Preview Newsletter
ACC AM Feb 23
-
Full Committee Hearing - Department of the Interior's FY 2016 Budget
Feb 24, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources
Location: Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 366/ 10:00 AM -
Improving the Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Independence of Inspectors General
Feb 24, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Government Affairs
Location: SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building/ 10:00 AM -
Toward a 21st-Century Regulatory System
Feb 25, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Government Affairs
Location: SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building/ 10:00AM -
Preserving the Multistakeholder Model of Internet Governance
Feb 25, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation
Location: Senate Russell Office Building - 253/ 10:00 AM -
Oversight Hearing - Internal Revenue Service
Feb 25, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations
Location: 2359 Rayburn/ 10:00AM -
The Fiscal Year 2016 EPA Budget
Feb 25, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2123 Rayburn/ 10:00 AM -
Oversight Hearing - Department of Justice, Department of Commerce, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Feb 25, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations
Location: H-309 Capitol/ 10:30AM -
The Uncertain Future of the Internet
Feb 25, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2322 Rayburn/ 10:30 AM -
TIME CHANGE: Hearing: Examining the President’s Cybersecurity Information Sharing Proposal
Feb 25, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security
Location: 311 Cannon House Office Building/ 11:30 AM -
Budget Hearing - Department of the Interior
Feb 25, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations
Location: B-308 Rayburn/ 1:00 PM -
Budget Hearing - Department of Housing and Urban Development
Feb 25, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations
Location: 2358-A Rayburn/ 1:00 PM -
The SBA Budget for FY 2016: Does it Meet the Needs of America's Small Businesses?
Feb 25, 2015 | House Committee on Small Business
Location: Rayburn, Room 2360/ 2:00 PM -
Budget Hearing - Department of Energy
Feb 26, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations
Location: 2359 Rayburn/ 9:30 AM -
Executive Session
Feb 26, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation
Location: Senate Russell Office Building - 253/ 10:00 AM -
Update: Patent Demand Letter Practices and Solutions
Feb 26, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2322 Rayburn/ 10:15 AM -
Budget Hearing - Environment Protection Agency
Feb 26, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations
Location: B-308 Rayburn/ 1:00 PM -
Budget Hearing - Department of Transportation
Feb 26, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations
Location: 2358-A Rayburn/ 1:00 PM -
Subcommittee Hearing: Addressing Remaining Gaps in Federal, State, and Local Information Sharing
Feb 26, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security
Location: 311 Cannon House Office Building/ 2:00 PM -
Budget Hearing - Department of Agriculture Under Secretary for Natural Resources and the Environment, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Feb 27, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations
Location: 2362-A Rayburn/ 10:00 AM -
(ACC Mentioned) Specialty Chemicals Start 2015 on Soft Note, ACC Says
Feb 20, 2015 | Chemical Engineering
By Scott Jenkins
Specialty chemical market volumes in the U.S. fell 0.5% in January, beginning the year on a soft note, according to the latest Weekly Chemistry and Economic Report from the American Chemistry Council (ACC; Washington, D.C.; www.americanchemistry.com). The drop in January followed gains of 0.3% and 0.6% in December and November... -
Sen. Johnson Takes Up Review Of Federal Regulatory System
Feb 23, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Kevin Bogardus
The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will review the federal government's regulatory system this week. On Wednesday, the panel will hold a hearing titled "Toward a 21st-Century Regulatory System" and hear from a host of regulatory experts. -
(ACC Blog) California Sunshine Heating Up the Activists on BPA
Feb 20, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
By Steven Hentges, Ph.D
Pulling out all the stops, the anti-BPA activists are hot under the collar to do something, anything to keep BPA-health scares in the Hollywood spotlight. So, consistent with and possibly prodded by the activists’ agenda, once again OEHHA is operating out-of-sync with the scientific consensus of the U.S. federal government regulators at FDA... http://blog.americanchemistry.com/ -
(ACC Mentioned) BPA Could Make Prop 65 List Pending Committee Consideration of Research in May
Feb 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Robert Iafolla
In the latest chapter in California's efforts to regulate bisphenol A, a scientific committee will meet May 7 to consider adding the chemical to the state's Proposition 65 list of substances known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment plans to present to the committee... -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Regulations Conference Agenda Announced
Feb 20, 2015 | Powder & Bulk Solids
This year’s Global Chemical Regulations Conference and Exhibition (GlobalChem) will take place March 2-4, at the Hilton Baltimore in Baltimore. The annual conference provides industry leaders, regulators, and stakeholders an opportunity to learn more about the latest developments around the world for managing the safe use of chemicals. -
(ACC Mentiond) Biz Groups Decry Collective Lead Liability At Supreme Court
Feb 20, 2015 | Law360
By Emily Field
Trade groups have told the U.S. Supreme Court that the Seventh Circuit disregarded a bedrock principle of American common law when it held Sherwin-Williams Co. and other lead paint manufacturers collectively liable for a child's injuries under a “risk contribution” theory without a meaningful causation requirement. -
(ACC Mentioned) Study: Chemical In Plastics May Alter Boys’ Genitals Before Birth
Feb 23, 2015 | CBS Conneticut
Chemicals that are found in plastics may alter baby boys’ genitals before birth, a new study finds. Researchers analyzed data gathered from over 700 infants in four U.S. cities and confirmed earlier findings that exposure to certain types of chemicals called phthalates may lead to changes in the way the male reproductive tract... -
Updates to CDC Chemical Exposure Report Reflect New Data, Revised Survey Practices
Feb 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Robert Iafolla
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention added new chemicals to its report documenting the levels of chemicals measured in a representative sample of the population. The Feb. 20 update added 65 chemicals and modified data tables for 139 chemicals, the CDC said in a news release. -
Senate Revisions To TSCA Reform Bill Aiming For Preemption Compromise
Feb 20, 2015 | InsideEPA
Senators spearheading efforts to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) are revising a bill released late last year, focusing on crafting “more refined” legislation that is likely to narrow the provisions that would preempt state chemical authority in an effort to gain broader bipartisan support, sources tracking the issue say. -
Virginia House, Senate Approve Bills On Chemical Storage, Industrial Wastes
Feb 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jeff Day
The Virginia House and Senate have approved six environmental bills so far this session, all on overwhelming majority or unanimous votes, including one that could lead to stronger regulation of chemical storage tanks. That bill (S.B. 811) would direct senior state environmental, health and emergency management regulators to review... -
Colorado House Approves Bill Designed To Protect Waters From Plastic Microbeads
Feb 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
The Colorado House has approved a bill (H.B. 1144) that would prohibit the production, sale, manufacture and promotion of personal care products containing synthetic plastic microbeads. Microbeads are used in many personal care products, such as exfoliants, and are so small they are not filtered ... -
REACH & CLP Hub: Authorisation vs Restriction
Feb 23, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Tim Becker
Even though not foreseen in the REACH legal text, the Risk Management Option (RMO) analysis is becoming a standard tool, used by Echa and member states to determine which RMO is most appropriate to regulate risks related to chemicals qualifying as Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC). In the frame of such an RMO analysis... -
Concerns Over Vapor Intrusion Prompt Closing of Two North Carolina Schools
Feb 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Matthew Berger
A North Carolina school board has voted to close two schools due to concerns over vapor intrusion. The decision last week followed several weeks of meetings at the Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Board of Education after the vapor contamination, from an underground plume of contaminants, came to light. Students from Hane... -
(ACC Blog) After 7-Year Delay, EPA Should Fully Implement Current Ozone Standard
Feb 20, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
On March 12, 2008, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone at 75 parts per billion (ppb) – the most stringent ever. Last week, EPA finally completed the implementation requirements for states. http://blog.americanchemistry.com/ -
(ACC Mentioned) Oral Arguments in Boiler, Incinerator Cases Should Be Held This Term, Industries Say
Feb 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Industry petitioners asked a federal appeals court to schedule oral arguments in four lawsuits challenging Environmental Protection Agency regulations covering industrial boilers and incinerators (U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 11-1108, motion filed 2/19/15; Am. Forest & Paper Ass'n v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 11-1125, motion filed... -
(ACC Mentioned) Investors Beware: 3 Renewable Products That Destroy the
Feb 21, 2015 | The Motley Fool
By Maxx Chatsko
Kermit the Frog was right: It's not easy being green. It was originally envisioned that a product created from renewable chemicals or resources would be entitled to higher selling prices. Same or similar product, same market, but worth a little more because of the environmental stewardship contained within. -
Permits for Offshore Fracking Violate NEPA, Two Other Federal Statutes, Group Says
Feb 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
Federal approval of hydraulic fracturing off the coast of California violated three laws, according to a second lawsuit challenging Interior Department approvals of permits for oil and gas drilling in those waters (Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Bureau of Ocean Energy Mgmt., C.D. Cal., No. 2:15-cv-1189, 2/19/15). -
Chemical Disclosure, Water Monitoring Suggested for Michigan Fracking Policy
Feb 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nora Macaluso
Stiffer requirements regarding chemical use—including the disclosure of proprietary information and closer monitoring of water quality—are among policy options offered to state officials in a University of Michigan report on high-volume hydraulic fracturing in Michigan. -
Fracking Quake Fears in Alberta Prompt Tougher Rules for Shale in Duvernay Region
Feb 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Penty
Shale producers in Alberta's Duvernay region are being asked to monitor and prevent earthquakes after regulators linked a series of seismic events during the past two months to hydraulic fracturing. Producers must test for quakes and, if they detect seismic events greater than magnitude 2.0 on the Richter scale... -
Arctic Oil Drillers Face Tighter U.S. Rules to Stop Spills, Increase Safety
Feb 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mark Drajem
Royal Dutch Shell Plc and any oil drilling company that prospects in the Arctic Ocean must boost safety practices to prevent spills in the frigid and often hostile waters or mitigate the impact, U.S. regulators proposed Feb. 20. The Interior Department's first Arctic-specific drilling rules respond to mishaps that plagued Shell's efforts... -
Interior Lays Out Safety Plans for Arctic Drilling
Feb 20, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode
The Interior Department Friday proposed landmark safety and spill prevention standards for drilling for oil and gas in the icy, remote federal Arctic waters. The rules are the first time that the Obama administration has sought to set more stringent rules to address the risks of exploring for oil and potential spills in the Arctic... -
Arctic Drilling Regulations Set Off New Battle
Feb 22, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Industry groups are blasting the Obama administration’s plan to crack down offshore oil and gas drilling in the Arctic Ocean, arguing that the proposal includes costly and unnecessary restrictions. The fight — the latest in a series of spats between regulators and drillers — centers on requirements that companies keep backup rigs... -
Jewell to Defend $13.2B Budget Request Before GOP Critics
Feb 23, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Phil Taylor
Interior Secretary Sally Jewell this week will defend her agency's $13.2 billion budget before two congressional panels, where she'll likely face intense Republican criticism over proposals to bar drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and divert future oil and gas revenues from Gulf Coast states. -
FERC Final Environmental Impact Statement OKs Excelerate's Proposed Offshore LNG Plan
Feb 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff concluded in an environmental impact statement released Feb. 20 that the approval of the Aguirre Offshore Gas Port project off of Puerto Rico, with recommended mitigation measures, would result in limited adverse environmental effects. -
Seven Governors Set Legislative Strategy For Revenue Sharing From Offshore Energy
Feb 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
Seven coastal governors agreed Feb. 20 to push Congress for a bill to set a multi-state strategy for revenue sharing from federal offshore energy development, North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory (R) said after the governors' meeting. The agreement was reached with the support of a group of House and Senate staff as well as the seven members... -
Better Seismic Networks Can Avert Quakes Caused by Wastewater Injection, USGS Finds
Feb 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Earthquakes caused by the injection of wastewater from oil and gas production can be reduced through improved seismic networks and better public access to fluid injection data, a new U.S. Geological Survey paper found. Improved seismic networks are defined as being more capable of detecting small earthquakes, those registering... -
Murkowski Looks for Wins on Energy, Not Just Anger
Feb 20, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode
Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s green folder had one word written on it: “War.” She wielded it at the press conference last month as she ripped into the Obama administration for its latest transgression against Alaska: seeking to close off large swathes of land and sea to prevent oil exploration. But for the senior Alaska senator, who may face ... -
House Panels, Moniz Set to Spar Over Energy Budget
Feb 23, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Daniel Bush
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz will head back to Capitol Hill this week to promote President Obama's fiscal 2016 Department of Energy budget request in a series of hearings with House lawmakers. Moniz will appear before the House Science, Space and Technology Committee on Wednesday and the House Energy and Water Development... -
McCarthy Girds for Pair of House Hearings This Week
Feb 23, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Jean Chemnick
U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy will visit the House twice this week to defend her agency's priorities for fiscal 2016, including its efforts to address climate change. The EPA chief will face two Energy and Commerce Committee subpanels at a joint hearing Wednesday, where everything from the Clean Power Plan to the Waters of the U.S... -
Comment Period for NEPA Guidance Extended
Feb 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The White House Council on Environmental Quality is extending until March 25 comments on draft guidance directing federal agencies to consider the climate change implications of projects under review, according to a notice to be published in the Federal Register Feb. 23. The comment period originally closed Feb. 23. -
Obama’s Climate Change Wonk
Feb 20, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Erica Martinson
Gina McCarthy may be at the front line of the bitter climate change battle between President Barack Obama and Republicans, but that’s not how she sees it. As the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, she’s the face of Obama’s plan that will, for the first time in U.S. history, regulate the amount of carbon dioxide... -
EPA Has Tools to Resolve Conflicting Clean Air Act Amendments, Professors Tell Court
Feb 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Conflicting amendments to Clean Air Act Section 111(d) present an unprecedented ambiguity, but the conflict can be resolved using existing statutory interpretation methods, law professors told a federal appellate court (In re Murray Energy Corp., D.C. Cir., No. 14-1112, amicus brief filed, 2/19/15; Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA... -
The Brattle Group Challenges NERC's Clean Power Plan Reliability Analysis
Feb 23, 2015 | E&E Daily News
Last week, the Brattle Group released a report challenging the assertions made by the North American Electric Reliability Corp. last fall on the impacts of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan on reliability. During today's OnPoint, from the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners winter meeting, Jurgen Weiss, senior researcher... -
Canada to Overhaul Safety Rules for Crude Shipments by Train, Create Disaster Fund
Feb 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Josh Wingrove and Frederic Tomesco
The Canadian government is overhauling its safety rules for crude oil shipments by train, creating a disaster fund and forcing railways to carry more insurance. Oil companies will pay into the fund, which will be used when a railway's insurance can't cover the liabilities in an accident, according to the Safe and Accountable Rail Act ... -
Feds Move to Beef Up Transit Safety Oversight
Feb 20, 2015 | The Hill
By Keith Laing
The Department of Transportation (DOT) is moving to boost safety on U.S. public transportation systems after recent deadly accidents on the Washington, D.C., Metrorail subway and New York Metro-North commuter rail systems. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said Friday that his agency is proposing new rules that would allow states... -
Tough Reception Likely Awaits Proposed DOT Budget in House Subpanel
Feb 23, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sean Reilly
When Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx appeared last March before the House Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, the Highway Trust Fund was nearing a crisis and he was pitching a budget plan starkly at odds with statutory spending caps. As Foxx returns this Thursday, cue the video replay.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
Full Committee Hearing - Department of the Interior's FY 2016 Budget
Feb 24, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources
Location: Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 366/ 10:00 AM
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will hold a hearing on the Department of the Interior's budget request for fiscal year 2016.
The hearing will be webcast live here on the energy panel’s website.
-
Improving the Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Independence of Inspectors General
Feb 24, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Government Affairs
Location: SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building/ 10:00 AM
-
Toward a 21st-Century Regulatory System
Feb 25, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Government Affairs
Location: SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building/ 10:00AM
-
Preserving the Multistakeholder Model of Internet Governance
Feb 25, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation
Location: Senate Russell Office Building - 253/ 10:00 AM
As the U.S. government considers relinquishing control over certain aspects of Internet governance to the private sector, concerns remain that the loss of U.S. involvement over the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) could empower foreign powers – acting through intergovernmental institutions or other surrogates – to gain increased control over critical Internet functions. Featuring testimony from the U.S. government official assessing the threat to the Internet and the CEO of the organization that currently manages the Internet’s system of unique identifiers via contract with the U.S. government, the hearing will examine the potential benefits and preparedness of non-governmental actors to protect Internet governance functions from attempted interference by foreign governments.
-
Oversight Hearing - Internal Revenue Service
Feb 25, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations
Location: 2359 Rayburn/ 10:00AM
-
The Fiscal Year 2016 EPA Budget
Feb 25, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2123 Rayburn/ 10:00 AM
-
Feb 25, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations
Location: H-309 Capitol/ 10:30AM
-
The Uncertain Future of the Internet
Feb 25, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2322 Rayburn/ 10:30 AM
-
TIME CHANGE: Hearing: Examining the President’s Cybersecurity Information Sharing Proposal
Feb 25, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security
Location: 311 Cannon House Office Building/ 11:30 AM
-
Budget Hearing - Department of the Interior
Feb 25, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations
-
Budget Hearing - Department of Housing and Urban Development
Feb 25, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations
Location: 2358-A Rayburn/ 1:00 PM
-
The SBA Budget for FY 2016: Does it Meet the Needs of America's Small Businesses?
Feb 25, 2015 | House Committee on Small Business
Location: Rayburn, Room 2360/ 2:00 PM
The purpose of the hearing is to examine the the Small Business Administration's FY 2016budget request to determine whether it will meet the needs of America's small businesses.
-
Budget Hearing - Department of Energy
Feb 26, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations
Location: 2359 Rayburn/ 9:30 AM
-
Feb 26, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation
Location: Senate Russell Office Building - 253/ 10:00 AM
Markup of nine bills and nominations for six agencies
Agenda:
1. H.R. 23, the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act Reauthorization of 2015, Sponsor: Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas)
2. H.R. 34, Tsunami Warning, Education, and Research Act of 2015, Sponsor: Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.)
3. H.R. 719, TSA Office of Inspection Accountability Act of 2015, Sponsor: Rep. John Katko (R-N.Y.)
4. H.R. 720, Gerardo Hernandez Airport Security Act of 2015, Sponsor: Rep. John Katko (R-N.Y.)
5. S. 142, Child Nicotine Poisoning Prevention Act of 2015, Sponsor: Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.)
6. S. 143, United States Merchant Marine Academy Improvements Act of 2015, Sponsor: Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)
7. S. 253, Federal Communications Commission Consolidated Reporting Act of 2015, Sponsor: Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.)
8. S. 304, Motor Vehicle Safety Whistleblower Act, Sponsor: Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.)
9. S. 373, Vessel Incidental Discharge Act, Sponsor: Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)
10. Nomination of Tho Dinh-Zarr, to be a Member of the National Transportation Safety Board for the remainder of the term expiring December 31, 2018
11. Nomination of Carlos A. Monje, Jr., to be an Assistant Secretary of Transportation
12. Nomination of Manson K. Brown, to be Assistant Secretary for Environmental Observation and Prediction, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration at the U.S. Department of Commerce
13. Nomination of William P. Doyle, to be a Federal Maritime Commissioner for a term expiring June 30, 2018 (reappointment)
14. Nomination of Christopher A. Hart, to be Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board for a term of two years
15. Nominations for promotions in the United States Coast Guard
* Agenda is subject to change -
Update: Patent Demand Letter Practices and Solutions
Feb 26, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2322 Rayburn/ 10:15 AM
-
Budget Hearing - Environment Protection Agency
Feb 26, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations
Location: B-308 Rayburn/ 1:00 PM
-
Budget Hearing - Department of Transportation
Feb 26, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations
Location: 2358-A Rayburn/ 1:00 PM
-
Subcommittee Hearing: Addressing Remaining Gaps in Federal, State, and Local Information Sharing
Feb 26, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security
Location: 311 Cannon House Office Building/ 2:00 PM
-
Feb 27, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations
Location: 2362-A Rayburn/ 10:00 AM
-
(ACC Mentioned) Specialty Chemicals Start 2015 on Soft Note, ACC Says
Feb 20, 2015 | Chemical Engineering
By Scott Jenkins
Specialty chemical market volumes in the U.S. fell 0.5% in January, beginning the year on a soft note, according to the latest Weekly Chemistry and Economic Report from the American Chemistry Council (ACC; Washington, D.C.; www.americanchemistry.com). The drop in January followed gains of 0.3% and 0.6% in December and November of last year, respectively. “The adverse weather has played a role [in the decline], but weakness in oilfield chemicals and other segments weighed on overall volumes,” the ACC report says. Fourteen of the 28 market segments monitored by ACC expanded in January, off from 18 in December 2014. Of the remaining market segments, 13 declined and one remained flat, ACC says. The market segments that experienced large (1.0% and greater) gains during January include: electronic chemicals, foundry chemicals, mining chemicals and lubricant additives, according to the report. Those observing more modest gains include: antioxidants, biocides, cosmetic chemicals, dyes, flame retardants, flavors and fragrances, industrial and institutional cleaners, water management chemicals and others.
-
Sen. Johnson Takes Up Review Of Federal Regulatory System
Feb 23, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Kevin Bogardus
The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will review the federal government's regulatory system this week.
On Wednesday, the panel will hold a hearing titled "Toward a 21st-Century Regulatory System" and hear from a host of regulatory experts.
Regulations are expected to be a hot topic this year for Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), the committee's new chairman. He has said that he wants to advance legislation that would cut back on rules such as the "REINS Act" -- legislation that would have Congress approve major regulations coming out of the federal agencies (E&E Daily, Nov. 12, 2014).
That bill passed the House in 2013 but didn't move in the Senate last Congress. Nevertheless, it has already been introduced in both chambers this year (E&ENews PM, Jan. 23).
Schedule: The hearing is Wednesday, Feb. 25, at 10 a.m. in 342 Dirksen.
Witnesses: American Action Forum President Douglas Holtz-Eakin; Jerry Ellig, senior research fellow at George Mason University's Mercatus Center; Progressive Policy Institute chief economic strategist Michael Mandel; and Sally Katzen, former administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
-
(ACC Blog) California Sunshine Heating Up the Activists on BPA
Feb 20, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
By Steven Hentges, Ph.D
Pulling out all the stops, the anti-BPA activists are hot under the collar to do something, anything to keep BPA-health scares in the Hollywood spotlight. So, consistent with and possibly prodded by the activists’ agenda, once again OEHHA is operating out-of-sync with the scientific consensus of the U.S. federal government regulators at FDA and other government agencies across the globe. OEHHA has announced, yet again, that they are putting BPA on the agenda to be considered for listing on Proposition 65, despite past unanimous scientific conclusions that it should not be listed.
Let’s take a look at all the clear scientific conclusions on the safety of BPA just in the last few months: The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have both, recently, completed assessment concluding that BPA is safe for use in consumer products for people of all ages, including unborn children and infants. How could it be more clear?
In light of these conclusions from EFSA and the FDA, how does it make sense for the State of California again intends to evaluate whether BPA should be listed as a reproductive toxicant under Proposition 65?
New scientific data cited by OEHHA as the justification for a new evaluation has recently been reviewed by these prominent government bodies. For example, in January 2015 EFSA concluded that ‘BPA poses no health risk to consumers of any age group (including unborn children, infants and adolescents) at current exposure levels.’ Similarly, in November 2014 the FDA updated its assessment of BPA and concluded that ‘FDA’s current perspective, based on its most recent safety assessment, is that BPA is safe at the current levels occurring in foods.’
Yet, BPA continues to be the “cause célèbre” of anti-chemical activists and the sympathetic regulators in California. - See more at: http://blog.americanchemistry.com/2015/02/california-sunshine-heating-up-the-activists-on-bpa/#sthash.zWFZaWcz.dpuf
-
(ACC Mentioned) BPA Could Make Prop 65 List Pending Committee Consideration of Research in May
Feb 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Robert Iafolla
In the latest chapter in California's efforts to regulate bisphenol A, a scientific committee will meet May 7 to consider adding the chemical to the state's Proposition 65 list of substances known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment plans to present to the committee evidence on links between bisphenol A (BPA) and female reproductive toxicity.
New epidemiological and toxicological data have become available since 2009, when the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee last considered—and ultimately decided against—adding BPA to the Prop 65 list, the hazard assessment office said in a Feb. 20 press release.
A recent scientific review of “hazard identification materials” and other information on BPA is available for public review, and the hazard assessment office is accepting public comment on the materials until April 6.
BPA is widely used to make polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins. Exposure, which comes mainly through food packaging and beverage containers, has been linked to developmental disorders and elevated risks for cancer, heart disease and diabetes. California, 11 other states and Washington, D.C., have legal restrictions on the use of BPA in consumer goods.
California could add BPA to its Prop 65 list should the scientific panel find that BPA has been clearly shown to cause female reporoductive toxicity. Companies with products containing over a threshold amount of BPA would have a year to either affix warning labels to products or reduce the amount below the threshold.
Excited, Dismayed Stakeholders
“We're excited that California is taking another step in the process of regulating BPA,” Nancy Buermeyer, senior policy strategist at the Breast Cancer Fund, told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 20. “We're hopeful the state's review will look at the broad swath of research and data on BPA, let the science speak for itself and add it to the Prop 65 list.”
But the American Chemistry Council hit is dismayed that California is taking another look at BPA, given recent findings by U.S. and European food safety regulators that the chemical is safe for use in consumer products for people of all ages, Steven G. Hentges of the council's Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group told Bloomberg BNA in a Feb 20 statement (235 DEN A-16, 12/8/14).
Hentges accused California's health assessment office of “operating out of synch with the scientific consensus of other government agencies across the globe.”
Previous Prop 65 Listing
California and the American Chemistry Council have clashed before over the question of BPA's inclusion on the Prop 65 list.
California added BPA to the list in April 2013 for developmental toxicity on the basis of a National Toxicology Program report. But the state delisted the chemical days later after the American Chemistry Council launched a legal challenge (78 DEN A-17, 4/23/13).
BPA remains off of the Prop 65 list despite a December 2014 state court ruling in the state's favor. The American Chemistry Council has asked for a new trial, and the injunction that has blocked the listing remains in effect (246 DEN A-6, 12/23/14).
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment will put BPA back on its list for developmental toxicity if the case is resolved and the injunction is lifted, office spokesman Sam Delson told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 20.
Lower Doses
California's upcoming consideration of BPA as a female reproductive toxicant will look at new research that examines negative health effects at low doses, Delson said.
Should California add BPA based on that evidence, Delson said, it could require warning labels at lower concentrations than the contested April 2013 listing mandates.
The scientific committee examining evidence BPA on May 7 will reconvene and continue at a May 21 meeting if it fails to complete its deliberations.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Regulations Conference Agenda Announced
Feb 20, 2015 | Powder & Bulk Solids
This year’s Global Chemical Regulations Conference and Exhibition (GlobalChem) will take place March 2-4, at the Hilton Baltimore in Baltimore. The annual conference provides industry leaders, regulators, and stakeholders an opportunity to learn more about the latest developments around the world for managing the safe use of chemicals.
Hosted by the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and the Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates (SOCMA), the three-day conference kicks off with a fundamentals workshop that will take a comprehensive look at the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as well as federal regulatory compliance and international chemical regulation. The agenda features two keynote speakers. Professor John Graham of the University of Indiana will discuss lessons from current regulatory programs in Europe, Canada, and the U.S., and Dr. Tom Lyon of the University of Michigan will discuss the intersection of voluntary environmental programs and corporate social responsibility.
Additionally, Wendy Cleland-Hamnett of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will provide insight into the Agency’s regulatory priorities for this year. Over the course of the conference, attendees will also hear from experts on a wide range of important topics, including risk assessments, green chemistry, and nanotechnology.
“GlobalChem provides an invaluable forum to discuss the most pressing issues that are shaping the development of regulations to protect public health, as well as how we put chemistry to work in order to meet the world’s challenges,” said ACC president and CEO Cal Dooley. “This year represents a unique opportunity to make significant improvements to how chemicals are managed, especially here in the United States. Working together to pass meaningful, bipartisan reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act will be vital to ensure the safety of chemicals, help grow our economy and foster innovation in our industry.”
“Keeping up with the changing world of chemical regulation is becoming more challenging, especially for small- and medium-sized companies,” said SOCMA president and CEO Lawrence D. Sloan. “Fortunately, GlobalChem provides a thorough look at existing, as well as developing, chemical policy by some of the most knowledgeable experts from around the globe. With a program that dives deep into key issues—from TSCA to international trade—we anticipate another productive dialogue about regulatory and legislative challenges and opportunities facing our industry.” -
(ACC Mentiond) Biz Groups Decry Collective Lead Liability At Supreme Court
Feb 20, 2015 | Law360
By Emily Field
Trade groups have told the U.S. Supreme Court that the Seventh Circuit disregarded a bedrock principle of American common law when it held Sherwin-Williams Co. and other lead paint manufacturers collectively liable for a child's injuries under a “risk contribution” theory without a meaningful causation requirement.
In a Feb. 13 amicus brief made public Friday, the American Chemistry Council and other trade associations told the high court that the circuit decision was unconstitutional and ignored a long-standing standard of requiring causation for tort liability. The trade groups urged the high court to review the companies’ petition, saying that the court should ensure that there are limits on novel tort theories that would deprive defendants of their due process rights to defenses based on absence of causation.
“The decision below strikes at the heart of a well-settled principle of American jurisprudence: that an individual will not be held liable for injuries to another unless a causal relationship between that individual and another is demonstrated,” the groups said. “The Seventh Circuit’s disregard of this principle and its extraordinary retroactive imposition of liability without proof of causation for lawful conduct dating back to the first half of the 1900s cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny.”
The causation requirement has been “embedded in our common law” since the 1700s, the groups said. The decision is part of a broader trend where courts apply novel theories of liability— such as in asbestos, pharmaceutical and tobacco litigation — and force defendants to pay for damages without proof of causation, the groups said.
“These theories of liability without causation without proof ignore traditional practice dating back to pre-revolutionary times and pose a direct threat to the fabric of our constitutional system,” the groups said.
The paint companies have a due process right to defend against liability based on absence of causation, the groups said. The basic guarantee of due process is that a defendant can’t be held liable for damages without having an opportunity to present every available defense, according to the groups.
“The Seventh Circuit below attempted to sidestep such due process concerns by suggesting that 'if [a defendant] ends up paying for harm it did not cause in a particular case brought by a particular plaintiff, it will also end up paying less than it should in the next case — where it did cause the harm — when another manufacturer is also found liable for the harm caused by [the defendant],'” the groups said. “This suggestion is wrong as a matter of fact.”
In its July ruling, the Seventh Circuit found that under the risk contribution theory, plaintiff Ernest Gibson wasn't required to prove that a specific manufacturer caused his injury. Gibson alleged that the pigment was installed in his home sometime after its construction in 1919 and before the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission banned lead paint in 1978.
Gibson alleges he was poisoned and suffered neurological defects from the pigment. He sued seven companies in Wisconsin state court because he could not identify which one manufactured the paint that led to his injury, according to court documents. The suit was eventually removed to federal court, and one manufacturer was dismissed.
The manufacturers contended in their Jan. 16 petition to the high court that the ruling permits states to dispense with any causal link tying a particular defendant to the plaintiff's injury so long as the defendant is among a "pool" of suppliers that "could" be guilty, potentially and unfairly exposing the defendant to hundreds of millions of dollars in disproportionate liability.
The trade groups are represented by Linda Kelly and Quentin Riegel of the Manufacturers’ Center for Legal Action, Eric G. Lasker of Hollingsworth LLP, Thomas J. Graves of the American Coatings Association Inc., Allison W. Starmann of the American Chemistry Council, Steven P. Lehotsky and Sheldon Gilbert of the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center Inc., and James M. Spears and Melissa B. Kimmel of the Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America.
The defendants are represented by Arnold & Porter LLP, Gibson Dunn, Jones Day, McGuireWoods LLP and Morris Manning & Martin LLP.
Gibson is represented by Peter G. Earle of the Law Office of Peter Earle and Fidelma L. Fitzpatrick of Motley Rice LLC.
The case is American Cyanamid Co. et al. v. Gibson, case number 14-849, in the Supreme Court of the United States. -
(ACC Mentioned) Study: Chemical In Plastics May Alter Boys’ Genitals Before Birth
Feb 23, 2015 | CBS Conneticut
Chemicals that are found in plastics may alter baby boys’ genitals before birth, a new study finds.
Researchers analyzed data gathered from over 700 infants in four U.S. cities and confirmed earlier findings that exposure to certain types of chemicals called phthalates may lead to changes in the way the male reproductive tract develops, according to Dr. Russ Hauser, an epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health, who was not involved in this study.
However, the findings in the study showed a small change, according to Shanna Swan, a reproductive health scientist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York.
“There was nothing clinically abnormal or noticeably different about these boys,” Swan told LiveScience.
The researchers measured pregnant women’s levels of 11 compounds that are formed in the body when phthalates are broken down. They then looked at those levels of compounds in the women’s urine during the first trimester.
Newborn boys who were exposed in the womb to the highest levels of one phthalate, called diethylhexyl phthalate, had an “anogenital distance” that was 4 percent shorter than that of the boys born to women with the lowest levels, LiveScience reports.
Researchers said in the study that the distance between the anus and the genitals is typically 50 to 100 percent longer in males than in females, and a shortened anogenital distance may signal incomplete masculinization.
The researchers were unclear if this alteration would be permanent or if it would result in reproductive health issues.
In a study involving animals, it was found that shortened anogenital distance at birth may signal reproductive abnormalities later in life. Swan noted that in order to prove this, the researchers would have to follow up with all the boys involved in this study when they reach adulthood in order to see if their reproductive health is affected.
No association between genital development and levels of several other phthalates in boys were found.
Diethylhexyl phthalate, as well as two other types of phthalates, have been banned in children’s toys by the U.S. government.
Even though most plastic food packaging and storage items are now made with plastics that do not contain diethylhexyl phthalate, a spokesperson from the American Chemistry Council told Live cience that people could be exposed to phthalates from food processing that involves storage in flexible plastic or rubber bags or containers.
“Information collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention over the last 10 years indicates that, despite the fact that phthalates are used in many products, exposure from all sources combined is extremely low – much lower than the levels established as safe by scientists at regulatory agencies,” the spokesperson wrote in an email to LiveScience.
Swan noted that diethylhexyl phthalate is still found in many humans, however, the levels of the chemicals have decreased over the past 10 years.
Between 2005 and 2008 other studies have been done on this subject and they also found that prenatal exposure at higher levels was associated with altered male genital development.
“We are finding a significant association between male anogenital distance and phthalates at lower and lower levels, which suggests that there may be no safe level of exposure,” Swan told LiveScience.
-
Updates to CDC Chemical Exposure Report Reflect New Data, Revised Survey Practices
Feb 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Robert Iafolla
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention added new chemicals to its report documenting the levels of chemicals measured in a representative sample of the population.
The Feb. 20 update added 65 chemicals and modified data tables for 139 chemicals, the CDC said in a news release.
Chemicals measured for the first time include copper, zinc and selenium in blood, as well as manganese, strontium and tin in urine.
The CDC's Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, published in 2009, provides data about human exposure to chemicals but doesn't make conclusions about the health effects of the exposures. The report draws on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.
Updated Material
The February update of the report introduces the health and nutrition survey's new racial and ethnic category scheme, which was expanded from three groups to five in the 2011-2012 survey period. The categories are Mexican Americans, non-Hispanic black, non-Hispanic white, all Hispanic and non-Hispanic Asian.
The updated materials also use the survey's recent practice, started in the 2011-2012 survey period, of taking a special sample of adults who reported smoking tobacco.
Results for several chemicals won't be reported after the 2009-2010 survey period because their concentrations weren't detectable in previous survey periods.
The dropped chemicals include urinary 4-tert-octylphenol; the urinary metals platinum and beryllium; the urinary phthalate metabolites, mono-cyclohexyl phthalate (MCHP) and mono-n-octyl phthalate (MOP); and the urinary organochlorine pesticide metabolites 2,4,5-trichlorophenol and 2,4,6-trichlorophenol.
-
Senate Revisions To TSCA Reform Bill Aiming For Preemption Compromise
Feb 20, 2015 | InsideEPA
Senators spearheading efforts to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) are revising a bill released late last year, focusing on crafting “more refined” legislation that is likely to narrow the provisions that would preempt state chemical authority in an effort to gain broader bipartisan support, sources tracking the issue say.
The issue of preempting state chemicals programs has long been a major hurdle to advancing TSCA reform, with previous Republican-led bills drawing opposition from Democrats for blocking state efforts.
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) is working with Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) to revise a draft of the S. 1009 bill introduced in 2013 by Vitter and the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), seen as a landmark compromise to reforming the decades-old chemical safety law.
But the bill drew opposition from then-Environment & Public Works Committee Chairman Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) due to concerns about preempting of state chemicals programs, and it failed to advance.
Similarly, divisions in the House over the preemption issue helped to kill the lower chamber's TSCA reform push last year. Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), chair of the Energy & Commerce Committee's environment panel, says he will start anew on crafting a TSCA reform bill this year in a bid to win more Democratic support.
Some TSCA reform stakeholders have suggested the merits of crafting a TSCA reform bill first and punting a debate over the bill's preemption language until agreement is reached on all other aspects of the bill.
But Vitter says he is continuing to work closely with Udall on revising the legislation and is “optimistic that a revised compromise is on the horizon,” according to a statement from Vitter's office. And a congressional source says the resulting changes are focusing on a bill that “will be more refined and attract more support from a broad variety of groups.”
The original S. 1009 bill would have barred states from imposing new restrictions on chemicals identified as "high-priority" by EPA at the time the agency publishes a schedule for assessing safety of the substance and once the agency designates a chemical as "low-priority."
Vitter and Udall worked to revise the bill and added considerations for vulnerable subpopulations, deadlines for EPA to take action on chemicals, and new preemption language that would only block state action on high-priority chemicals once EPA commences a safety assessment.
But gridlock on the bill escalated in September when Vitter criticized Boxer for what he said was a premature release of the revised bill.
Boxer released not only a revised S. 1009 bill but her revisions to the updated measure, which included dropping the provisions that she said would preempt state programs and tightening the bill's safety standard.
Narrowed Preemption
Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), who took over as the panel's chairman for the 114th Congress, has vowed to pursue TSCA reform efforts this year but acknowledged in a brief Feb. 4 interview with Inside EPA, the "difference of opinion” with Boxer on preemption.
But a state source tracking the issue says “it sounds like the preemption issues are something they're looking at really closely,” and that the planned revisions could be a “big step in that direction” toward narrowing how and when state authority would be preempted that could win a compromise with states.
That source adds that they would oppose any provisions that did not appear to preserve existing state labeling laws, which have a “proven track record” as being effective, and existing state restrictions on specific substances, adding that future chemical regulations are something that “states can partner with EPA on, but if a state has already taken” action that should be preserved.
Claudia Polsky, deputy attorney general with the California attorney general's office, said during a Jan. 27 Environmental Law Institute event on state preemption and TSCA reform that there are several "nonstarters" for California in the discussions, such as judicial oversight and "regulatory void preemption" that would "kick states out of the regulatory sphere before any final regulation" would take effect, which was a major criticism of early versions of the House and Senate bills.
She also indicated the state would oppose efforts to bar states from enacting parallel laws so they could function as "co-enforcers" of federal regulations, saying it is "unclear why they would want to have one cop on the beat when they can have 51."
-
Virginia House, Senate Approve Bills On Chemical Storage, Industrial Wastes
Feb 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jeff Day
The Virginia House and Senate have approved six environmental bills so far this session, all on overwhelming majority or unanimous votes, including one that could lead to stronger regulation of chemical storage tanks.
That bill (S.B. 811) would direct senior state environmental, health and emergency management regulators to review current state laws and regulations for the tanks to determine whether they are adequate to protect the environment, drinking water supplies and public safety.
The regulators' review would apply to tanks that contain more than 10,000 gallons of chemicals listed under the federal Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act.
Findings and recommendations would be due by Dec. 1, 2016, a little more than a month before the 2017 General Assembly session begins.
S.B. 811, enrolled Feb. 17, will be sent to Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) after it is signed by the president of the Senate and speaker of the House, a required formality.
Land Application of Waste
Legislation that would allow localities to monitor and test solid and semi-solid industrial wastes applied to land (H.B. 1364, S.B. 1413) cleared the House and Senate and was enrolled Feb. 20. The bill would also establish a fee, imposed on waste generators, that would be used by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to support and train local government monitoring and testing personnel.
A third bill (S.B. 1099) would establish a state Solar Energy Development Authority to support the expansion of solar power generation in Virginia, including identifying government and private sector financing possibilities. The board would support expansion of the solar energy equipment industry and solar power generation. It was enrolled Feb. 18.
Miscellaneous Legislation
In addition, both chambers of the General Assembly approved bills that would:
• create an exemption from the state's Erosion and Sediment Control Act for routine highway maintenance (H.B. 1827);
• allow the release of aggregate data on agricultural operations if it does not disclose individual farmers' identities (S.B. 1126);
• require public disclosure on the Internet of the state's flood protection plan and compel the Department of Conservation and Recreation to update the plan at least once every five years (H.B. 1817, S.B. 1079). Virginia's highly populous Hampton Roads region is threatened by land subsidence and sea-level rise.
Clean Power Plan Bill Pending
A handful of other environmental bills could pass the Legislature before it adjourns Feb. 28. One (S.B. 1365) would, under the Senate-approved version, require that DEQ discuss its plan for implementing the proposed federal Clean Power Plan with state legislators prior to submitting it to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The House on Feb. 20 approved a substitute version of S.B. 1365 that would make submission of the plan to the EPA contingent on its approval by both chambers of the General Assembly.
-
Colorado House Approves Bill Designed To Protect Waters From Plastic Microbeads
Feb 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
The Colorado House has approved a bill (H.B. 1144) that would prohibit the production, sale, manufacture and promotion of personal care products containing synthetic plastic microbeads.
Microbeads are used in many personal care products, such as exfoliants, and are so small they are not filtered out by wastewater treatment plants, nor do they decompose quickly, said Rep. Dianne Primavera (D), chief sponsor of the measure. The House approved the bill Feb. 19 in a 47-18 vote.
While microbeads themselves are not toxic, they can absorb and store other toxins, Primavera said. When small fish mistake them for food and are eaten by larger fish, the toxins move up the food chain, possibly ending up being consumed by humans, she said.
Companies Support Bill
Johnson & Johnson, the Personal Care Products Council, the Colorado Retail Council and the Colorado Water Congress all testified in favor of the bill when it was heard by the Public Health Care & Human Services Committee, Primavera said.
“Microbeads pose a threat to our water and food supply,” she said. “It's not often you get an industry asking to be regulated, but these companies realize how serious an environmental hazard microbeads pose in the long term.”
Under the bill, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment may pursue civil penalties between $1,000 and $10,000 for anyone who violates the ban.
A microbeads ban was approved in Illinois and similar measures are under consideration in 16 other states, according to the Colorado House Democrats.
If approved by the General Assembly and signed by Gov. John Hickenlooper (D), the bill would phase in the prohibition between Jan. 1, 2018, and Jan. 1, 2020, according to the Colorado Legislative Council.
-
REACH & CLP Hub: Authorisation vs Restriction
Feb 23, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Tim Becker
Even though not foreseen in the REACH legal text, the Risk Management Option (RMO) analysis is becoming a standard tool, used by Echa and member states to determine which RMO is most appropriate to regulate risks related to chemicals qualifying as Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC). In the frame of such an RMO analysis, a key question is often whether candidate list inclusion and authorisation (Annex XIV), or a restriction (Annex XVII), should be proposed.
Under the European Commission’s Roadmap on SVHCs for 2020, inclusion in the candidate list for authorisation is the baseline option for fully registered SVHCs containing non-exempted uses, which are not already regulated by specific EU legislation providing a pressure for substitution. The burden of proof for justifying continued use of an Annex XIV substance lies with the companies.
By contrast, restriction is understood as a “safety net” to manage risks that are not adequately controlled. It requires detailed information available to the authority on the uses to be restricted and possible alternatives. The burden of proof for justifying a restriction, hence, lies with the authority. Therefore, companies often see a restriction as the preferred tool – as far as they are able to avoid its limiting scope. So the question arises: Is restriction indeed always the more industry-friendly option?
Restriction has ‘losers and winners’
Restriction is a very flexible risk management instrument, in that it may impose any condition for, or prohibition of, the manufacture, use or placing on the market of a substance on its own, in a mixture or in an article (REACH Article 67(1)). There must be an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment, which needs to be addressed at EU level (REACH Article 68(1)).
Restrictions require strict compliance by companies throughout the EEA; an authorisation for continued use is not possible. Furthermore, if major uses are subject to the ban, exempted niche uses may also suffer if the manufacturer loses interest in the market. Therefore, it is important to keep the big business picture in mind when pursuing a separate treatment for small volume uses. This being understood, companies may benefit from the limits set by the wording of a restriction or derogations from it. The case of cadmium (entry 23 of Annex XVII) is an illustrative example of such a limited restriction.
Authorisation: challenges and limitations
Authorisation is a lengthy, complex and costly process for most companies that have to go through it. Applicants for authorisation need to prepare a chemical safety report and analysis of alternatives. For non-threshold substances a socio-economic analysis is also required. Expertise from different company departments and consultants needs to be pooled to compile such a dossier. An authorisation is only granted for a limited period of time, resulting in added uncertainty – compared to a restriction and derogations from it - about the possibility of continued use after the review period.
Yet authorisation only needs to be sought for uses of an Annex XIV substance, for which no exemption is foreseen in the REACH Regulation or included in Annex XIV. This can leave plenty of room for continued use of SVHCs without the need for an authorisation. Users of SVHCs as an intermediate (REACH Article 2(8)(b)), and importers of articles containing them do not need authorisation by virtue of the REACH legal text. The manufacture of SVHCs is also out of scope. Use for scientific research and development (REACH Article 3(23)) is exempted, both from authorisation and restriction.
Existing Union legislation imposing minimum requirements, relating to the protection of human health or the environment, for the use of the substance (REACH Article 58(2)) can justify the inclusion of a specific exemption in Annex XIV. In spite of numerous industry comments in previous public consultations on Echa Annex XIV draft recommendations, this has been accepted only in one case so far: uses of phthalates in the immediate packaging of medicinal products. However, industry bodies have been calling for a more comprehensive assessment of whether the clause can be applied. This could result in a more prominent use of REACH Article 58(2) in the near future.
Authorisation loopholes can – partly – be closed by initiating a restriction. As an example, for Annex XIV substances in articles, Echa shall consider after their respective sunset dates, whether the use in articles poses a risk to human health or the environment that is not adequately controlled. If so, Echa shall prepare a restriction proposal (REACH Article 69(2)). However, this mechanism does not always work, such as in the examples of chromates used for surface treatment, but no longer present in the imported article.
Towards restriction of solvents?
The example of solvents illustrates well the increasing consideration of the restriction process for industrial settings and by professional users as well. The solvents 1-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP) and dimethylacetamide (DMAC) were both included in the candidate list for authorisation in 2011, due to their harmonised classification as toxic for reproduction. However, a restriction proposal was submitted for NMP by the Netherlands in 2013. Due to this, Echa has postponed its recommendation of NMP for inclusion in Annex XIV, and the inclusion of DMAC was postponed by the European Commission.
The RMO analysis for NMP concluded that a restriction is most appropriate. It also appears most company-friendly. The proposed restriction does not foresee a direct ban, but an exposure limit in the form of a mandatory long-term derived no-effect level (Dnel) for workers’ inhalation and dermal exposure, which is to be used in chemical safety assessments and safety data sheets. If the Commission would adopt the restriction as now proposed, this would be good news for companies able to comply with the proposed DNEL. But as the use is not fully banned, the door to authorisation is not closed.
No black or white
Restriction is often a preferred option for industry in comparison to authorisation, but not always. Uses in the scope of the ban are to be phased out. No exception or authorisation is possible. For a manufacturer or user of the substance, this can mean shutdown of all or parts of the business or costly improvements of the technical equipment or safety measures. Therefore, it can be vital that affected industries use all means of consultation by the authorities in order to supply complete facts and protect their interests.
Restrictions can also potentially be implemented more quickly. Whereas the estimated time from an Annex XV SVHC dossier to an Annex XIV sunset date is - as a rule of thumb - a minimum of six years, a restriction proposal can be turned into an enforceable restriction within two to three years, normally however subject to transitional periods.
Authorisation is still a fairly burdensome process for downstream users, and their suppliers, and may not always be an appropriate instrument. But as experience with the process evolves, it is likely to become more and more “business as usual” to it apply until a substitute is found. The European Commission’s initiative to work on rules for “simplified” authorisation could lead to further improvements.
Be proactive
The best risk management tool for chemicals of concern, from a company perspective, may be either authorisation or restriction, depending on the case and the company.
A restriction may be good if you are able to be out of scope or comply with it while continuing your business, whereas an authorisation may – and will increasingly – be a manageable “bridge” until you have found a safer substitute. This is especially true for threshold substances. You may also analyse the grounds for an exemption from authorisation and discuss your conclusions with the authorities.
Hence, companies should not sit back and wait for the authorities to analyse their substances and uses, but be proactive in assessing by themselves what could be the most appropriate risk management tool – if any – for their case, and provide their input to the decision makers at the appropriate point of time.
-
Concerns Over Vapor Intrusion Prompt Closing of Two North Carolina Schools
Feb 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Matthew Berger
A North Carolina school board has voted to close two schools due to concerns over vapor intrusion.
The decision last week followed several weeks of meetings at the Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Board of Education after the vapor contamination, from an underground plume of contaminants, came to light. Students from Hanes and Lowrance middle schools will be moved to new schools by March 2.
It is thought to be the first time schools have been shut down over such concerns, although some analysts thought the shutdown might not be necessary.
“The data did not necessarily justify closure, but it became toxic in terms of lack of trust. Parents thought, ‘Our kids are going to a toxic school and nobody told us about it,’ ” said Lenny Siegel, a vapor intrusion expert and executive director of the Center for Public Environmental Oversight. Siegel spoke to parents and school board members in Winston-Salem about vapor intrusion Feb. 9.
“Rarely do we talk about closing a school, since they can easily be made safe” using ventilation systems, Siegel said.
Contamination Source Across Street
The source of the contamination is a plant across the street currently operated by locking systems manufacturer Kaba Ilco Inc., which is the responsible party for the contamination, although the contamination originated with prior owners. That groundwater plume has migrated underneath the school and contains perchloroethylene (PCE) and trichloroethylene (TCE), which have been detected in school buildings.
The readings for harmful vapor in school buildings had been elevated but have gone down in recent years. A reading for PCE in one room was 6.7 micrograms per square meter in 2005, but 0.24 in 2014. A reading in another room found 17 micrograms of TCE per square meter in 2005, but less than 0.11 in 2014.
Siegel suggested those levels may have originated from other substances in the rooms rather than vapor emanating from the groundwater plumes, and that removing those substances may have contributed to the drop in levels.
Still, parents were not made aware of the vapor intrusion situation until recently, when the school board proposed building a new school at the site. That lack of transparency appears to have compounded fears over health effects from the compounds.
PCE can cause several cancers with prolonged exposure and birth defects over much shorter periods. TCE can cause nervous system damage and other complications in the short term and kidney cancer over longer periods.
In terms of whether it would make sense to build the new school above the plume, Siegel said, “if you're in New York or Los Angeles, you probably can't find a parcel of land that's not contaminated,” so it might make sense to build above a groundwater plume or other contamination and just monitor for and remediate the vapor intrusion on school grounds. But in this case, there are likely to be other sites available, so it's probably not worth the monitoring and remediation costs, he said.
The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to publish vapor intrusion guidance this year (09 DEN B-1, 1/14/15).
In a statement to Bloomberg BNA, the agency said it is not involved in the Winston-Salem school situation, which is being handled by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
The EPA said it is not aware of any other schools in the Southeast closing as a result of vapor intrusion.
-
(ACC Blog) After 7-Year Delay, EPA Should Fully Implement Current Ozone Standard
Feb 20, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
On March 12, 2008, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone at 75 parts per billion (ppb) – the most stringent ever. Last week, EPA finally completed the implementation requirements for states.
The rules include deadlines for submitting plans, emission control technologies to be used, and processes for states to show compliance. EPA has pledged to “continue to work closely with states, tribes and communities to provide assistance in implementing the 2008 ozone standards.”
EPA’s announcement is long overdue. States have waited seven years for final implementation rules for the current standard. In the meantime, permitting agencies and manufacturers have been in limbo – confused, at times, about the requirements for projects such as new facilities, expansions, and factory restarts.
Unfortunately, such delays are common. In recent years EPA has tightened a number of NAAQS without fully implementing them. In addition to ozone, examples include nitrogen dioxide and sulfur oxides in 2010 and fine particulate matter in 2012.
So, having finished the rules for the 2008 ozone standard, the obvious next step is for EPA to allow states time to come into compliance, right? Surprisingly, no. Just three months ago, EPA proposed a new, even more stringent ozone NAAQS of 65-70 ppb. But parts of 26 states covering a population of more than 120 million people still don’t comply with the 2008 standard.
It makes no sense for EPA to be considering a lower ozone standard before finishing the job on the current standard. With air quality improving, maintaining the current standard would enable further reductions in emissions while supporting U.S. manufacturing growth. As EPA points out:
Ozone pollution has been declining in recent years. From 1990 to 2013, the U.S. has experienced a 23% decline in national average ozone concentrations.
Many states will be unable to meet a lower ozone standard, and the impacts will be broadly felt. In ‘nonattainment areas,’ manufacturing projects will be more costly and complex. Small businesses will be forced to buy and install special equipment instead of investing that money in their business. Highway projects will have to conform to certain standards before receiving federal funds. Households will face increased vehicle fees and inspections and restrictions on wood-burning fireplaces and lawn mowing. Los Angeles even has regulations for backyard barbeques.
Thankfully, in its proposal, EPA said it will accept comment on retaining the current ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb. The Administration has gone to considerable trouble to develop and issue final implementation rules for the current standard. We hope they become a blueprint for action. - See more at: http://blog.americanchemistry.com/2015/02/after-7-year-delay-epa-should-fully-implement-current-ozone-standard/#sthash.TZIZjFNE.dpuf
-
(ACC Mentioned) Oral Arguments in Boiler, Incinerator Cases Should Be Held This Term, Industries Say
Feb 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Industry petitioners asked a federal appeals court to schedule oral arguments in four lawsuits challenging Environmental Protection Agency regulations covering industrial boilers and incinerators (U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 11-1108, motion filed 2/19/15; Am. Forest & Paper Ass'n v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 11-1125, motion filed 2/19/15; Am. Chemistry Council v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 11-1141, motion filed 2/19/15; Eco Serv. Operations LLC v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 11-1189, motion filed 2/19/15).
The American Chemistry Council, American Petroleum Institute, National Association of Manufacturers and other petitioners, in a motion filed Feb. 19, requested the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit schedule oral arguments in the lawsuits before the end of the court's term. The cases challenge the EPA's air pollution rules covering major and area source industrial boilers, commercial and solid waste incinerators and nonhazardous secondary materials that are burned in boilers and solid waste incinerators.
Holding oral arguments in the next few months would allow the court to issue decisions in the cases before a Jan. 31, 2016, deadline for compliance with the EPA's air toxics standards for large industrial boilers that are considered major sources of air pollution, the industry petitioners said.
It is possible that the court will grant the industry request, but most of the time left before the court adjourns for the summer already is scheduled, said James Pew, an Earthjustice attorney who is representing environmental groups that also are challenging the boiler rule.
“It's really hard to tell,” Pew told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 20 when asked whether the court will schedule oral arguments in the spring.
The D.C. Circuit has scheduled oral arguments through April 21, according to the court's website. The appeals court's term ended in mid-May in each of the last three years.
Compliance Required in 2016
The major source boiler standards apply to more than 14,000 existing boilers, which are found at petroleum refineries, chemical plants and other industrial facilities. The EPA estimated compliance with the standards will impose capital costs of more than $4.7 billion.
Industry and environmental petitioners both have asked the D.C. Circuit to remand the rule to the EPA to correct deficiencies. The EPA argued in a brief that its review and revisions to the hazardous air pollutant standards for major source boilers complied with the Clean Air Act (219 DEN A-15, 11/13/14).
The industry petitioners told the court in their motion to schedule oral arguments that owners and operators of facilities with major source boilers are concerned about the risk of “unnecessary capital investment” if the court were to remand the rule right before or after the 2016 compliance deadline.
If the D.C. Circuit defers oral arguments until next term, it is possible that the court would not issue its decision until after the Jan. 31, 2016, deadline, according to the petitioners. The court typically opens its term in early September, following the Labor Day holiday.
“At that point, all affected sources will have completed the projects needed to comply with the rule,” the industry petitioners said.
Secondary Materials Consideration Requested
The industry petitioners said that if the court doesn't decide to hear all four cases before the end of the term, “at minimum” the court should hear oral arguments on the agency's nonhazardous secondary materials rule. That rule establishes which combustion materials are considered to be solid waste.
Combustion units that burn solid waste are regulated as incinerators, while those that do not are regulated as boilers. Resolution of the nonhazardous secondary materials rule would provide industry with additional certainty on which emissions standards apply to a source and minimize the likelihood that a facility would work to comply with the wrong regulation, the industry petitioners said.
They argued that deferring consideration of the secondary materials rule would constitute an “unreasonably delay” because oral arguments would not occur until almost a full year after briefing in the litigation concluded, with a decision likely issued months after that.
Briefing in the secondary materials rule litigation, Eco Serv. Operations LLC v. EPA, concluded in November 2014.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Investors Beware: 3 Renewable Products That Destroy the
Feb 21, 2015 | The Motley Fool
By Maxx Chatsko
Kermit the Frog was right: It's not easy being green.
It was originally envisioned that a product created from renewable chemicals or resources would be entitled to higher selling prices. Same or similar product, same market, but worth a little more because of the environmental stewardship contained within. This extra markup is called the Green Premium -- and, in most cases, it's a total myth. In order to fully compete with market incumbents, in this case, petrochemicals produced from non-renewable resources, renewable chemicals must match or best performance, functionality, and price.
Many companies that produce the renewable chemicals that become the "green products" you know and love have discovered that the hard way. While some have accepted the challenge head on, other companies have led investors down dangerous, money-losing paths. Therefore, investors need to consider the competitiveness of a technology platform, not just it's sustainability. Let's take a look at the competitiveness of three renewable products -- all at different stages of development and commercialization -- from DuPont (NYSE: DD ) , Braskem (NYSE: BAK ) , and Solazyme (NASDAQ: SZYM ) . Company: DuPont, "the veteran"Renewable product: Bio-PDOProduction since: 2006Applications: Polymer fibers, anti-freeze, liquid detergents
DuPont is associated with petrochemicals and genetically enhanced agricultural seeds, but it's also a quiet leader in industrial biotech. The company's industrial biosciences division generated $1.26 billion in sales in 2014 at a gross profit margin of about 16% by using fermentation to manufacture enzymes, cellulosic ethanol, and a handful of other green chemicals. That includes the flagship industrial chemical: renewable 1,3-propanediol, or bio-PDO, which is converted into polymers that find use in everyday applications ranging from carpet fibers to clothing.
Bio-PDO boasts several environmental advantages over the petrochemicals it supplants in the marketplace. For instance, production of DuPont's bio-PDO consumes 40% less energy and emits 40% fewer greenhouse gases than the production of petroleum-based PDO. But the advantages don't stop there. After production, bio-PDO can be converted into renewable polymers such as the company's Sorona brand while reducing greenhouse gas emissions 63% compared to the production of petroleum-based polymers such as nylon.
Sounds pretty great, right? While it is a remarkable product manufactured to the tune of 45,000 metric tons annually, DuPont's bio-PDO doesn't come with a Green Premium. Instead, the chemical is cost competitive with petroleum-based PDO and other polymers, although specific applications of Sorona are accompanied by increased functionality. For instance, Mohawk SmartStrand carpets produced using Sorona are naturally stain-resistant, whereas nylon carpet fibers must be treated chemically to offer homeowners the same benefit.Company: Braskem, "the rising star"Renewable product: Renewable ethyleneProduction since: 2010Applications: Plastic bottles, polymer fibers, liquid detergents
Chemical manufacturers could spend nearly $124 billion expanding existing or building new petrochemical facilities within the next decade or so, according to The American Chemistry Council. The capital expenditure binge is fueled by the race to build infrastructure capable of converting ethane, a component of natural gas, into the building block chemical ethylene, which is the starting point for various everyday plastics, adhesives, fibers, and more. A lack of infrastructure has resulted in nearly 300,000 barrels per day of excess ethane production in the United States, which has pushed its price to near-zero levels.
Despite favorable economics for the future of ethylene production, South American chemical leader Braskem has pioneered a process for converting ethanol into ethylene. Since the ethanol is ultimately created from renewable sources such as sugarcane the company is able to market the resulting product as renewable ethylene, which is chemically identical to petroleum-based ethylene in every way.
While nearly 80% of the production from Braskem's 200,000 MT-per-year facility was sold before construction even began, renewable ethylene is sold on a cost-competitive basis with its petroleum counterpart. However, it seems unlikely that production costs will compete with ethane-to-ethylene manufacturing in the United States anytime soon. That could handicap the product to a small niche market globally and hinder expansion, although cost advantages over another petrochemical process for manufacturing ethylene could make it the preferred production route for certain regions, including Europe. Company: Solazyne, "the new guy"Renewable product: Biodegradable drilling lubricantsProduction since: 2014Applications: Oil and gas well drilling and completion
When an oil or gas well is drilled thousands of feet below the ground, well operators must carefully select lubricants based on the subterranean geology, depth of the borehole, and type of equipment used. The first goal may be to protect expensive drilling equipment from mechanical failures, but the second goal is to complete the first goal for the lowest cost possible. That can be more difficult than it sounds, especially since drilling speed, operational downtime, and additive costs must be factored into the equation.
Renewable oils manufacturer Solazyme markets Encapso drilling lubricants that can be used to protect expensive drilling bits from wear and tear by reducing friction, which increases drilling speed and reduces the time needed to complete an oil or gas well.
In contrast to other drilling lubricants produced from petrochemicals, Encapso drilling lubricants are manufactured using renewable resources and are fully biodegradable. In fact, the lubricating oils are encapsulated in inert algal cells ("algae" cells), which offers precision lubrication where it's needed most.
Unfortunately, Solazyme hasn't had much success selling large quantities of Encapso. While many of the commercialization hurdles could be derived from the company's inexperience in the oilfield services industry and more established competition, the company needs to achieve substantially lower production costs in order to compete with less sustainable alternatives readily available in the market. Investors may not receive the Green Premium they expected from Encapso, but a distribution partnership with Italian oil and gas company Eni could provide a little relief in the year ahead.
What does it mean for investors?
Renewable chemicals are a nice-to-have, but many commercial customers don't make it a priority when making supply chain decisions unless the green product competes with market incumbents on performance, functionality, and price. While some consumer-facing companies and brands will pay a little more for sustainable chemicals, their purchasing decisions are made selectively and quantities remain limited. As a result of the market's hesitance to pay a Green Premium, successful chemical manufacturers have adapted by lowering production costs or enhancing performance to draw even or close the competitive gap.What's the lesson for investors? Simply put, there is no Green Premium. It isn't wrong to factor a product's manufacturing process into your investment decisions (I'd encourage it), just don't expect renewable products being sold into massive markets to be successful solely for being green. It's not that easy.
Warren Buffett: This new technology is a "real threat"
At the recent Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, Warren Buffett admitted this emerging technology is threatening his biggest cash-cow. Buffett's fear can be your gain. Only a few investors are embracing this new market, which experts say will be worth over $2 trillion. Find out how you can cash in on this technology before the crowd catches on, by jumping onto one company that could get you the biggest piece of the action. Click here to access a free investor alert on the company we're calling the brains behind the technology. -
Permits for Offshore Fracking Violate NEPA, Two Other Federal Statutes, Group Says
Feb 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
Federal approval of hydraulic fracturing off the coast of California violated three laws, according to a second lawsuit challenging Interior Department approvals of permits for oil and gas drilling in those waters (Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Bureau of Ocean Energy Mgmt., C.D. Cal., No. 2:15-cv-1189, 2/19/15).
The Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit Feb. 19 arguing that approvals of drilling permits allowing fracking in federal offshore waters violated the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The primary defendants are the two Interior Department agencies that lease tracts in offshore waters and enforce environmental regulations for those waters—the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement.
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The charge of violating NEPA already had been made in a lawsuit filed in December by the Environmental Defense Center (Envtl. Def. Ctr. v. Bureau of Safety & Envtl. Enforcement, C.D. Cal., No. 2:14-cv-09281, 12/3/14; 234 DEN A-12, 12/5/14).
More Planning, Analysis Wanted
The Center for Biological Diversity told the court the permit approvals violated OCSLA because the companies' submitted development and production plans and their applications for permits to drill did not delve into the details of hydraulic fracturing.
The environmental advocacy group said the approvals violated CZMA because they were issued “without a determination from the state of California of whether offshore fracking is consistent with California's Coastal Zone Management Program.”
NEPA was violated because the changes to drilling plans were approved without comprehensive analyses of the environmental impacts of offshore fracking, the group said.
The group told the court that fracking “is inherently dangerous and has no place in fragile ocean ecosystems.”
-
Chemical Disclosure, Water Monitoring Suggested for Michigan Fracking Policy
Feb 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nora Macaluso
Stiffer requirements regarding chemical use—including the disclosure of proprietary information and closer monitoring of water quality—are among policy options offered to state officials in a University of Michigan report on high-volume hydraulic fracturing in Michigan.
The Feb. 20 draft report, the product of a two-year integrated assessment of Michigan-specific policies and operations, is designed to serve as a guide for state officials as they craft new rules on drilling. It will be made final after review by experts and the public (164 DEN A-5, 8/23/13).
Among options the report analyzed are new ways for managing the disposal of wastewater from fracking operations, requirements for operators to prepare emergency response plans prior to drilling, increased public participation on decisions related to fracking, and updated management of water withdrawals.
The report doesn't recommend that policy makers adopt all, or even any, of the options. The goal is to present “information about the likely strengths, weaknesses and outcomes of various courses of action to support informed decision-making,” said John Callewaert, integrated assessment director at the University of Michigan's Graham Sustainability Institute, which is overseeing the project.
An oil and gas industry group criticized the draft for not providing an opportunity for a balanced public discussion.
Open for public comment until March 20, the report incorporates rule changes proposed by the state and will be revised in response to the comments from the public and from a panel of experts and an advisory committee of government, industry and environmental representatives, Callewaert said on a Feb. 20 conference call with reporters. The draft builds on a set of seven technical reports focusing on different aspects of fracking that were released in September 2013 (181 DEN A-11, 9/18/13).
The state's new fracking rules are likely to be made final “early this spring, in time for the production season,” Michigan Department of Environmental Quality spokesman Brad Wurfel said in a Feb. 20 e-mail to Bloomberg BNA.
Though high-volume fracking isn't widespread in Michigan—just 13 wells are currently producing natural gas and 11 sites at which drilling has been completed—the technique has been used on more than 12,000 relatively shallow, vertical wells that require less water, the researchers said.
Regulations May Not Be Adequate
“With the intensity of wastewater generation associated with high-volume hydraulic fracturing, it is not clear whether the laws and regulations written at a time of small-scale, shallow hydraulic fracturing options will be adequate,” the report said.
Information on the more than 1,000 chemicals used in fracking or found in associated wastewater is limited, and more research is needed, the report said. Though Michigan is among 24 states that require companies to disclose the chemicals used in fracking fluid, operators have 60 days after a well is completed to submit the information, and companies are allowed to withhold chemicals deemed to be trade secrets.
“More extensive requirements pertaining to information on chemical use and water quality appear desirable—if they are in plain language—given public concern relating to these aspects and their potential public health implications,” the report said.
While Michigan's existing policies can be characterized as “adaptive” or “remedial,” the new rules proposed by the department “have more precautionary elements” aimed at preventing problems before they occur, Sara Gosman, lead author of the report's chapter on chemical use, told reporters on the call.
Michigan has largely treated high-volume hydraulic fracturing as an extension of other types of oil and gas activities, so the public has had little opportunity to weigh in, the researchers said. A moratorium on high-volume fracking—an idea supported by several communities and groups across the state—would give officials time to conduct impact studies and find ways of mitigating those impacts, the report said, though it noted that the option “comes at the cost of reducing income to the mineral rights owners, industry, and the state by preventing development of the resource.”
“We believe Michigan residents want the DEQ to continue to base its regulatory approach on science, experience and real challenges,” Wurfel said. “But the department also realizes that there is public concern about fracturing” and “we agree there is a need for DEQ to continue working to provide the public greater access to information about this process.”
Oil, Gas Group Decries ‘Negative Tone.’
The Michigan Oil and Gas Association said the report has a “negative tone” regarding oil and gas production, and “misses the opportunity to provide a balanced discussion of the tradeoffs associated with the use of hydraulic fracturing.”
Erin McDonough, president and chief executive officer of the trade group, said in a Feb. 20 statement that while the initial draft of the report is disappointing, “we are optimistic the final report can be a good resource, and we will work with authors to achieve this.”
-
Fracking Quake Fears in Alberta Prompt Tougher Rules for Shale in Duvernay Region
Feb 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Penty
Shale producers in Alberta's Duvernay region are being asked to monitor and prevent earthquakes after regulators linked a series of seismic events during the past two months to hydraulic fracturing.
Producers must test for quakes and, if they detect seismic events greater than magnitude 2.0 on the Richter scale, take measures to reduce the impact of their activity, the Alberta Energy Regulator said Feb. 19. If a tremor is detected above magnitude 4.0, then producers must immediately halt drilling and not resume until they get approval from regulators.
Provincial regulators are blaming fracking for a cluster of 18 quakes with magnitudes as high as 3.7 in December 2014 near Fox Creek, Alberta, and several others in January, including one with a magnitude of 4.4. Chevron Corp., Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Encana Corp. are among companies drilling for natural gas liquids in the Duvernay region.
Precautionary Step
“While these seismic events have not impacted public safety, it is our job to take this precautionary step to ensure energy resources in this area are developed in a safe and responsible manner,” said Jim Ellis, chief executive officer of the Alberta Energy Regulator.
Fracking, which has been used in Alberta since the 1950s, includes the pumping of vast amounts of water, sand and chemicals underground at high pressure to free oil and gas from tight rock formations such as shale.
The technique has been tied to earthquakes across North America.
Oklahoma has seen the largest increase in earthquakes that scientists have tied to wastewater disposal from fracking. Last year, 585 tremors were registered, according to state figures. Between 1990 and 2008, there were never more than three occurrences of magnitude 3.0 quakes or greater in the same year.
-
Arctic Oil Drillers Face Tighter U.S. Rules to Stop Spills, Increase Safety
Feb 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mark Drajem
Royal Dutch Shell Plc and any oil drilling company that prospects in the Arctic Ocean must boost safety practices to prevent spills in the frigid and often hostile waters or mitigate the impact, U.S. regulators proposed Feb. 20.
The Interior Department's first Arctic-specific drilling rules respond to mishaps that plagued Shell's efforts three years ago, by shortening the drilling season and requiring companies to have a backup rig nearby. Shell had already agreed to do much of what's in the proposal as part of its 2012 exploration plan, which was suspended after the stumbles.
“Until now these requirements were applied as part of Shell's exploration plan,” Abigail Ross Hopper, director of the Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management, said Feb. 20 during a conference call with reporters. “The proposed regulation takes those requirements and codifies them.”
The plan from Interior marks the latest in a series of measures from President Barack Obama's administration to regulate offshore or Alaskan oil production. Obama declared Alaska's Bristol Bay and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as off limits for oil drilling last month, and issued an offshore drilling plan that reduced areas for exploration in the Arctic.
Those plans were denounced by oil industry lobbyists and Republican lawmakers from Alaska. Still, Shell neither complained nor praised the proposed rule.
‘Clear, Consistent.’
“Of paramount concern in all of our operations is safety and environmental protection,” Curtis Smith, a Shell spokesman, said in an e-mail. “We support regulations that further these imperatives in the Arctic, provided they are clear, consistent and well-reasoned.”
Shell has said it wants to resume exploration when the weather gets warmer this year after halting operations in 2012 when a drilling rig ran aground, and it was fined for air pollution. Environmental groups, citing harsh conditions and a fragile ecosystem, say it's a mistake to drill in the region.
“The new rules clearly are needed and are an improvement, but they do not ensure safe and responsible operations in the Arctic Ocean,” said Susan Murray, deputy vice president of Washington-based Oceana. “There is no proven way to respond to a spill in icy Arctic waters.”
Oil exploration and production companies in the past decade stepped up plans to drill in the Arctic, using technology that may let them reach reserves trapped in the sea floor beneath ice. The Chukchi and Beaufort Seas may contain 24 billion barrels of oil, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
Shell's Requirements
The Interior Department said the proposal builds on the requirements Shell has accepted. The rules require companies to use equipment designed specifically to perform in the extreme cold and high seas; have a relief rig and containment dome ready and nearby; and halt drilling 45 days before the short season ends to provide enough time to drill a relief well, if needed.
Operators can request approval of alternatives to a relief rig “if they can demonstrate it provides same or better level of protection,” the Interior rule said. The proposal is subject to 60 days of public comment.
When it visited the White House to lobby on this rule last year, Shell argued that requiring a second rig and cutting short oil production would cost billions of dollars with little or no safety benefit.
Shell's Wells
“We have and will continue to take unprecedented steps to ensure we can operate safely and responsibly in the Arctic,” Smith said in an e-mail.
Shell, the only company with current plans to explore off the Alaska coast, drilled two preparatory wells after spending about $6 billion over almost a decade in preparation. While the drilling itself had few glitches, Shell had difficulty deploying and then moving out its drilling rigs, Interior said in its proposal.
Shell's conical drilling barge, the Kulluk, was damaged when it ran aground in southern Alaska Dec. 31, 2012, while being towed during a storm. The Noble Discoverer drill ship was temporarily detained by the U.S. Coast Guard a month earlier after it lost propulsion while docking at Seward, Alaska.
In 2013, the Environmental Protection Agency said that Shell's operation of the Kulluk violated “numerous conditions in the permit” under the Clean Air Act.
-
Interior Lays Out Safety Plans for Arctic Drilling
Feb 20, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode
The Interior Department Friday proposed landmark safety and spill prevention standards for drilling for oil and gas in the icy, remote federal Arctic waters.
The rules are the first time that the Obama administration has sought to set more stringent rules to address the risks of exploring for oil and potential spills in the Arctic than it does for operations in the Gulf of Mexico.
Drilling in the Arctic “isn’t like the Gulf of Mexico,” said Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Director Abigail Hopper. The Gulf has “mild weather and established industry presence,” she told reporters, while the Arctic is “incredibly remote, vastly undeveloped and subject to extreme weather conditions.”
“Energy exploration in the Arctic is unique,” said Brian Salerno, director of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, adding that the new proposal lays out “a very cautious and coordinated approach to offshore operations.”
The proposal won’t become final for a year or more, and it drew heavily from ongoing conversations between Interior and Shell, which is planning to resume exploratory drilling in federal Arctic waters north of Alaska this summer, Salerno said.
That includes a requirement that agency has mandated for Shell since 2012 that it must have a second drilling rig on standby when first drilling a well, so that the company can quickly drill a relief well in the event of an accident. That type of relief well was needed to stop the oil from gushing from BP’s Macondo well after it ruptured in the Gulf in 2010.
This single-season relief well requirement survived scrutiny by the White House Office of Management and Budget despite opposition over its cost from Shell. The company has spent around $6 billion in its stop-and-go Arctic drilling effort. And the company has signaled it would spend $1 billion this year if it can clear legal and permitting obstacles.
The proposal includes an estimated cost of compliance of between $1.1 billion and $1.2 billion over 10 years.
Shell “will continue to take unprecedented steps to ensure we can operate safely and responsibly in the Arctic,” Shell spokesman Curtis Smith emailed. “Often, that has meant going above and beyond what is required in favor of a safer design or approach.”
Officials at Shell and the American Petroleum Institute both said they are still reviewing the rule. But API’s Erik Milito echoed Shell’s concerns about the requirement for a second drilling rig to be on standby.
“Other equipment and methods, such as a capping stack, can be used to achieve the same season relief with equal or higher levels of safety and environmental protection,” Milito said. “It is unnecessarily burdensome to effectively require two rigs to drill a single well.”
Friday’s proposal also requires an integrated plan to determine “all factors necessary,” including prompt access to source control and containment equipment, mobilization, marine transportation and emergency response, Salerno said.
Earlier this month, Interior released a final environmental review for drilling in a portion of the Chukchi Sea, completing a reexamination that began more than a year ago when a federal appeals court challenged the department’s estimates for economically recoverable oil in the area. That court challenge was tied to federal oil and gas lease sales in 2008 that had been tied up in litigation.
The new proposals quickly drew criticism from some opponents of drilling in the Arctic.
“No regulation can make the Arctic safe for drilling,” House Natural Resources ranking member Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) said. “Federal regulators shouldn’t encourage more fruitless campaigning or exploration in a region we know needs to be left alone.”
And green groups have cited difficulties in responding to spills and lack of sufficient infrastructure.
“The new rules clearly are needed and are an improvement, but they do not ensure safe and responsible operations in the Arctic Ocean,” said Susan Murray, a deputy vice president at Oceana. “There is no proven way to respond to a spill in icy Arctic waters and, as Shell unfortunately demonstrated, companies simply are not ready for the Arctic Ocean.”
Interior’s proposal takes “an important step to reforming” oil and gas oversight in the Arctic, said Kristen Miller, conservation director for Alaska Wilderness League. “But wider regulations governing America’s Arctic Ocean need to be implemented.”
Others took a more nuanced view.
“This proposed rule demonstrates a significant commitment by the Department of Interior to improve drilling safety and oil spill prevention in the Arctic,” said Marilyn Heiman, director of the U.S. Arctic Project at Pew Charitable Trusts. “Pew does not oppose offshore drilling, but we believe world-leading standards must be in place in the challenging, remote and vulnerable Arctic Ocean. These rules will provide greater certainty for the companies operating in the Arctic and help protect the people and wildlife that live there.”
Friday’s proposal comes after the Obama administration recently raised the prospect of opening the densely-populated Southeastern U.S. coastline, stretching from Virginia to Georgia, for oil and gas exploration.
Shell last year asked Interior for a five-year extension on its leases in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. The company’s plight has been highlighted by Alaskan officials and others who criticize the length of time it has taken the Obama administration to approve oil and gas projects.
Friday’s proposal follows Interior Secretary Sally Jewell’s trip this week to Alaska, where she said she and state leaders talked of “how we can have a more constructive and productive relationship” between the federal government and the state “than maybe what we have had over the last decade or so.”
Alaska officials, including its three-member Republican congressional delegation, Independent Gov. Bill Walker and state legislators from both parties, have sharply criticized the Obama administration’s moves to limit oil and gas drilling that is crucial for the state’s economy.
There was particular fervor following last month’s recommendation by Interior that Congress permanently protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from oil and gas drilling and the department’s release of a draft five-year offshore drilling strategy that includes closing off additional federal waters off of Alaska. Alaska officials also contend that Interior has been too restrictive in its permits for ConocoPhillips to begin producing in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska.
The complaints that federal government more broadly has infringed on the state’s sovereignty come as Alaska struggles amid the steep drop in oil prices that has hit public coffers as well as the state’s energy-dependent economy.
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said she is reserving judgment on Friday’s proposal. “We’re still reviewing the draft regulations released today to see what impact they could have on the economic development of our vast Arctic resources,” she said. “Given the opposition this administration has shown so far to responsible resource development, I’m reserving judgment until it’s demonstrated that these regulations will not unnecessarily block investment.”
Murkowski is promising to address oil and gas exploration in a broader energy strategy she is pursuing in her panel this year.
House Republicans in previous Congresses have tried to limit EPA’s Clean Air Act oversight of Arctic drilling to speed along Shell’s plans.
-
Arctic Drilling Regulations Set Off New Battle
Feb 22, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Industry groups are blasting the Obama administration’s plan to crack down offshore oil and gas drilling in the Arctic Ocean, arguing that the proposal includes costly and unnecessary restrictions.
The fight — the latest in a series of spats between regulators and drillers — centers on requirements that companies keep backup rigs on hand to dig relief wells in case of a spill.
The provision is the most expensive piece of the $1.2 billion rule proposed by the Interior Department’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Friday.
Oil and gas drillers say that the $55 million the federal government estimates it would cost annually to keep backup rigs in the Arctic and ready to go would largely be a waste, and other, more cost-effective options exist to mitigate well blowouts during the drilling process.
“Other equipment and methods, such as a capping stack, can be used to achieve the same season relief with equal or higher levels of safety and environmental protection,” Erik Milito, upstream director for the American Petroleum Institute, said in a statement.
“For this reason, it is unnecessarily burdensome to effectively require two rigs to drill a single well.”
The proposal, unveiled Friday, included other measures designed for the abnormally remote, icy and treacherous drilling conditions in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, the two Arctic areas north of Alaska that are within the United States’ jurisdiction.
These include detailed management and emergency response plans written specifically for the Arctic, access to spill control equipment and limits on the time of year when drilling could take place.An analysis that Royal Dutch Shell prepared last year for the Interior Department predicted that the backup rig mandate would cost a company $3.2 billion during a 20-year exploration and appraisal process for a well, with only $791 million in benefits.
“The relatively minor benefits associated with a [rig] requirement are due in part to the low probability of a well blowout in the shallow exploration and appraisal wells being pursued in the U.S. Arctic,” the analysis said.
Environ International Corp., which prepared the analysis, said that since 1971, no well blowout has been solved by a relief well — even the 87-day oil spill at BP’s Deepwater Horizon rig in 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico.
Even though it found that the benefits of its rules “are difficult to quantify,” Interior defended the relief rig mandate, saying the Arctic is very different from other offshore drilling sites.
Brian Salerno, director of Interior’s offshore enforcement office, said Friday that he knew the rig provision would be controversial.
“From our perspective, that sets a level of protection for the Arctic that is necessary,” Salerno told reporters. “If there were to be an uncontrolled well event, we’d want to make sure that a well can be secured within the drilling season, and this provides a level of assurance that that outcome could be achieved.”
Abigail Hopper, director of the offshore energy office, said the unique circumstances of the Arctic require unique safety rules, like a backup rig mandate. Without nearby emergency response mechanisms like drillers have in the Gulf of Mexico, rigs in the Arctic could have to wait weeks or longer for relief wells.
“The Arctic outer continental shelf isn’t like the Gulf of Mexico, where generally mild weather conditions and established industry presence have created extensive infrastructure and logistical support that allow for nearly year-round operations,” she said.
“Instead, the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea planning areas are incredibly remote, vastly undeveloped and subject to extreme geophysical conditions.”
Other than a failed exploration well drilled by Shell in 2012, there has been no oil or gas drilling in the United States’ Arctic in decades.
Environmental groups said that, while the relief rig provisions would go a long way toward improving the safety of potential drilling, it can never be completely safe.
“There is no such thing as safe Arctic drilling,” Tim Donaghy, a research specialist at Greenpeace, said in a statement.
“If a spill occurs towards the end of Shell’s drilling window, the sea ice won’t wait for the company to drill a relief well,” he said. “These proposed regulations would only give a false sense of security and do nothing to protect the Arctic from catastrophe.”
“We applaud the government for recognizing that existing oil and gas regulations are not adequate,” said Susan Murray, a deputy vice president at Oceana.
“The new rules clearly are needed and are an improvement, but they do not ensure safe and responsible operations in the Arctic Ocean.” -
Jewell to Defend $13.2B Budget Request Before GOP Critics
Feb 23, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Phil Taylor
Interior Secretary Sally Jewell this week will defend her agency's $13.2 billion budget before two congressional panels, where she'll likely face intense Republican criticism over proposals to bar drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and divert future oil and gas revenues from Gulf Coast states.
Jewell will appear tomorrow before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and Wednesday before the House Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee.
It could be a rough row at both venues.
ENR Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) has accused the Obama administration of declaring war on Alaskans by rejecting a road through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge, urging Congress to designate wilderness in ANWR and slow-walking permits to drill in the National Petroleum Reserve (NPR-A) (E&ENews PM, Jan. 26).
Murkowski, who is also chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee panel that funds Interior, could be a formidable nemesis for the administration for the remainder of President Obama's second term.
"Maybe I've just got to be tougher? Play hardball all the time?" Murkowski told reporters late last month following Obama's ANWR decision. "Bring it on."
Jewell saw Murkowski and other members of the Alaska delegation last week during a visit to Kotzebue to speak to the Alaska Federation of Natives, though the two did not have a formal sit-down. Jewell spoke with Alaska Native leaders, state officials and local representatives, Interior said.
In a news conference with reporters in Anchorage, Jewell defended the administration's recommendation that Congress designate 12 million acres of additional wilderness at ANWR, including in the coastal plain believed to contain 10 billion barrels of oil.
"I actually know and appreciate that we need to develop our oil resources," Jewell said, acknowledging Alaskans' concern over declining supply to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, which runs near ANWR. "I do think there are places that are right for development, and the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska is one such place."
Jewell will be on the defensive tomorrow in her first appearance before the panel since the gavel was handed to Murkowski.
She'll also have to answer to freshman Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who joined the panel after defeating former Chairwoman Mary Landrieu (D-La.) in last year's election and is a fierce critic of an Interior budget proposal to siphon more than $3 billion in future offshore drilling revenues from Gulf states to be used for national conservation and public lands priorities.
"I will do everything in my power to use my seats on these committees to not only block the president's raid on oil and gas revenues, but fight to increase Louisiana's share of offshore revenue," Cassidy said in a statement earlier this month. "Funding for coastal restoration must remain a promise to Louisiana and other Gulf Coast states."
The proposal, which is likely dead on arrival in Congress, has also drawn attacks from national environmental groups that invest heavily in Gulf Coast restoration, including the Environmental Defense Fund, National Wildlife Federation, National Audubon Society and Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation (Greenwire, Feb. 4).
Jewell's $13.2 billion requested budget -- an 8 percent hike above current funding levels -- also contains a wish list of longtime administration proposals to increase inspection fees on oil and gas drillers, encourage more diligent development, reform federal royalties and hike grazing fees -- proposals that stand little chance of passing in a Republican-controlled Congress considering that they also failed to pass when the Senate was in Democratic hands (Greenwire, Feb. 2).
As a result, this week's hearings could sound more like a policy debate than a serious negotiation over spending.
Jewell will tout the administration's proposal that Congress provide $900 million -- $400 million in discretionary and $500 million in mandatory funding -- for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the maximum allowed by law. The fund, which is used to acquire new federal lands, preserve private lands, and support urban parks and trails, is currently funded at just over $300 million in discretionary dollars and has rarely been funded at even half of its authorized amount.
Murkowski, who holds the agency's purse strings, is a top critic of using LWCF funds for land acquisitions. But it carries strong support from the panel's new ranking member, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), who has co-sponsored a bill to give it full, permanent funding.
Former Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and other lawmakers of both parties are exploring a deal to provide mandatory funding for LWCF -- getting it off the ebb and flow of the annual appropriations cycle -- while also providing mandatory funding for counties under Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) and Secure Rural Schools (SRS).
Jewell backs that idea, but it is unclear where Murkowski stands. Her support would be key.
PILT, which is managed by Interior, and SRS, which is managed by the Forest Service but is expired, could take prominence tomorrow, as both programs offer key funding to rural states represented by Western panel members, including Murkowski and Wyden and Republican Sens. John Barrasso of Wyoming, Jim Risch of Idaho, Jeff Flake of Arizona, Mike Lee of Utah, Cory Gardner of Colorado and Steve Daines of Montana.
PILT, which is being funded this year using mostly discretionary funding, is crucial to members on the House panel, too, including Republicans Mike Simpson of Idaho, Chris Stewart of Utah and Mark Amodei of Nevada.
Funding for the National Park Service could also be under the spotlight tomorrow as that agency approaches its centennial in 2016.
The administration requested $3 billion for NPS, a $433 increase over current funding levels and enough to hire 471 additional full-time employees. The budget requests $2.5 billion for park operations, a bump of $239 million above current levels.
It also requested $400 million in annual mandatory spending over the next three years to fund partnership and deferred maintenance projects, a proposal that failed to gain traction last fiscal year, despite the Park Service owning an $11.5 billion maintenance backlog.
An additional $179 million in mandatory funding would be made available from LWCF for land acquisitions and recreation grants.
"The centennial will celebrate not only the achievements of the past 100 years, but will also kick off a second century of stewardship and engagement for America's national parks and for communities across the nation," the Interior budget states.
The Park Service was one of the big winners when Congress last December passed its omnibus 2015 spending bill, which provided a $53 million funding boost that was about equal with the White House's fiscal 2015 request.
As with other Interior challenges, Murkowski's position on parks funding will be key. In the past, Murkowski has proposed looking into non-federal funding sources and urged a halt to Park Service spending for land acquisitions.
Jewell, who is a former board member for the National Parks Conservation Association, supports philanthropy and corporate spending in parks but has said core funding must come from Congress.
In recent months, both Murkowski and Gardner have probed the Park Service's policy for issuing concessions contracts at major parks including the Grand Canyon.
The Park Service recently transferred $50 million from the franchise fees of 88 other parks to help pay down investments that its main Grand Canyon concessionaire, Xanterra Parks & Resorts Inc., has invested over the past century. The move was aimed at increasing competition for more than $1 billion worth of concessions contracts at the park, but Murkowski warned it could harm the parks that lent the money (Greenwire, Feb. 11).
Schedule: The Senate ENR Committee hearing is tomorrow, Feb. 24, at 10 a.m. in 366 Dirksen.
Witness: Jewell.
Schedule: The House Appropriations subcommittee hearing is Wednesday, Feb. 25, at 1 p.m. in B-308 Rayburn.
Witness: Jewell.
-
FERC Final Environmental Impact Statement OKs Excelerate's Proposed Offshore LNG Plan
Feb 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff concluded in an environmental impact statement released Feb. 20 that the approval of the Aguirre Offshore Gas Port project off of Puerto Rico, with recommended mitigation measures, would result in limited adverse environmental effects.
The environmental impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with the implementation of Aguirre's proposed minimization and mitigation measures and the additional 71 measures recommended by the FERC staff in the impact statement, the commission said in a statement.
FERC staff recommended an alternative construction method or alternative pipeline route that does not cross the Boca Del Infierno pass via a direct lay. This would reduce the effects on federally endangered corals and other sensitive deep oceanic species to an acceptable level, the report said.
The project, proposed by Aguirre Offshore GasPort LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Excelerate Energy LP, includes the construction and operation of an offshore marine liquefied natural gas receiving facility three miles off of the southern coast of Puerto Rico and a four-mile-long subsea pipeline connecting the facility to the Aguirre Power Complex in Salinas, Puerto Rico.
Staff Explains Its Conclusion
The FERC staff outlined why it believes its proposed mitigation measures would take the project from one that has moderate adverse effects to less-than-significant impacts.
The staff would complete Endangered Species Act consultations with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Marine Fisheries Service. FERC staff would complete any appropriate compliance actions resulting from these consultations before allowing construction to begin.
The project would comply with federal laws including the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Clean Air Act before any authorization to approve construction. Aguirre LLC would implement resource or activity-specific plans, procedures and agreements to protect natural resources, avoid or limit environmental impacts, and promote restoration of all disturbed areas during construction and operation of the project.
Finally, an environmental inspection program would be implemented to ensure compliance with all mitigation measures that become conditions of the FERC authorization and other stipulations included in permits from other authorizing federal, state and local agencies, FERC said.
Facility Needed to Meet EPA Standards
The project is being developed in cooperation with the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority. It would facilitate the authority's conversion of the Aguirre plant from fuel oil only to a dual-fuel generation facility and allow the plant to meet the requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency's mercury and air toxics standards, FERC said in the assessment.
A floating storage and regasification unit would be moored at the offshore facility on a semi-permanent basis, FERC said. Ships would dock at the facility and deliver LNG to the regasification unit. Both the ships and the regasification unit would be under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Coast Guard, FERC said.
The FERC commissioners will take the staff's recommendations into consideration when making a decision on the project. No date has been announced for when the commissioners will make a decision, Mary O'Driscoll, a FERC spokeswoman, told Bloomberg BNA.
-
Seven Governors Set Legislative Strategy For Revenue Sharing From Offshore Energy
Feb 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
Seven coastal governors agreed Feb. 20 to push Congress for a bill to set a multi-state strategy for revenue sharing from federal offshore energy development, North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory (R) said after the governors' meeting.
The agreement was reached with the support of a group of House and Senate staff as well as the seven members of the Outer Continental Shelf Governors Coalition, McCrory said. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the Senate majority leader, also is supportive of the coalition's efforts, McCrory said.
The coalition met Feb. 20 during the National Governors Association meeting in Washington, D.C. The coalition was created as a forum for state-federal discussion of OCS energy resource planning and development.
The governors have not yet settled on a model for the sharing of federal revenues with states—whether it should follow the established pattern of the Gulf Coast region or another approach, he said.
“Right now we've got all these different bills on revenue sharing, and we would like to consolidate those into one bill,” McCrory said, referring to separate bills in Congress for Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina.
Another piece of legislation, introduced by Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) and co-sponsored by Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), would have set one level of revenue sharing for Gulf Coast states, another level for Alaska, and another level for Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina. It was offered in January as an amendment to S. 1, a bill to approve the Keystone XL pipeline.
The governors would prefer to see either one system of sharing revenues or at least regional approaches rather than state-by-state approaches, he said.
Economic Benefits Wanted
McCrory expressed no reluctance to see offshore oil and gas development near his state, despite the importance of coastal tourism and fishing to North Carolina.
He spoke of jobs and economic benefits and even said it might be necessary to allow drilling and production a little closer to the coast than what was recently proposed by the Interior Department in a draft leasing plan for the years 2017-2012 (18 DEN A-1, 1/28/15).
Interior's draft plan included a 50-mile coastal buffer within which no oil or gas wells would be allowed. McCrory said there might need to be adjustments—a buffer of maybe 40 or 45 miles—if oil or gas fields are found closer to the coast.
The use of energy revenues for coastal community benefits might help reduce concerns about offshore industrial development, McCrory indicated. He mentioned harbor dredging and beach re-nourishment as prime examples of activities that could benefit from revenue sharing.
“The federal government's dredging funds are quite limited for smaller ports like we have in Morehead City and Wilmington,” McCrory said, referring to two North Carolina port towns. He added that beach re-nourishment is important to tourism.
Looking Decade Ahead
McCrory said the governors are thinking in terms of about 10 years of planning and preparations, including legislation, seismic surveys and infrastructure development, before the start of Atlantic Ocean offshore oil and gas production.
Along with McCrory, the OCS governors group includes Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) and five other Republicans—Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Maine Gov. Paul LePage, Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley.
State governments typically control offshore waters as far as three miles out, beyond which the outer continental shelf is under federal control.
-
Better Seismic Networks Can Avert Quakes Caused by Wastewater Injection, USGS Finds
Feb 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Earthquakes caused by the injection of wastewater from oil and gas production can be reduced through improved seismic networks and better public access to fluid injection data, a new U.S. Geological Survey paper found.
Improved seismic networks are defined as being more capable of detecting small earthquakes, those registering lower than 3.0 on the Richter scale, than the current system, Art McGarr, USGS geophysicist and lead author of the study, told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 20.
Such networks would allow the USGS and various state geological survey agencies to “detect induced earthquake problems at an early stage, when seismic events are typically very small, so as to avoid larger and potentially more damaging earthquakes later on,” he said.
Increased Seismic Activity
Injection of wastewater from oil and gas activities deep underground has been associated with increased seismicity in states with a high amount of energy production activities, including Arkansas, Colorado, Ohio, Oklahoma and Texas, McGarr said. Some of the earthquakes are large enough to be felt by people, typically those of 3.0 magnitude or greater, he said (148 DEN BB-1, 8/1/14).
The USGS study, published Feb. 19 in the journal Science, said deep wastewater injection is “the primary cause of the dramatic rise in detected earthquakes and the corresponding increase in seismic hazard in the central U.S.”
“The rise in seismic activity, especially in the central United States, is not the result of natural processes,” the USGS added.
The paper resulted from a series of workshops led by USGS scientists in collaboration with the University of Colorado, the Oklahoma Geological Survey and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
‘Motivate Cooperation.’
One aim of the study was to “motivate more cooperation” among the oil and gas industry, government agencies, the earth science community and the public-at-large for the common purpose of reducing injection-induced earthquakes, William Ellsworth, USGS geophysicist and co-author of the paper, said.
The survey said it is collaborating with stakeholders to develop a hazard model for induced earthquakes that can be updated frequently in response to changing trends in energy production.
“It is important that all information of this sort be publicly accessible, because only in this way can it be used to provide the timely guidance needed to reduce the hazard and consequences of induced earthquakes,” said Barbara Bekins, USGS hydrologist and co-author of the paper.
-
Murkowski Looks for Wins on Energy, Not Just Anger
Feb 20, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode
Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s green folder had one word written on it: “War.”
She wielded it at the press conference last month as she ripped into the Obama administration for its latest transgression against Alaska: seeking to close off large swathes of land and sea to prevent oil exploration.
But for the senior Alaska senator, who may face reelection challenges from the right and the left in 2016, racking up some major political victories for her state may be more important than channeling the anger of the state that’s often complained about Washington’s interference in governing its natural resources.
With oil prices at about half last year’s level and the state’s crude production continuing its steady decline, pressure is mounting. And Interior may be on the verge in the coming days of releasing its first-ever draft standards for Arctic oil and gas drilling.
Her criticism of the administration needs to be “constructive, directed anger,” she told POLITICO. “Not bombastic tone and approach that doesn’t gain results. And so this is where I’ve gotta use every tool, every skill set that I have to convey the extent of the problems that we’re up against and try to affect change.”
“We’ve never been in a situation where so much has been taken away so quickly,” Murkowski said.
With her new power leading the panels that have direct oversight of Interior and EPA policies and spending, she may need to score some clear wins for her state’s energy-reliant economy to show that she can produce results in pushing back Washington’s policies.
“She’s got no excuse; she’s got no place to run,” one oil industry official said. “How does she respond to this? And the real power isn’t the authorizing side; it’s the appropriations side. How does she bend them to her will?”
The Republican takeover of the Senate gave Murkowski the gavel of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, but if she fails to deliver results, she could provide fodder for potential 2016 opponents, including former Democratic Sen. Mark Begich.
“She made it a big deal that this is the holy grail for Alaskans,” Begich told POLITICO. “People are anxious to hear some results.”
Murkowski is promising to try to open new areas for oil and gas exploration, buttress the power grid, implement new energy efficiency policies and make federal energy and lands agencies accountable for their spending and programs.
But her real influence may be in her chairing of the subcommittee that oversees Interior and EPA spending, and she has threatened to use that power to get results.
“I have the benefit of seniority to get the attention of agencies and individuals,” Murkowski said. “So it’s gonna be a very broad concerted effort to shine a light and make a change. And so I’m going to take every opportunity that I have to not only create the awareness and understanding but to generate action.”
Several Alaskan political observers said Murkowski would do well in continuing to bang the table against the administration’s energy policies, in part, to distract from the jabs she gets from conservatives over her stances on issues like abortion and gay rights.
“If there’s one thing that Alaskans as a whole want from their congressional delegation more than anything else is … just the concept of standing up for Alaska,” Ivan Moore, Alaska-based pollster, said. “Sticking it to the feds. Defending Alaska’s sovereignty. And if they bloviate and puff their chests out and make like they’re doing that, there don’t even need to be results, and they’ll be viewed as doing their job.”
“If you’ve a problem at home, declare war on your neighbor, and that rallies your troops,” Alaska GOP consultant Marc Hellenthal said. “You don’t have to win.”
Murkowski could also face a reelection challenge again from tea party favorite Joe Miller, who beat her in a 2010 primary that was followed by her unprecedented win in the general election as a write-in candidate.
Begich, who was spurned by Murkowski last year when he ran a campaign ad noting they were a “great team” with similar voting records, is already slinging bullets at her and the broader GOP congressional delegation for walking away from potential compromises.
“It makes good political fodder complaining about a Democratic administration and you don’t have to do anything about it,” Begich said. “I understand the politics of this. The politics back home in Alaska is yell about ANWR and you score brownie points.”
“[But] if you walk from the table, then you create friction between the two groups and you get no result,” he said. “I’m mad about what they are doing but you’ve got to figure out how to crack this open, and you don’t do it by not talking to people.”
Murkowski insisted she hasn’t walked away.
“I am negotiating, I am engaging, I am dialoguing with the wall here if I need to,” Murkowski said. “We are not shutting the door and saying I’m not going to talk to you anymore. That’s counterproductive. But what we are saying is we are making sure that everything is pursued. And that means being pretty direct and pretty in your face.”
She had a 40-minute meeting with Secretary of State John Kerry on Arctic issues and talked privately with Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz ahead of a hearing in her panel on the Energy Department’s budget request last week. And she and Interior Secretary Sally Jewell participated Tuesday in a larger gathering of Alaska officials.
Jewell told to reporters in Alaska Tuesday that she met with members of the state’s legislature during her two days there this week and shared “some thoughts about how we can have a more constructive and productive relationship” between the federal government and the state than had been the case over the past decade.
But she didn’t meet privately with Murkowski, whose relationship with Jewell has been strained. Jewell is scheduled to testify before the Senate energy panel on Interior’s budget request next week.
The first dispute between the two came when Jewell dismissed Murkowski’s personal pleas and rejected plans to build a road through Izembek National Wildlife Refuge that Murkowski argued was crucial to linking a remote community with an all-weather airport and hospital. Murkowski called the rejection “callous and cold-hearted” at the time.
“When I talk hard and direct to the secretary of Interior, she knows I mean it,” Murkowski said last week. “But she also knows we both know that there are other issues that we need to work with one another on.”
Despite the string of losses with Interior, Murkowski remains one of the state’s most popular public officials. She had an approval rating of 53 percent versus a 25 percent disapproval rating, according to Moore’s statewide survey of registered voters in December. Her approval has stayed at or above that level for several years, aside from a brief drop below 50 percent when she strongly backed Sullivan’s bid against Begich.
Murkowski is “in and of herself not vulnerable,” Moore said. “But obviously, the big question mark is what Begich is going to do. There’s no person in the state that can run a credible challenge against Lisa but Begich.”
Hellenthal said he doubted Begich could beat Murkowski one on one, but she is more vulnerable in a Republican primary.
And Begich could dissuade independent and liberal-leaning voters from supporting her in a challenge from a more conservative candidate who Begich could match up against better in a general election. Alaska allows the undeclared and independent voters who dominate the state’s voting rolls to participate in party-specific primaries.
Begich, who lost by about 7,700 votes to Sullivan, isn’t ruling anything out.
“I have served 22 years in public service office elected office and I think it’s an incredible opportunity and something I’d enjoy doing in the future,” he said.
And Miller, who just launched his own radio show last week, is showing some early signs of running.
“I know the guy who owns the radio station and he‘s not going to pay a huge amount of money,” Moore said. “And so if Joe Miller has taken on a show and is not being paid much for it, he’s doing it for a reason.”
Murkowski said the potential challenge doesn’t influence what she’s doing.
“It doesn’t change the dynamic because in my view in my world the fear or the concern of a challenge from the right has always been there,” she said. “The only thing that changes the dynamic is in 2010, I learned there that these campaigns are all hard, so the best way to get ready for a campaign is to always be who you are.”
“Remember ‘I yam who I yam?’” she said, reciting Popeye’s famous slogan. “Well I yam who I yam.”
-
House Panels, Moniz Set to Spar Over Energy Budget
Feb 23, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Daniel Bush
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz will head back to Capitol Hill this week to promote President Obama's fiscal 2016 Department of Energy budget request in a series of hearings with House lawmakers.
Moniz will appear before the House Science, Space and Technology Committee on Wednesday and the House Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee on Thursday.
The appearances come after Moniz spent back-to-back days on the Hill earlier this month defending the administration's energy spending plan before separate panels in the House and Senate.
Under DOE's proposed spending plan, clean energy technology programs would receive $7.4 billion in fiscal 2016, a 7 percent increase from last year's White House request.
The Obama administration also requested $10.7 billion for DOE's energy and science programs, a 5 percent increase from fiscal 2015 spending levels, and $1.9 billion in mandatory spending on 29 manufacturing innovation hubs, part of DOE's National Network for Manufacturing Innovation initiative.
Overall, the agency's proposed $30 billion spending plan represents a 5 percent increase over the amount Congress appropriated for fiscal 2015 at the end of last year.
Moniz has touted the administration's commitment to an "all of the above" energy strategy that includes funding for fossil fuel research and development, but as the budget-writing process gets underway, the spending plan has run into opposition from GOP lawmakers who claim it favors renewable energy over oil and gas.
"I worry that it's all of the above in words but not necessarily in practice," Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) told Moniz at a hearing earlier this month.
In the House, GOP lawmakers have used the proposed energy budget to attack U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan and Obama's broader energy and climate change policy.
House Science, Space and Technology Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), an outspoken critic of policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, is expected to use the committee's hearing to highlight his opposition to the power plant rules and support for fossil fuel projects like the Keystone XL pipeline.
In a Feb. 13 letter to EPA, Smith questioned a recent EPA analysis that concluded KXL could lead to an increase in carbon pollution. The EPA report "appears to be an attempt to provide cover for the President's continuing opposition to the Keystone XL project," Smith wrote in the letter.
Obama has vowed to veto legislation approving KXL that could wind up on his desk early this week.
But before House appropriators can begin crafting spending bills on energy and other issues, they must first address a looming deadline to fund the Department of Homeland Security. Congress must act before Friday to avoid a DHS shutdown.
Schedule: The House Science, Space and Technology Committee hearing is Wednesday, Feb. 25, at 10 a.m. in 2318 Rayburn.
Witness: Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz.
Schedule: The House Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee hearing is Thursday, Feb. 26, at 9:30 a.m. in 2359 Rayburn.
Witness: Moniz.
-
McCarthy Girds for Pair of House Hearings This Week
Feb 23, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Jean Chemnick
U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy will visit the House twice this week to defend her agency's priorities for fiscal 2016, including its efforts to address climate change.
The EPA chief will face two Energy and Commerce Committee subpanels at a joint hearing Wednesday, where everything from the Clean Power Plan to the Waters of the U.S. rule is likely to be on the agenda.
Then on Thursday, McCarthy will answer questions on her agency's $8.6 billion budget request before the House Appropriations subcommittee responsible for EPA's budget.
Both hearings are likely to be rife with discord. The Energy and Power and Environment and the Economy subcommittees have both produced bills in past years aimed at slashing EPA's regulatory authorities -- and are likely to do so again.
A bill by Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) that cleared the House last year would have killed EPA's carbon emission proposal for existing power plants. And Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), chairman of the Environment and the Economy Subcommittee, has said he will back a proposal in the near future to replace EPA's new standard for coal combustion waste.
While Whitfield has said he plans another shot at EPA's flagship CO2 rule for the power sector, he hopes to make even more fundamental changes to the agency's authority. He's in communication with Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) ahead of crafting bicameral legislation that would revise how the Clean Air Act directs EPA to weigh cost in its rulemakings. Whitfield said recently that he and his staff are having meetings with the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee chairman and his aides, and a bill is likely next year.
"There definitely will be close coordination," he said earlier this month. "Because, you know, with the new coal rules, the existing coal rules, the ozone rules, the methane, all that, it's just going to have such a tremendous impact on the country. There has to be close coordination."
The Interior and Environment Appropriations subpanel is likely to have some pointed questions, as well -- especially about the administration's proposal to spend $4 billion encouraging states to cut their power-sector greenhouse gas emissions even more quickly than required under the Clean Power Plan (Greenwire, Feb. 2). The fiscal 2016 budget blueprint also calls for $452 million above what the agency was provided last year, spending more on everything from the Superfund brownfields program to climate and air quality grants to states. But these proposals are likely to be hard to sell to majority Republicans.
McCarthy told reporters last month at a roundtable at EPA headquarters that she was prepared to make her agency's case in repeated trips to Capitol Hill this year.
"I'll be honored to defend the work that we do," she said. She said she expected Congress to try to curb EPA's activities but was confident President Obama would defend them.
In an brief interview last week, former White House climate adviser Heather Zichal said she expected Obama to "go to the mat" on the Clean Air Act rules in the same way he did when he vowed to veto legislation that would approve the Keystone XL pipeline.
Schedule: The House Energy and Commerce joint subcommittee hearing is Wednesday, Feb. 25, at 10 a.m. in 2123 Rayburn.
Witness: EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy.
Schedule: The House Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee hearing is Thursday, Feb. 26, at 1 p.m. in B-308 Rayburn.
Witness: McCarthy.
-
Comment Period for NEPA Guidance Extended
Feb 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The White House Council on Environmental Quality is extending until March 25 comments on draft guidance directing federal agencies to consider the climate change implications of projects under review, according to a notice to be published in the Federal Register Feb. 23. The comment period originally closed Feb. 23. The draft guidance would direct federal agencies to consider the climate impact of any action that would increase greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide annually as part of National Environmental Policy Act reviews. The draft guidance said evaluations of climate change impacts with less than 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent annually don't warrant evaluation unless the analysis is easily accomplished. Additionally, the draft guidance would direct federal agencies to focus on climate-resilient alternatives when evaluating projects. The Council on Environmental Quality's notice is available at https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2015-03606.pdf.
-
Feb 20, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Erica Martinson
Gina McCarthy may be at the front line of the bitter climate change battle between President Barack Obama and Republicans, but that’s not how she sees it.
As the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, she’s the face of Obama’s plan that will, for the first time in U.S. history, regulate the amount of carbon dioxide released by the nation’s fleet of power plants as part of the strategy to shrink the pollution that scientists blame for global warming.
This summer, the EPA will issue its rule forcing each state to design plans to cut their utilities’ carbon emissions — requirements that officials in many coal-dependent states say could threaten their power grids and Republicans warn will destroy the economy, but which advocates say are crucial to begin to slow global warming.
“I know that I’m a political appointee, but I feel so strongly that the work that I do is not political,” she told POLITICO during a recent interview from her office.
The plan has ignited controversy for bypassing Congress and made her agency a target for Hill Republicans, who contend the Obama administration is pursuing a radical green agenda, and they have vowed to strip the funding for EPA’s efforts.
And with this month’s departure of Obama adviser John Podesta — considered by many to be the biggest climate hawk in the White House — the onus falls squarely on McCarthy to bring the transformational regulations across the finish line, a task that will test the 60-year-old cabinet member’s nearly three decades of experience in forging environmental rules.
In the meantime, she’s drawn a backlash from more than a dozen states, anger from the entrenched power sector and protests from the Republicans who control Congress — challenges not unlike the ones that former HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius faced when rolling out Obamacare, another White House policy that threatened to upend a major slice of the U.S. economy.
Nevertheless, even many of her opponents agree that McCarthy is particularly well-suited for the job. She’s no wallflower and often pulls laughs out of even the most antagonistic crowds. Her history working for Republican governors like Mitt Romney and her straight-talking demeanor create an easy rapport with some of EPA’s detractors, and her affinity for the details of regulatory policy can keep her grounded in the practical rather than the political issues.
Unlike Sebelius, the former governor of Kansas who was chased out of her HHS position after the disastrous early rollout of the Affordable Care Act, McCarthy’s policy wonk credentials were earned at state environmental agencies in Connecticut and her home state of Massachusetts before she came to Washington.
“I’m not somebody who wasn’t in the field before they took a position like this,” she said. “So I think I’m challenging to work for, because I make sure that everybody knows it as well as I know it, and I try to know it as well as the level below me knows it.”
Obama unveiled his Climate Action Plan in 2013 after telling Congress in his State of the Union address that if lawmakers wouldn’t address climate change, the administration would act on its own.
That main component of Obama’s push is the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, a set of regulations built off the Clean Air Act that will drive the biggest change in the nation’s power supply since Washington moved to end the utility industry’s dependence on oil in the 1970s.
EPA’s regulatory efforts also provide leverage for the administration in its diplomatic efforts to reach an international pact at the Paris climate change summit late this year, showing that the U.S. is willing to take the same type of action at home that it’s seeking from other nations.
Opponents have ripped into EPA’s plans, warning the power plant regulations would kill the coal industry, drive electricity prices up and put the power grid at risk of failing as the rules forced power plants offline. They warn that the agency is trying to do too much too fast, and the unintended consequences could be costly and long-lasting.
Still, critics refrain from criticizing McCarthy. She wins praise from even EPA’s staunchest opponents, including lawmakers from coal-heavy states, such as Kentucky Rep. Ed Whitfield, who said he’s got great respect for her.
“However, I completely disagree with her and this administration on their climate agenda and will continue to do everything I can to overturn these policies,” the House Energy and Power Subcommittee chairman said.
Other powerful agency opponents include Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who made support of coal and attacking the EPA a centerpiece of his reelection campaign in Kentucky last year, as well as Louisiana Sen. David Vitter, who has regularly targeted the agency and has accused it of collaborating with green groups to create overreaching policies.
And Sen. Jim Inhofe, (R-Okla.), who now heads the Environment and Public Works committee, has long butted heads with EPA. He’s accused the agency’s “unelected bureaucrats” of making “unreasonable assumptions” about the state of climate change science. He’s decried the Clean Power Plan, saying recently it would “cost billions; it will increase our energy bills… [and] it still is not going to reduce the CO2 emissions world wide.”
The Senate leaders have made it clear that they intend to go after the EPA in appropriations later in the year. They’ll hold votes trying to repeal the regulations once they are final, and there will be a barrage of bill amendments that aim for the proposals to suffer a death by a thousand cuts.
In the House, Rep. Lamar Smith, the Science Committee chairman, has led much of the opposition to EPA, contending the agency hasn’t been open with its scientific data.
The final power plant regulations EPA will release this summer will generally leave it up to states to decide how to meet individual CO2 reduction targets set by the agency. The plans are varied, and some of the proposed targets are likely to change in the final rule. And just this week, McCarthy hinted to utility commissioners that the agency is seriously reconsidering what cuts it will require by 2020. Many states have said EPA is asking for too much, too soon.
It’s a complex undertaking, one that requires the agency McCarthy leads to get the technical details just right and avoid any legal mishaps, all while conducting a difficult behind-the-scenes effort to apply political pressure to reluctant state governments.
It’s a tall order for the hard-charging McCarthy, whose accent is a quick tip-off that she hails from south Boston. Her husband and three grown children still reside there, as does her dog Emma, and she often breaks out of the Beltway for weekends at home, where she loves bike rides around her Jamaica Plain neighborhood.
McCarthy came to EPA during Obama’s first term to head the air office under the previous EPA chief Lisa Jackson before undergoing a grueling confirmation fight to join the cabinet. Prior to that, she worked under then-Gov. Mitt Romney in her native Massachusetts before heading up Connecticut’s environmental agency.
“There’s really only once place to get any kind of real experience for running EPA,” and that’s by directing a state environmental agency, said Carol Browner, a Clinton administration EPA Administrator and former Obama climate adviser.
McCarthy agrees her background is a major asset in running the agency that’s not only responsible for the carbon rules, but is developing proposals to cut ozone pollution, reduce methane leaks from oil and gas wells and expand EPA’s reach over new waterways and wetlands.
She’s steeped in the technical details and legal mechanisms of the carbon cutting plan that would require states to lower the emissions from their existing power plants and force any new coal-fired power plants to use costly and still largely unproven carbon capture technology.
But she sees her role as turning the goals of the Obama administration into a workable policy more than directing her team on how to navigate the precedents of the existing law.
“I tend not to read the rule language because I rely on the lawyers to make sure where commas go, but I really like reading the preamble because I think it’s important for us to speak to everyday people about what it means, what the law tells us to do, what the science is that we understand it, and how to apply it, and what that means to them,” McCarthy said. “I think it’s enormously important.”
She may be more policy wonk than politician, but McCarthy’s begun playing a more visible public role to try to to help sell Obama’s environmental initiatives.
In the last month, she’s talked climate change with X Games snow boarders in Aspen, delivered a speech about the threats posed by pollution at a World Health Organization meeting in Geneva and met with Pope Francis’s top advisers at the Vatican.
Complicating her task is the departure of Podesta, who exited the White House this month to join Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
Podesta was widely viewed as a key strategist at the White House, keeping the issue at the forefront of Obama’s agenda and steering the release of the proposed rules last year. But it’s McCarthy and the EPA who must draft the regulations to fulfill the policies and implement the rules that will require each state to submit a plan to meet their carbon goals.
“And that’s a tremendous amount of work, and she’s a great leader and she’s got a great team working for her,” Podesta told POLITICO before he left the White House.
“I think what has made this effort successful to date, and obviously there’s a ways to go, is that she’s a great listener, and [has] been all over the country talking to stakeholders, from governors to utilities to environmentalists to state regulators, and she incorporates that ability to listen into kind of practical solutions,” he said.
White House officials say they are in regular contact with the EPA administrator, although turnover in the West Wing has increased. In addition to Podesta’s departure, acting head of the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality Michael Boots is leaving after holding the position for the year since Nancy Sutley left the job.
“We’ve got EPA’s back here at the White House,” said Dan Utech, a White House energy and climate adviser. Still, while it was Obama who directed EPA to cut carbon emissions from power plants, EPA is “driving the program in terms of the details,” he added.
So far, thirteen states have joined in a lawsuit filed by Ohio coal producer Murray Energy to challenge EPA’s carbon rulemaking in a state-federal battle that’s not unlike the disputes around Obamacare.
But there are some crucial differences between the healthcare law and the climate change initiative, which could benefit the EPA in the end.
For one, “the Affordable Care Act was a new law,” said Browner, and the Clean Air Act is not.
EPA has been implementing the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments for 25 years, and there’s a long list of court decisions that has come to guide the agency, Browner said.
In fact, the Supreme Court has already issued several rulings in recent years that support EPA’s power to regulate greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, and specifically to do so for power plants.
But it won’t be easy to force some states to do what they don’t want to do. EPA has taken over in the past when states balked at its pollution efforts, but never a program so complicated, and individually tailored to states’ widely-varied situations.
For Obama, who sees addressing the threats of climate change as a legacy issue, McCarthy is his closer. She’s tasked with bringing the federal government’s efforts to curb climate-changing pollution over the finish line, and making sure it lasts into the future.
“I think we are now in a plan that’s very mature, and that we are months away from delivering some of the major pieces,” McCarthy said. EPA is due to release a trio of final greenhouse gas regulations — for existing, modified and future power plants — mid-summer. “So I’m incredibly confident.”
But with Republicans in Congress preparing to put EPA and its regulations under the microscope in the coming months, potentially using their control over funding for the agency to fight the rules the political battle over the climate change policy is only beginning. And that’s certain to put an even brighter spotlight on McCarthy.
“You know, I learned a long time ago not to take these things personally,” she said, asserting that she wasn’t surprised by partisan battles. “I’ve been on the Hill a lot and as long as I get treated with respect, I don’t mind differing opinions, and I will always treat everybody else with respect.”
And while criticism on the Hill about Obama administration officials can veer into personality complaints, that’s not the case with McCarthy.
“I was on a plane recently with half a dozen or so House representatives,” some in leadership, Browner remarked. “And they all without solicitation commented on how much they liked her. I think being liked is important” for dealing with Congress, Browner said.
“She’s so down to earth. She’s just very reasonable.”
-
EPA Has Tools to Resolve Conflicting Clean Air Act Amendments, Professors Tell Court
Feb 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Conflicting amendments to Clean Air Act Section 111(d) present an unprecedented ambiguity, but the conflict can be resolved using existing statutory interpretation methods, law professors told a federal appellate court (In re Murray Energy Corp., D.C. Cir., No. 14-1112, amicus brief filed, 2/19/15; Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 14-1151, amicus brief filed, 2/19/15).
The Environmental Protection Agency is due deference by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to interpret ambiguous statutory language as it proposes the first carbon dioxide emissions limits for existing power plants, the law professors, who are represented by Katherine E. Konschnik from the Harvard Environmental Policy Initiative, said in a Feb. 19 amicus brief.
“To be sure, neither the Supreme Court nor this court may have faced previously this type of ambiguity. But the Supreme Court has consistently rejected attempts to create analogous exceptions to Chevron's reach,” they said. “For instance, a majority of the justices would apply Chevron when the ambiguity results from congressional enactment of apparently conflicting statutory language.”
The U.S. Supreme Court's 1984 decision in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC established a two-part test for review of agency actions. Under Chevron, a court first must decide whether the plain text of the law is clear. If the law is ambiguous, then the court must decide whether the agency's interpretation of the law is permissible.
Coal companies challenging the EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan have not demonstrated that the EPA's interpretation of its Section 111(d) authority is unreasonable, the professors said.
“Where, as here, petitioner rests its claim for relief on the statutory language of the act, petitioner must demonstrate that the plain meaning of the relevant provision indisputably supports its claim. Petitioner fails to meet this burden,” they said.
Murray Energy Corp. is asking the court to issue an extraordinary writ to block the EPA from issuing its proposed Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33), which would establish unique carbon dioxide emissions rates for the power sector in each state. The company argues the proposal violates the plain text of the Clean Air Act.
When the Clean Air Act was amended in 1990, the House and Senate approved conflicting amendments to Section 111(d). The Senate amendment would bar the EPA from regulating pollutants under Section 111(d) if they already subject to hazardous air pollutant standards under Section 112. The House amendment can be read as barring the agency from regulating industrial sources under Section 111(d) if they are subject to standards under Section 112. Both provisions were included in the final bill.
Power plants are already regulated under Section 112.
‘Plain Meaning' Disputed
The fact that the Senate language would allow the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants under Section 111(d) and hazardous air pollutants under Section 112 undercuts Murray Energy's argument that the proposed Clean Power Plan violates the plain text of the Clean Air Act, the professors said. Even though the Senate amendment is listed as a conforming amendment, its requirements cannot be read out of the Clean Air Act, the professors said.
Likewise, the professors disputed Murray Energy's argument that the House amendment, taken literally, bars the EPA from regulating power plants under both Sections 111(d) and 112.
“First, its reading would nullify the Senate amendment, which clearly requires section 111(d) to address those pollutants not covered by section 112 and section 108 of the act,” the professors said. “That conflict suggests sufficient ambiguity to defeat petitioner's claim of plain meaning.”
The EPA has argued that Murray Energy, a coal company, would not be directly affected by the rule and therefore lacks standing to bring its lawsuit (31 DEN A-1, 2/17/15).
-
The Brattle Group Challenges NERC's Clean Power Plan Reliability Analysis
Feb 23, 2015 | E&E Daily News
Last week, the Brattle Group released a report challenging the assertions made by the North American Electric Reliability Corp. last fall on the impacts of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan on reliability. During today's OnPoint, from the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners winter meeting, Jurgen Weiss, senior researcher at the Brattle Group, discusses the report, which was presented to regulators at the conference. He explains how states can use available tools to help ensure reliability as they structure their power plan compliance mechanisms. Today's OnPoint will air at 10 a.m. EST.
-
Canada to Overhaul Safety Rules for Crude Shipments by Train, Create Disaster Fund
Feb 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Josh Wingrove and Frederic Tomesco
The Canadian government is overhauling its safety rules for crude oil shipments by train, creating a disaster fund and forcing railways to carry more insurance.
Oil companies will pay into the fund, which will be used when a railway's insurance can't cover the liabilities in an accident, according to the Safe and Accountable Rail Act introduced in Parliament Feb. 20.
The move will add to the oil industry's costs and reduce competitiveness, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers said. The industry group was told payments from oil shippers would be capped once the fund reaches a certain size, Greg Stringham, a vice president at CAPP, said in a phone interview from Calgary.
“At this time of lower oil prices, it does provide an additional cost that is going to be somewhat impacting on the competitiveness,” Stringham said. “We knew it was coming.”
The minimum insurance railways must carry will range from C$25 million ($20 million) to C$1 billion, according to the bill. Transport Minister Lisa Raitt said the introduction of the new rules would be staggered over two years.
“This action today will protect Canadian communities,” Raitt told reporters in Ottawa.
Lac-Megantic Disaster
The legislation comes as regulators across North America seek to improve rail safety rules following the 2013 derailment in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, that killed 47 people. Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway Ltd., the railway involved in that crash, later filed for bankruptcy. At the time of the derailment its insurance wasn't enough to cover the multimillion-dollar costs of evacuation, fire suppression, cleanup, injury and property damage.
“Everything that we've announced today has been in reaction to what happened in Lac-Megantic,” Raitt said. “You don't see something like that and talk to the people without realizing that you want to do something to do things better.”
The levies on shippers of crude oil will be calculated based on how many metric tons are shipped, the bill said. The levy is set in the bill at C$1.65 a ton for the first year and is tied thereafter to the Consumer Price Index.
The levy would be from 21–24 cents per barrel, depending on the type of crude being shipped, according to Jackie Forrest, vice president at ARC Financial Corp. in Calgary.
Emergency Response
CAPP has been working with the federal government to provide input on issues like emergency response and equipment standards for oil transport by rail, Stringham said.
The bill also boosts the minister's oversight powers, such as forcing railways to correct their safety plans if necessary. It also will allow provinces or municipalities to apply to recover firefighting costs from railways in the event of a fire related to rail operations.
Mark Hallman, a spokesman for Canadian National Railway Co. in Toronto, said the company was reviewing the draft legislation and had no immediate comment. Martin Cej, a spokesman for Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd. in Calgary, didn't return calls seeking comment.
-
Feds Move to Beef Up Transit Safety Oversight
Feb 20, 2015 | The Hill
By Keith Laing
The Department of Transportation (DOT) is moving to boost safety on U.S. public transportation systems after recent deadly accidents on the Washington, D.C., Metrorail subway and New York Metro-North commuter rail systems.
Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said Friday that his agency is proposing new rules that would allow states to set up independent oversight agencies that would serve as watchdogs for local public transit systems.
Foxx said the changes would reassure passengers after the recent spate of fatal public transportation accidents.
"The fact remains that transit rail is still one of the safest ways to travel in the U.S, but at U.S. DOT we feel we have an obligation to make safer, not just for the Yellow line here in Washington, but for everywhere across the country," he said, referencing a fatal Jan. 12 Metro smoke incident.
The Metro accident was followed by a collision on the Metro-North commuter railway just outside of New York City that killed seven people.
The Transportation Department's proposal calls for strengthening State Safety Oversight Agencies that were established in the infrastructure funding bill that was approved by Congress in 2012. The DOT is calling for making them "financially and legally independent of the rail transit systems they oversee."
Acting Federal Transit Administration (FTA) chief Therese McMillan said the proposal would bring oversight of local public transit systems closer to where they are being operated.
“FTA appreciates the continued cooperation and engagement of our state and rail transit industry partners as we take this major step forward toward a new safety regulatory framework,” McMillan said. “We drafted the proposed rule to ensure it allows for the flexibility and scalability needed to provide effective safety benefits for passengers and employees of transit agencies of all sizes and operating environments.”
The proposal was announced by Foxx during a visit to Washington, D.C.'s Union Station, which is served by Amtrak, D.C. Metro and commuter rail trains.
-
Tough Reception Likely Awaits Proposed DOT Budget in House Subpanel
Feb 23, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sean Reilly
When Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx appeared last March before the House Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, the Highway Trust Fund was nearing a crisis and he was pitching a budget plan starkly at odds with statutory spending caps.
As Foxx returns this Thursday, cue the video replay.
The hearing on the Department of Transportation's fiscal 2016 budget request will be noteworthy for the twin debuts of Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) as the subcommittee's chairman and Rep. David Price (D-N.C.) as its ranking member.
Otherwise, the trust fund is again at risk of running short; rather than scaling back its spending ambitions, the White House has broadened them with a proposed $95 billion budget for the Transportation Department, or almost a third higher than this year's level. With Republicans having expanded their House majority in the November elections, however, the prospects for lifting the discretionary spending limits that date back to 2011 have likely grown even more remote.
The budget proposal is entwined with a six-year surface transportation reauthorization plan whose fate rests with other House and Senate committees. The appropriations subpanel's jurisdiction centers around the discretionary spending accounts, which this year add up to almost $18 billion.
Within that framework, the White House is again seeking to more than double the budget for the TIGER (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) grant program, which would soar from $500 million this year to $1.25 billion.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, one of the department's smallest branches, would receive almost $289 million, up 18 percent from this year. The increase would come on top of a 16 percent boost last year, and is partly intended to help the agency deal with the boom in crude-by-rail shipments and other "emerging threats," according to a DOT overview.
Amtrak's base budget would leap from $1.4 billion to $2.5 billion. For the Federal Transit Administration, the spending plan inserts $500 million for a new competitive grant program dubbed "Fixing and Accelerating Surface Transportation (FAST)," geared toward finding "innovative solutions" for congestion management and other pressing problems, the overview says.
Diaz-Balart was not on the subcommittee last year. Asked whether the seven-term lawmaker plans to raise any particular issues or questions, spokeswoman Katrina Valdes said in an email that he looks forward to Foxx's "testimony and justifications." Price will use his opening statement to stress the importance of confronting long-term infrastructure challenges, as well as making sure that DOT has the resources needed to confront new safety risks, such as those posed by crude-by-rail traffic and the spiraling popularity of aerial drones, according to his office.
Last year, the subcommittee gave short shrift to much of the administration's similarly generous request for 2015, producing a bill panned by the White House after it passed the full Appropriations Committee (E&E Daily, June 10, 2014). TIGER grants would have been slashed more than 80 percent to $100 million, while Amtrak funding would have dropped from $1.4 billion to $1.2 billion. Then-Chairman Tom Latham (R-Iowa) attributed some of the reductions to pressures imposed by the spending caps.
But after the Senate Appropriations Committee, then controlled by Democrats, objected, many of the proposed cuts were eliminated or softened in the catch-all spending bill ultimately enacted in December.
Schedule: The hearing of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies will be Thursday, Feb. 26, at 1 p.m. in 2358-A Rayburn.
Witness: Foxx.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested