “The more members that are getting that first hand, practical life experience of seeing this stuff, that really carries a lot of weight when members are talking to one another.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=87724177&vname=dennotallissues&fn=87724177&jd=87724177
-
House Members Urge Consideration of Anti-Energy Tax Measures
Apr 18, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Naomi Jagoda
A group of House members is pushing for expedited floor consideration of two resolutions that oppose taxes targeting the oil and gas industry.
"We must send a clear message to the American public that we stand opposed to policies that will senselessly drive up energy prices for American families and businesses, harm our economy, and drive American jobs overseas," Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.) and 55 of his colleagues said in a letter to Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).
One of the resolutions, introduced by Boustany, would express the sense of Congress that a new tax should not be placed on oil. President Obama's budget released earlier this year proposes a $10.25 tax on each barrel of oil.
The other resolution, introduced by House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), would express the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the U.S. economy.
The lawmakers said in their letter, "The very nature of a carbon tax means a direct increase in the cost of traditional forms of energy across the board such as gasoline, diesel, electricity, and natural gas."
Boustany said in a statement Monday that he is pushing House leadership for quick action on the resolutions so Congress can send Obama a message that it is fighting back.
"We cannot sit by and allow this President to fund his anti-energy agenda out of the pockets of our hardworking men and women," he said.
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/276691-house-members-urge-consideration-of-anti-energy-tax-measures
-
State Court Rejects PA Legacy Producers Lawsuit to Stop New Oil/Gas Regulations
Apr 18, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
A state Commonwealth Court judge has denied the Pennsylvania Independent Petroleum Producers Association's (PIPP) lawsuit to stop a package of new oil and natural gas regulations, writing in an opinion that the rules have not yet become law and therefore don’t warrant any action from the court.
PIPP, which represents the state's legacy oil and gas producers, filed its lawsuit last month against the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection's (DEP) overhaul of environmental regulations for the industry, claiming that it would put many of its members out of business (see Shale Daily, March 28). The organization wanted a declaration from the court that the new regulations are unlawful and unenforceable, requesting that a final hearing set for Thursday before the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) be postponed until the court made its decision.
"To obtain relief in this court, PIPP must show that it is aggrieved and that there is an actual controversy between the parties that is not contingent on future events that may never occur," Senior Judge James Gardner Colins wrote in his opinion. "...Where the governmental act that would affect the petitioner has not occurred and it is uncertain whether it will occur, the requirement of an actual controversy is not satisfied and the claim is not ripe for judicial determination."
After more than four years of working on the rulemaking package, which includes separate regulations for conventional and unconventional oil and gas producers, DEP sent the new regulations to the state's Environmental Quality Board (EQB) in January (see Shale Daily, Jan. 6). The EQB approved them the following month. The IRRC, which is charged with reviewing regulations to make certain that an agency has the statutory authority to enact them and considers economic impact, public health and safety, must now approve the package before it becomes law.
PIPP alleged in its lawsuit that DEP violated a state law passed in 2014 by failing to craft regulations for conventional oil and gas producers separately from those governing shale drillers (see Shale Daily, June 27, 2014). PIPP's members, the organization said, would be subjected to the same rules as "billion-dollar, multinational corporations engaged in large-scale, unconventional drilling for natural gas."
The DEP has continued to maintain that the rules were crafted transparently and are fair and balanced.
While the regulations contain separate rules for both industries, conventional and unconventional producers would still be required to adhere to some of the same rules. Oil and gas wells near scenic river corridors, parks, forests, schools and playgrounds would receive closer regulatory scrutiny, along with other areas deemed resource protection zones. All operators would, among other things, be required to conduct reviews of abandoned and active wells near their pads prior to drilling, and they would be required to develop a monitoring plan to address such risks.
The court said under the state's Regulatory Review Act that new rules can't be published as final regulations until the IRRC approves them. Gardner noted that the IRRC could deny the package or have it changed and added that PIPP has yet to exhaust all its administrative remedies.
PIPP had also argued against finalizing the regulations, claiming they would financially harm its membership immediately after becoming law. But the court said the organization failed to detail those costs adequately.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/106096-state-court-rejects-pa-legacy-producers-lawsuit-to-stop-new-oilgas-regulations
-
Oil & Gas Industry, Regulators Need to Partner to Make Offshore Drilling Safer
Apr 19, 2016 | Claims Journal
By Cain Burdeau
Companies that drill for oil and gas in U.S. waters should be required to work more closely with rig workers and regulators, as they do in Norway and the United Kingdom, to reduce the risk of accidents, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board says.
The board investigates major industrial accidents. It is concluding a long-running probe into the catastrophic blowout of a BP well six years ago in the Gulf of Mexico that killed 11 workers and injured many others. The out-of-control leak also dumped millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico
The agency issued its safety recommendations Wednesday afternoon.
On Thursday the Obama administration was planning to issue a final rule to improve the safety of offshore oil drilling equipment. Federal investigators blamed a faulty blowout preventer for the 2010 spill and called for stronger regulations of equipment that prevents oil and gas from rushing to the surface.
Industry officials have complained that the proposed changes would cost billions of dollars more than projected.
Regulators have forced the industry to comply with a new set of safety management rules, but the CSB called this “performance-based” protocol weak. It also said the regulations fail to cover contractors, a major segment in offshore work.
“What we’re worried about is how do we make the industry do what they’re putting on paper,” said Cheryl MacKenzie, a CSB investigator.
She said safety gaps could be filled by giving the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement – the offshore regulator – more power to “challenge companies and verify that they are doing what they said they would do.”
CSB also recommended getting workers more involved in safety decisions, for instance by letting workers elect worker representatives to be part of discussions over safety.
“These are the people who have their hands on the equipment,” MacKenzie said. “They need to be involved … This is not a CSB tenet, this is a well-known concept.”
The CSB report said there were lessons to learn from places like Norway and the United Kingdom.
In a statement, Vanessa Allen Sutherland, the CSB chairwoman, called on the industry and the federal government to take “a tripartite” approach where workers, companies and regulators are entwined in improving safety.
“Ultimately, this will require a culture shift for everyone,” Sutherland said.
Ken Arnold, an expert on offshore drilling and member of the National Academy of Engineering, said the industry, through an American Petroleum Institute committee, is looking at revising the industry’s safety standards. He said more oversight of contractors is being considered.
However, he questioned the practicality of some of the CSB’s recommendations.
For instance, he said U.S. offshore workers are not unionized and are “culturally anti-union.” He said it would be difficult to duplicate the safety regimes of Norway and the U.K.
“In the U.S. we have a system that is a blame culture,” he said. “Norway and the U.K. have a culture of working with industry to make things better rather than focus on who to blame. We have to work within the culture of the United States.”
He added that since the BP disaster BSEE, the offshore regulator, has set up a system for whistleblowers to alert regulators to problems.
He said the U.S. offshore industry is making progress on safety.
“We’re working on the human factor, we’re working on worker-involvement more and more in each organization; we’re working on corporate governance to understand the role the corporation has here,” he said. “They all need to be worked on and we will never stop working on them. They can always be improved.”
(Kevin Freking contributed material from Washington, D.C.)
http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2016/04/19/270193.htm
-
Calif. Dems Eye Change to Criminal Code for Violators
Apr 19, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Hess
California Democratic Reps. Janice Hahn and Jackie Speier want to give the Department of Justice more power to criminally prosecute pipeline operators, adding a new wrinkle to the debate over reauthorizing the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
Current law allows federal prosecutors to go after pipeline companies only if those entities act "knowingly and willfully" in an incident.
Hahn and Speier say that standard makes criminal wrongdoing nearly impossible to prove because so many pipeline accidents are linked to carelessness, poor maintenance and shoddy record keeping.
Nearly six years after a natural gas pipeline explosion killed eight people in San Bruno, Calif., the lawmakers have introduced legislation to lower the bar for prosecutions by adding "recklessly" to the standards for criminal wrongdoing.
The announcement comes ahead of tomorrow's House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee markup of legislation to reauthorize PHMSA for four years (E&E Daily, April 18).
Hahn intends to offer the language as an amendment to the panel's H.R. 4937 -- one of three pipeline safety measures moving through Congress. A spokeswoman confirmed the plan toE&E Daily yesterday.
"For years, communities which fall victim to destructive and deadly pipeline accidents have been denied justice," Hahn said.
"Pipeline operators have been able to walk away with nothing more than administrative fines. We have to hold pipeline operators accountable," she said. "Fines of a few thousand dollars are nothing more than the cost of doing business for these companies and are not adequate incentive for pipeline safety."
The Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector General recommended the change last month in response to a letter from Rep. Mike Capuano of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials. Capuano is a co-sponsor of the Transportation Committee's legislation.
Without effective criminal enforcement, there is a danger that pipeline operators "may treat the administrative enforcement of fines as nothing more than the cost of doing business," Inspector General Calvin Scovel warned in the March 8 letter.
"Unfortunately, although there have been thousands of pipeline incidents over the past twenty years, it has not been possible to bring a significant number of pipeline safety prosecutions under Title 49 U.S.C. Section 60123(a) which sets forth the criminal penalty for violation of pipeline safety laws, regulations and orders," he wrote.
'There should be consequences'
Willfulness is fairly unusual in criminal statutes and is generally reserved for violations such as tax evasion where ordinary citizens must comply with a complex set of rules, Scovel noted. By contrast, the pipeline industry is composed of sophisticated entities with professional legal and regulatory affairs staff.
Scovel said the willful standard has led to DOJ declining numerous pipeline safety cases for prosecution. More significantly, he said, there are many cases that PHMSA does not refer to his office for criminal investigation because the agency concludes there is insufficient evidence to establish a willful violation.
"Persons and businesses shipping hazmat are required to know the rules even though in many instances they may only ship hazmat on an occasional basis and may never interact with PHMSA," Scovel concluded. "For pipeline operators, the safe operation of pipelines is an integral part of their operations and they have frequent contact with regulators."
The IG said the legal change would not result in criminal liability for companies that are making good faith efforts to comply with pipeline safety regulations.
Still, the new "Prosecuting Irresponsible Pipeline Explosions (PIPE) Act" could run into opposition from Republicans who have pushed back on a proposal to give the Transportation secretary emergency authority to order operational controls for up to 30 days (Greenwire, March 16).
Speier, who represents the residential neighborhood where a pipeline ruptured Sept. 9, 2010, engulfing dozens of homes in flames, said pipeline operators must be held accountable.
"When a pipeline operator like [Pacific Gas and Electric Co.] has documented disregard of critical safety failures, there should be consequences," Speier said.
"With current liability standards, we cannot hold pipeline operators personally accountable for death, destruction and injury. There must be repercussions for reckless actions that endanger the lives of anyone living above a pipeline, including eight of my constituents killed in San Bruno."
PHMSA proposed rules this spring to bring more pipeline inspections to less-populated areas while removing an exemption for testing gas lines built before 1970, such as the faulty pipes in San Bruno (EnergyWire, March 18). The agency has come under fire on Capitol Hill for its tepid response to the tragedy and failure to address several other congressional mandates dating back to 2011.
DOT's internal watchdog noted one other obstacle to prosecuting criminal pipeline safety. The IG said potential whistleblowers rarely come forward out of fear they will be unable to find future employment in the industry.
"It is unfortunately the case that DOT may not become aware of pipeline safety violations until a natural gas pipeline explodes or a liquid pipeline leaks significant amounts of oil or gasoline," Scovel noted, urging lawmakers to come up with a whistleblower incentive provision for the industry, such as the one Congress passed in last year's transportation bill (E&E Daily, Dec. 11, 2015).
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/04/19/stories/1060035832
-
Houston Ship Channel Reopens; 21 Inbound Vessels in Queue
Apr 19, 2016 | Platts
By Deepa Vijiyasingam
The Houston Ship Channel reopened at 2:15 pm CDT (1915 GMT) Monday after shutting Sunday due to severe storms.
"We're open both ways as of 14:15. But any inbound vessels will have to wait until about 17:00," a Houston Pilots dispatcher said, adding that it takes about two hours to get to the pilot station to navigate inbound vessels.
As of about 1955 GMT Monday, he said there were 21 vessels waiting to come into the Houston Ship Channel, while the outbound vessel queue had already been cleared.
The Houston Ship Channel was shut to all vessel traffic at 9:36 pm CDT on Sunday due to severe storms that produced winds in excess of 30 knots and 3- to 4-foot waves.According to weather reports, while rainfall rates had fallen by Monday afternoon, flooding continued in the city, and another wave of heavy rain is possible Monday night.
The suspension of ship movements in the Houston Ship Channel impacts the delivery and loading schedules of crude oil, petroleum and petrochemical products.
The 52-mile ship channel provides access from the Gulf of Mexico through Galveston Bay to various ports in Houston and other cities in the area that have many industrial facilities, including refineries, petrochemical plants, and steel and metal facilities.http://www.platts.com/latest-news/shipping/houston/houston-ship-channel-reopens-21-inbound-vessels-21291166
-
(ACC Mentioned) Ozone Bill Supported by 215 Industry Associations
Apr 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A coalition of 215 industry associations urged lawmakers to support legislation that would delay implementation of the 2015 ozone standards and alter the process by which the Environmental Protection Agency would conduct all future reviews of standards for ozone and other pollutants. The coalition, which includes the American Chemistry Council and the National Association of Manufacturers, sent an April 18 letter to every member of Congress urging lawmakers to act quickly on H.R. 4775, a bill introduced by Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas). In addition to delaying implementation of the 2015 ozone standards, H.R. 4775 would require the EPA to consider technological feasibility in future reviews and extend the timeframe for the EPA to review the standards from every five years to every 10 years. The industry groups described H.R. 4775 as a “common-sense approach” to implementing national ambient air quality standards and said they would support inclusion of its various provisions as riders in fiscal year 2017 appropriations measures. Many of the industry groups who signed the letter have been vocal opponents of the EPA's decision to set the ozone standards at 70 parts per billion, a regulation the agency projected to cost as much as $1.4 billion in 2025 (191 DEN A-1, 10/2/15). The letter is available athttp://src.bna.com/ecj.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=87724192&vname=dennotallissues&fn=87724192&jd=87724192
-
EPA Adds SO2 Sources to States' Air Modeling Lists
Apr 19, 2016 | InsideEPA
EPA has added several industrial sources of sulfur dioxide (SO2) to the list of polluters states must either model or monitor to determine their air emissions for the purposes of compliance with the SO2 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), as the agency seeks to implement the standards years behind schedule.
EPA tightened its SO2 NAAQS in 2010 to 75 parts per billion (ppb), for the first time using a one-hour averaging time, in contrast to the previous limit of 140 ppb over 24 hours or 30 ppb over one year. The new standard required that states set up a new monitoring network to capture short-lived bursts of pollution, but this has pushed full implementation of the NAAQS out to the end of 2020.
In a series of letters sent to states on various dates in March and recently posted to the agency's website, EPA adds several sources of SO2 to the list that states must characterize for emissions, after states sent their recommendations on the topic to the agency.
For most states, EPA concurs with the states' lists. However, in some instances, the agency adds sources it believes should be included. In most cases, these are sources emitting more than 2,000 tons per year (tpy) of pollution, the threshold set by EPA's Aug. 21 data requirements rule.
For example, in Michigan, EPA adds 11 sources to the list -- although three of these are scheduled to shut down or switch fuels to less-polluting natural gas by the end of this month.
In Alabama, EPA adds six sources, and in Georgia, three. In these three states, all the sources added individually emit above the 2,000 tpy limit.
However, in a few instances, EPA has added sources that do not have recently-measured emissions in excess of the threshold. In California, EPA adds the Shell Martinez Refinery, Tesoro refinery and Solvay USA chemical plant in the Contra Costa area to the list because the facilities are located close together, and their aggregate emissions exceed 2,000 tpy.
In its letters, EPA notes that states must determine by July 1 the approach they will take characterize emissions, by either modeling or monitoring. If they choose modeling, they must inform EPA of their modeling system, or “protocol,” by that date. If they opt for monitoring, monitors for these sources must be operational by Jan. 1.
http://insideepa.com/news-briefs/epa-adds-so2-sources-states-air-modeling-lists
-
EPA Details CWA Factors Supporting Denial Of Advocates' Nutrient Petition
Apr 18, 2016 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
EPA is detailing the “statutory factors” it used in deciding not to substantively respond to environmentalists' petition seeking stringent federal Clean Water Act (CWA) nutrient standards for states in the Mississippi River Basin, arguing that it met an appellate court's “deferential” test for when to refuse to act on a CWA petition.
Arguing on EPA's behalf, the Department of Justice (DOJ) in an April 15 brief counters claims by the environmentalist plaintiffs in Gulf Restoration Network (GRN), et al. v. EPA that the agency's denial of their petition was not “grounded in the statute” as prior court rulings have required, and that its later arguments for why the CWA supports it decision amount to “post hoc rationalization.”
Rather, DOJ says the agency considered and cited six separate statutory factors in its decision that even if a full investigation of conditions in the Mississippi Basin would ultimately show that stringent nutrient limits are needed, it would still be impractical for EPA to craft them given the time and cost needed to develop, litigate and enforce such rules in as many as 31 separate states.
“In its decision, EPA cited to Clean Water Act provisions six times and to Clean Water Act regulations four times, making it clear that the agency considered multiple statutory and regulatory factors in deciding not to make the necessity determinations requested in Gulf Restoration’s petition. What is more, even when EPA did not cite a specific provision of the Clean Water Act or the regulations, the Agency used language that references those provisions and regulations,” DOJ argues.
GRN and allied environmentalist groups are asking the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to force EPA to craft a substantive response to their 2008 CWA petition, which sought a scientific determination on whether stringent nutrient standards are needed to protect water quality in the Mississippi Basin and the downstream Gulf of Mexico.
If EPA makes a finding that such rules are necessary, it would trigger a mandatory CWA duty to craft those standards itself unless state governments move quickly to tighten their existing nutrient regulations.
Statutory Factors
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in 2015 did not rule directly on whether EPA's decision not to substantively consider the petition was valid. Instead, it returned the GRN suit to district court to consider whether the agency's stated reasons were “grounded” in the CWA -- a standard it emphasized is “deferential” to the government.
Advocates then argued (/node/189026) that the agency's denial only “touched loosely” on the CWA, with its conclusions instead based primarily on EPA's policy preferences.
But DOJ in its April 15 brief is now setting out six statutory factors it says represent the groundwork for EPA's rejection of the petition: The uses of protected waters under the CWA; the “importance of numeric nutrient criteria in developing water quality standards”; technical support and guidance EPA provides to states under the water law; other measures outside state water quality standards that reduce nutrient discharges; limits on the resources allocated to the agency by law; and the “structure of the Clean Water Act as a whole.”
While GRN and its allies have argued that the EPA denial is adequate because it only touches on each factor briefly, DOJ argues that no precedent “requires EPA to give a lengthy explanation of each factor that contributes to the Agency’s decision. Indeed, all the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires when an agency denies a petition for rulemaking is '[p]rompt notice' to the petitioner, ordinarily 'accompanied by a brief statement of the grounds for denial.'”
Responding to the advocates' argument that the overall structure of the CWA, agency resource limits and nutrient controls other than water quality standards “bear essentially no connection” to the sections governing adequacy of state rules, DOJ argues that each factor is important because of the complicated nature of the water law, and EPA's need to balance multiple goals.
The justification “address[es] the Agency’s careful efforts to balance competing priorities under [the CWA] while exercising its discretion and judgment on how best to give effect to Congress’ mandates,” the brief says.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-details-cwa-factors-supporting-denial-advocates-nutrient-petition
-
Doctors Issue Call to Combat Climate Change
Apr 18, 2016 | U.S. News & World Report
By Dennis Thompson
Climate change is already harming people's health by promoting illnesses linked to warmer temperatures and changing weather patterns, a leading group of U.S. doctors says in a new position paper.
As a result, the American College of Physicians (ACP) is calling for "aggressive, concerted" action to fight climate change by curbing man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
Respiratory illnesses, heat stroke and infectious diseases like Zika virus, dengue fever and cholera are flourishing as global temperatures rise, said Dr. Wayne Riley, president of the college.
"Our climate is already changing and people are already being harmed. If we don't begin to address climate change, we're going to see more and more manifestations of these health problems," Riley said.
"There is clear, compelling scientific consensus that climate change is real," he added. "There is no dispute."
In the paper, published online April 18 in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine, the ACP outlines the health problems that it says climate change is already creating:
"Think about what happens during a heat wave," Riley said. "People's irritability and anxiety increases, starting a chain of events that can lead to behavioral health problems."
The ACP is urging its physician members to both speak out for climate change policies in their communities, and to lead the way by promoting energy efficiency in their own practices, said Bob Doherty, the ACP's senior vice president of governmental affairs and public policy.
The health care sector is ranked second-highest in energy use, after the food industry, spending about $9 billion annually on energy costs, the position paper stated. Health care systems can reduce their carbon footprint through energy conservation and efficiency, alternative energy generation, green building design, improved waste disposal and management, and water conservation, according to the paper.
"Our paper really talks about physicians being advocates in their own health systems, communities and practices to reduce carbon emissions," Doherty said. "We highlight case studies where this is already being done."
Doherty said the ACP took this stand, in part, because its members will be the ones on the front lines treating many of these climate-related illnesses. The ACP represents internists, or general practitioners who specialize in the treatment of adults.
"Many of the conditions that are likely to be worsened or caused by a warming planet are conditions that are typically seen by internists," he said.
Riley and Doherty also hope that a science-based association of physicians taking this stance will persuade those who remain skeptical of climate change.
"We're hoping the credibility of doctors speaking out will help persuade some of the doubters that this is real, and that we need to act on it," Doherty said. "Most of the public understands that when physicians speak out, they are doing it because of their moral and professional obligation to care for their patients."
Lyndsay Moseley Alexander, director of the American Lung Association's Healthy Air Campaign, said the new position paper is a "great" contribution to addressing climate change.
"I applaud the leadership of ACP," Alexander said. "Their statement underscores the urgency of the science and the importance of the medical community's role."
Climate change is actually undoing some of the progress that the United States has made reducing smog pollution in the skies over major cities, she said.
"Some communities are seeing a little bit of an uptick in ozone," Alexander said. "As climate change continues, it's going to be harder to maintain the progress we have made."
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/articles/2016-04-18/doctors-issue-call-to-combat-climate-change
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested