Preview Newsletter
ACC AM Apr 1
-
(ACC Mentioned) Ban on Whole Class of Flame Retardants In Four Product Types Urged in CPSC Petition
Apr 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Martina Barash
An entire class of flame retardants is associated with serious health problems and should be banned for use in several categories of consumer products, a coalition of organizations told the Consumer Product Safety Commission in a petition March 31. The whole class must be banned to keep manufacture... -
(ACC Mentioned) State Bills Would Ban Microbeads in Personal Care Products
Apr 1, 2015 | Chemical Watch
At least four US states are considering legislation to ban the use of microbeads in cosmetics, and other personal care products. New Jersey enacted a law last week that will proscribe articles containing them. Microbeads are tiny bits of plastic, used as exfoliants in personal care items such as face wash, soap and toothpaste. -
(ACC Mentioned) Stop Playing 'Whack-A-Mole' With Toxic Flame Retardants, Health Advocates Urge
Mar 31, 2015 | The Huffington Post - Green Blog
By Lynne Peeples
As the public has learned of health risks tied to chemicals in everyday products, many companies have responded by eliminating, one by one, the suspected cancer causers, brain damagers and hormone disruptors. But even prompt action doesn't entirely appease some health experts, who warn of a problematic pattern. -
Formaldehyde Emissions Rule Expected By End of Year, EPA Tells Rep. Matsui
Apr 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A final rule establishing nationwide formaldehyde emissions limits for composite wood products is expected to be issued by the Environmental Protection Agency before the end of 2015. The EPA has received thousands of comments from diverse parties and is aware that the final rule could affect many companies, including small... -
Health Data on Workers Exposed to Asbestos Not Subject to FOIA, District Court Says
Apr 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Lung function and chest imaging data that the Beveridge & Diamond P.C. law firm sought to obtain through a Freedom of Information Act request didn't belong to the federal agency from which it was requested and therefore isn't subject to FOIA, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has ruled (Beveridge & Diamond P.C. v. HHS, 2015 BL... -
Boxer, Markey Ask States to Explain Schools' Asbestos Programs
Mar 31, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Sam Pearson
Two Senate Democrats want to find out how states are complying with a nearly 30-year-old law that was Congress' first attempt to set safety standards for asbestos in school buildings. Sens. Barbara Boxer of California and Ed Markey of Massachusetts sent letters today to 50 state governors asking for information on how their school systems... -
White House to Name Ehrlich Chairman To Lead CSB on Interim Basis, Sources Say
Apr 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Robert Iafolla
In an effort to bring stability to the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board following the recent resignation of its chairman, the White House is planning to name board member Manuel Ehrlich Jr. to the position of interim chairman. The White House is expected to install Ehrlich as interim chairman rather than allow the board to assign... -
(ACC Mentioned) The Shale Play Today - March 2015
Mar 31, 2015 | JD Supra Business Advisor
By Mark Clark , M. Katherine Crockett, & David Yaussy
In This Issue: - West Virginia Senate Bill 423 Amends Aboveground Storage Tank Act: Even before the June 6, 2014 effective date of the Aboveground Storage Tank Act (the "AST Act" or "Act"), W. Va. Code §§ 22-30-1 et seq., representatives of the industries most impacted by the expansive and detailed AST Act had been ... -
McCarthy Signs Proposed Rule for Oil, Gas Effluent Going to Treatment Plants
Apr 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy signed off March 31 on proposed federal technical standards for effluent sent to publicly owned water treatment plants from shale gas and shale oil wells and other unconventional oil and gas wells. The proposed pretreatment guidelines and standards (RIN 2040-AF35) are... -
Interior Official Emphasizes Pragmatism In Federal Support of Energy Production
Apr 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
Interior Department regulations are smoothing out the leasing of onshore oil and natural gas drilling sites and will be focused on pragmatic change when they next are applied to reducing the venting and flaring of gas, a federal official said March 31. Janice Schneider, Interior's assistant secretary for land and minerals management, said lease... -
Terms of Drilling Leases Not Extended By ‘Force Majeure’ Provisions, Court Says
Apr 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
New York's highest court ruled March 31 that the “force majeure” provisions in oil and gas leases don't extend the primary terms of the leases (Beardslee v. Inflection Energy LLC, 2015 BL 89442, N.Y., No. 44, 3/31/15). The New York Court of Appeals unanimously ruled in favor of landowners whose leases expired in 2012. Three energy companies... -
EPA Justifies Proposed Shale Gas ELG Due To Potential POTW Discharges
Mar 31, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA, in its just-released proposed first-time zero discharge effluent limitation guideline (ELG) for oil and natural gas wastewater, says the rule is necessary due to the potential that future shale facilities could send their wastewater to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), though the agency notes no such discharges are yet occurring. -
Shell One Step Closer to Arctic Offshore Drilling
Mar 31, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Federal officials reaffirmed Royal Dutch Shell’s 2008 offshore oil and gas lease north of Alaska, bringing the company a significant step closer to drilling. The affirmation of the Bush administration’s lease by the Interior Department came over the objection of environmentalists and wildlife advocates who say that any drilling in the... -
Interior Approves Bush-Era Leases in Chukchi, Clearing Way for Shell Drilling
Mar 31, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Phil Taylor
The Interior Department today issued final approval of an oil and gas lease sale in the Arctic Ocean that could clear a path for Royal Dutch Shell PLC to drill there this summer. The agency's record of decision reaffirms a George W. Bush administration decision in 2008 to sell $2.7 billion in oil and gas leases in Alaska's Chukchi Sea, including $2.1 ... -
Scientists Pressured Over Link Between Wastewater Injection, Quakes, E-mails Show
Apr 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Benjamin Elgin & Matthew Philips
Energy firms tried to slow science inquiries blaming them for earthquakes in Oklahoma, e-mails obtained by Bloomberg and other media outlets suggest. Austin Holland, Oklahoma's state seismologist, got a request in November 2013 that made him nervous. It was from David Boren, president of the University of Oklahoma, which... -
Methane Concentrations in Well Water Unrelated to Fracking, New Study Finds
Apr 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas
Methane concentrations in underground drinking water wells in northeastern Pennsylvania appear to have no significant correlation with nearby fracking activities, a newstudy has found. The findings contradict earlier studies that found methane concentrations up to six times higher in drinking water wells located within one kilometer of... -
Schumer Called Mixed Bag for Energy Industry, Follows ‘Awesome' Reid
Apr 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who is emerging as the likely successor to Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) as leader of Senate Democrats, presents a mixed bag for the energy industry, analysts told Bloomberg BNA. On the one hand, he opposes a mandate requiring billions of gallons of ethanol and other biofuels into the nation's... -
The Legal and Economic Case for Obama’s Clean Power Plan
Mar 31, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Richard Revesz
The Clean Power Plan—the centerpiece of President Obama’s effort to address climate change—was crafted to make compliance as flexible as possible. To reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants, which account for a third of our nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, the EPA sought to avoid imposing costly technology-based requirements on... -
After Missed Deadline, EPA Should Withdraw Power Plant Rules, 19 Attorneys General Say
Apr 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency missed a statutory deadline to finalize carbon dioxide performance standards for new power plants, which should force it to withdraw that rule as well as the Clean Power Plan, 19 attorneys general said. The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to finalize its new source performance standards (NSPS) ... -
Officials Downplay Fears Of GHG Rule Suits Undermining UN Climate Plan
Mar 31, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Anthony Lacey
White House and other administration officials are downplaying concerns that pending lawsuits challenging EPA's greenhouse gas (GHG) rules for power plants will succeed and undercut U.S. plans, just submitted to the United Nations, to cut emissions by 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, which rely heavily on the agency's regulations. -
Obama Commits U.S. to 28 Percent Carbon Cuts
Mar 31, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia
The Obama administration formally pledged Tuesday that the U.S. will cut its greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 28 percent over the next decade — the opening salvo in an eight-month sprint toward reaching an international climate change deal. The five-page submission to the United Nations repeats a pledge that President Barack Obama... -
White House: GOP Criticism of Climate Pact 'Hard to Take Seriously
Mar 31, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The White House on Tuesday rebuked Republican critics of its contribution to the United Nations climate pact, saying the criticisms are “hard to take seriously.” Asked about congressional Republicans who want the Senate to have to approve an agreement, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said that politicians who are skeptical of the... -
Obama’s Strategy on Climate Change, Part of Global Deal, Is Revealed
Mar 31, 2015 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport
The White House on Tuesday introduced President Obama’s blueprint for cutting greenhouse gas emissions in the United States by nearly a third over the next decade. Mr. Obama’s plan, part of a formal written submission to the United Nations ahead of efforts to forge a global climate change accord in Paris in December, detailed the United... -
The Senate Vote-a-Rama and What it Means for the Climate Fight
Mar 31, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Sam Parry
After last week’s vote-a-rama shenanigans in the Senate, I am feeling a renewed sense of hope about our ability to tackle climate change in the current political environment. “Vote-a-rama” sounds like a gag, but it’s a very real procedural process involving Senate budget resolutions. In a nutshell: Senators can’t filibuster resolutions on budget... -
The Bad GOP and the Good GOP on Climate Change
Mar 31, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Stephen Stromberg
The Obama administration officially committed the United States Thursday to cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 26 percent to 28 percent within 10 years. This is the sort of U.S. leadership necessary to keep major emitting nations moving toward significant curbs on the gases that cause global warming, a world effort that negotiators hope to... -
The Legal and Economic Case for Obama’s Clean Power Plan
|
-
Oil, Rail Industries Collaborate to Provide Safety Training
Mar 31, 2015 | The Bakken Magazine
By Patrick C. Miller
As part of an all-inclusive approach to improving the safety of crude shipment by rail, the American Petroleum Institute and the Association of American Railroads have released an education module for firefighters and first responders. "Freight railroads are fully committed to the safe movement of crude oil and other hazardous materials...
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Mentioned) Ban on Whole Class of Flame Retardants In Four Product Types Urged in CPSC Petition
Apr 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Martina Barash
An entire class of flame retardants is associated with serious health problems and should be banned for use in several categories of consumer products, a coalition of organizations told the Consumer Product Safety Commission in a petition March 31.
The whole class must be banned to keep manufacturers from replacing flame retardant chemicals found to be toxic with others that are also toxic, the petitioners said.
Twelve groups, including the Consumer Federation of America (CFA), Consumers Union, Kids in Danger and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), urged the CPSC to begin rulemaking under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act to end the use of non-polymeric, additive organohalogen flame retardants in some types of household products. The targeted products are:
• children's products;
• furniture;
• mattresses; and
• consumer electronics (exterior parts only).
“The vast majority of consumers are unwittingly exposing their children and their families to increased risks when they purchase and use these products,” Rachel Weintraub, legislative director and general counsel for the CFA, said in a statement issued by the environmental law firm Earthjustice. Weintraub served as co-counsel on the petition, along with Eve C. Gartner of Earthjustice.
But, in response to the petition, the American Chemistry Council defended the safety of flame retardants.
“Flame retardants have been proven to be a critical component of fire safety and can help save lives,” ACC spokesman Bryan Goodman said in a March 31 statement. “At the same time, flame retardants are subject to review by the Environmental Protection Agency and global regulatory bodies.”
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has estimated that 97 percent of the U.S. population has measurable quantities of these flame retardants in their blood, according to the 12 groups' petition.
Children are particularly at risk, the petition said.
Health, Developmental Impacts Cited
Dr. Sandra G. Hassink, president of the AAP, said the pediatricians' group joined the petition “to urge the CPSC to help protect children from the health and developmental effects of these damaging chemicals, which are especially harmful during critical windows of development for their growing minds and bodies.”
“Children's natural behaviors—playing on the floor, exploring different surfaces, putting things in their mouths—make them uniquely vulnerable to flame retardants and the harmful fumes and dust they emit,” Hassink said in the statement.
The petition pointed to a CPSC policy to give high priority to agency action to protect children, among others. And it said the CPSC must follow an executive order encouraging agencies to pursue environmental justice by looking at the effects of their actions on minority and low-income populations.
“The highest human levels of harmful flame retardants in the general population have been found in young children from communities of low socio-economic status, and communities of color,” the petition said.
Nancy Cowles, executive director of Kids in Danger, said in the statement, “Hidden chemicals in products for babies and children is a hazard no parent can protect their child from without help from regulators.”
Chemistry Council: ‘False Choice' in Petition
But Goodman, of the American Chemistry Council, said in the trade group's statement that the petition presented a “false choice between chemical safety and fire safety.”
The EPA “has identified approximately 50 flame retardants that it says are unlikely to pose a risk to human health,” Goodman said.
Goodman told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail that the incidence of fires has declined significantly over the last four decades. He said “the development of fire safety codes that often require a comprehensive set of fire-safety measures that can include flame retardants” was “a major contributor” to the drop.
“This was driven in no small part by the US Consumer Product Safety Commission, which recognized the danger of fires as a real crisis that needed attention,” Goodman said.
Goodman said there's a broad range of flame retardants and cautioned against imposing “a one-size fits all regulatory approach for these substances.”
Organohalogens Also Raise Concerns
Widespread exposure to organohalogens is concerning, the petition said, “because all organohalogen flame retardant chemicals, as a class, are toxic due to their physical, chemical and biological properties.”
The adverse human health effects associated with them include reproductive impairment; neurological issues, including “decreased IQ in children, impaired memory, learning deficits, altered motor behavior, [and] hyperactivity”; endocrine disruption; genetic harm; cancer; and immune-system problems, according to the petition.
Organohalogens come in polymeric and non-polymeric forms, but only the non-polymeric forms are believed to be available to the body. Also, flame retardants in “additive” form—such as those addressed in the petition—“are not chemically bound to the products containing them” and thus “can migrate out of products, resulting in human exposure,” the petition said.
The petition urged the CPSC to designate any children's product, other than car seats, containing these chemicals as a “banned hazardous substance” under the FHSA. Similarly, residential furniture, mattress pads containing the flame retardants and electronic items with additive organohalogens in their plastic casings should be designated “hazardous substances” and “banned hazardous substances” under the FHSA, the petition said.
-
(ACC Mentioned) State Bills Would Ban Microbeads in Personal Care Products
Apr 1, 2015 | Chemical Watch
At least four US states are considering legislation to ban the use of microbeads in cosmetics, and other personal care products. New Jersey enacted a law last week that will proscribe articles containing them.
Microbeads are tiny bits of plastic, used as exfoliants in personal care items such as face wash, soap and toothpaste. They can slip through water treatment systems, after they are washed down drains, and end up in local streams, rivers and larger bodies of water, according to those advocating a ban.
New Jersey's AB 3083 prohibits the manufacture in the state of personal cosmetic products with the plastic exfoliants from January this year, and bans their sale in the state from January 2018. The state follows Illinois, which enacted a similar ban last July (CW 31 July 2014).
States currently considering legislation are Connecticut, Maryland, Michigan and Vermont, according to the NGO Safer States' bill tracker.
Connecticut's HB-5286, which would ban the import and sale of cosmetics containing microbeads from January 2016, is being considered by the state's House Joint Committee on Environment. In Maryland, SB-200 would ban personal care products and over-the-counter drugs with the synthetic plastic beads from 1 October. The measure passed the state's Senate and is in the House Environment and Transportation Committee, which held a hearing on 20 March.
Michigan's SB-158 would bar the sale of personal care products containing microbeads from January 2019. The Vermont House passed H-4, which would ban personal care products and over-the-counter medications containing microbeads from 15 July. The measure is now before the state's Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee.
Welcoming the New Jersey law, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) said the measure “builds on voluntary efforts initiated by personal care product makers and is supported by industry, NGOs and government alike. As other states and Congress work to adopt similar measures to phase out microbeads, we look forward to working with policymakers to develop legislation that is consistent with the strong models passed in Illinois and New Jersey.”
Meanwhile, a bill introduced in the US Congress would ban the sale or distribution of personal care products, containing synthetic plastic microbeads, from 1 January 2018 (CW 12 March 2015).
-
(ACC Mentioned) Stop Playing 'Whack-A-Mole' With Toxic Flame Retardants, Health Advocates Urge
Mar 31, 2015 | The Huffington Post - Green Blog
By Lynne Peeples
As the public has learned of health risks tied to chemicals in everyday products, many companies have responded by eliminating, one by one, the suspected cancer causers, brain damagers and hormone disruptors. But even prompt action doesn't entirely appease some health experts, who warn of a problematic pattern.
"We're playing toxic whack-a-mole," said Arlene Blum, a chemist at the University of California, Berkeley, and executive director of the nonprofit Green Science Policy Institute. "When after a great deal of research and testing, a chemical is found to be harmful, then the tendency is to replace it with as similar a chemical as possible. That's the easiest thing to do."
History has shown, however, that the substitutes may prove equally harmful. Take, for example, the widespread replacement of bisphenol A with bisphenol S in products such as hard plastic water bottles and cash register receipts. New research suggests the latter chemical may be just as harmful to human health.
On Tuesday, a coalition of medical, consumer and worker safety groups attempted to halt this cycle for flame retardants. Led by Blum's institute and Earthjustice, they produced a petition asking federal regulators to block an entire class of the chemical concoctions called organohalogens from their widespread use in four categories of consumer products.When Congress banned polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in 1977 due to health concerns, the flame retardant industry replaced them with a chemical cousin, polybrominated diphenyl ether. When PBDE was discovered to be just as toxic, it was phased out in 2005, and the industry looked again for easily swappable substitutes to continue meeting flammability standards. Among the popular picks were chlorinated Tris and Firemaster 550, both of which have now been linked with their own growing lists of health concerns, including heart disease, obesity and cancer.
All of these chemicals are organohalogens, still the most common class of flame retardant additive. They can migrate out of consumer products to permeate, and persist in, the environment -- riding house dust, even infiltrating jars of peanut butter and the bloodstreams of nearly all Americans.
"The evidence is quite convincing that exposure in the womb to these flame retardants causes brain damage, lower IQs and persistent behavior problems in children," said Dr. Philip Landrigan, chairman of the department of preventative medicine at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City.
"It's just been one bad actor after another," added Landrigan, who signed the petition. "You'd think we'd be smart enough to do a little better."
In addition to developing fetuses and young children -- the latter of whom tend to crawl on dust-laden floors and put their hands in their mouths -- chemical and manufacturing workers and firefighters are at increased risk from exposure to flame retardants.
Tuesday's petition, aimed at the Consumer Product Safety Commission, targets four categories of consumer goods: children's products, furniture, mattresses and the casings around electronics. While chemicals themselves are generally under the purview of the Environmental Protection Agency, they enter the CPSC's domain as part of a consumer product.
"This falls squarely within what CPSC is set up to do. They have the authority," said Eve Gartner, a staff attorney at Earthjustice. "In some ways, products with these flame retardants are like toys with small parts. They have inherent dangers. There's not really anything consumers can do to protect themselves against these chemicals."
Scott Wolfson, a CPSC spokesman, noted that the commission had received the petition. The next step, he said, is determining whether it "meets the requirements set out in the Commission's petition regulations."
"CPSC Chairman Elliot Kaye has said publicly that in the course of CPSC's work on issues like preparing a federal standard for upholstered furniture (which is ongoing), he does not want children to be exposed to harmful flame retardants," said Wolfson in an email.
He highlighted previous comments in which Kaye had lamented the lack of a "clear, systematic and holistic organization or plan to the way federal agencies are tasked with studying the basic toxicity and exposure scenarios of chemicals." That, combined with a "severe lack of federal funding as well as authorities to quickly and comprehensively address chemical toxicity and exposure," said Kaye, has forced agencies, including the CPSC, to "proceed in piecemeal fashion."
The American Chemistry Council, meanwhile, criticized the petition. "It's unfortunate these groups are presenting families with the false choice between chemical safety and fire safety when we can have both," the national industry group said in a statement. "Flame retardants have been proven to be a critical component of fire safety and can help save lives."
"This petition unfortunately lumps together a broad range of substances with different properties and uses without any consideration of their individual safety or benefits," added Bryan Goodman, a spokesman with the American Chemistry Council, in an email.
Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, shared a similar concern about the petition's broad reach. "I'm not a big fan of flame retardants being used," she said. "But I think a blanket banning of anything with a halogen on it may not be the best approach."
Birnbaum suggested there might be some circumstances in which certain organohalogen chemicals may still prove critical for fire safety. "And I'm not convinced that some of the non-halogenated flame retardants are any better," she said.
While organohalogens still make up the majority of flame retardants in consumer products, another class -- phosphates -- is coming into use. Blum noted that these chemicals, too, are "looking worrisome." Yet she added that there was not yet enough evidence regarding their toxicity to add them to the petition.
Health experts and advocates seem to agree that before looking for a safer alternative, manufacturers should determine if a substitute is even necessary. Can a couch -- or mattress or children's toy -- be constructed differently so that chemical additives aren't needed in the first place? It turns out that flame retardants added to furniture may not actually slow fires.
Spurred in part by mounting evidence of health problems associated with flame retardant additives, as well as a Chicago Tribune investigation that found the additives may offer no meaningful fire protection, the state of California last year revised its Technical Bulletin 117 to remove a decades-old requirement that flame retardants be included in the stuffing of upholstered furniture. The state rule, which became the de facto standard for the rest of the nation, meant use of the chemicals flourished for years. However, as Blum noted, California's updated standard still does not forbid flame retardants outright.
How a CPSC ban on organohalogens would affect the furniture industry, one of the major users of flame retardants, is not yet clear. "We have just become aware of this petition and have not had the opportunity to fully investigate its potential impact on our industry," said Andy Counts, CEO of the American Home Furnishings Association, which has previously opposed measures that could increase chemical risks to its customers or employees.
Organohalogen flame retardants are the first of six entire classes of chemicals that Blum and her colleagues intend to address. This broader approach, they argue, could prove a more effective way to increase the chemical safety of household products.
Under the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, the EPA has banned just five chemicals and has required testing for only about 200 of the more than 80,000 permitted for use in the United States. A bipartisan bill unveiled in Congress earlier this month shows some promise of reforming the outdated law. Yet the legislation has also set off heated debate. Some public health advocates warn, for example, that a federal law could stymie swifter chemical safety efforts by states, several of which have already proposed bans on flame retardants.
"Bans take a really long time. TSCA reform is taking a really long time," said Blum. "And then there are so many chemicals and so much testing that needs to be done. So let's find a way to act on what we know, rather than wait for such a long time for a process that may or may not turn out to be effective."
-
Formaldehyde Emissions Rule Expected By End of Year, EPA Tells Rep. Matsui
Apr 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A final rule establishing nationwide formaldehyde emissions limits for composite wood products is expected to be issued by the Environmental Protection Agency before the end of 2015.
The EPA has received thousands of comments from diverse parties and is aware that the final rule could affect many companies, including small businesses, Jim Jones, assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention, told Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif) in a March 25 letter.
“The agency will consider all information received from commenters in developing the final rule, which is expected to be made final this year,” he wrote.
Matsui, along with Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), wrote EPA March 3 asking about the status of the regulation, which was mandated by the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act (Pub. L. No. 111-199). The law required the EPA to promulgate by Jan. 1, 2013, regulations implementing the statute.
In a March 31 e-mail, Matsui told Bloomberg BNA she appreciated the EPA's response but will continue to push the agency to implement the law.
Formaldehyde in Homes
“More than four years ago, Congress passed bipartisan legislation to protect the health of American families from the high use of formaldehyde in common household items. Unfortunately, it is clear that there are still too many products on the market that include this dangerous chemical,” Matsui said.
The letter from Sens. Klobuchar, Crapo and Matsui that prompted Jones' reply followed a “60 Minutes” report CBS aired March 1 that alleged Chinese-made laminate flooring sold by Lumber Liquidators Inc. exceeded California's formaldehyde emissions standards for composite wood.
The Formaldehyde Standards Act was designed to apply California's standards nationwide, because companies had testified before Congress that they already could meet the state's requirements (52 DEN A-15, 3/19/10).
In May 2013, the EPA released two related proposed rules. The first would have applied California's wood product formaldehyde emissions limits nationwide while the second would have set up a third-party certification program to help ensure compliance.
The EPA's proposed emissions limits, however, were broader than California's because they would have covered certain laminated products. California's regulations exempt all laminated products (104 DEN A-4, 5/30/13)
Healthy Housing Adviser: Best to Get It Right
Tom Neltner, special adviser on regulatory policy for the National Center for Healthy Housing, told BNA by e-mail that EPA's forthcoming regulations are important and speed may not be the most important issue.
“The ‘60 Minutes’ story on Lumber Liquidators raised a number of critical issues about the rules' enforceability and the essential role of finished product testing to verify compliance,” Neltner said.
“While sooner is usually better than later, when it comes to this rulemaking, I think it is best for EPA to take the time to get it right,” he said.
Once EPA crafts its final implementing rules, the White House Office of Management and Budget should make clearance of them a priority, Neltner said.
OMB held up the agency's proposed rule for nearly a year, he said.
Nearly three months beyond the deadline Congress set for the EPA to issue final formaldehyde emissions standards, OMB had yet to clear the agency's proposed rules (51 DEN A-14, 3/15/13)
As the EPA continues to work on completing its regulations, the Consumer Product Safety Commission is investigating whether formaldehyde levels in the Lumber Liquidators Inc. Chinese-made laminated wood flooring are excessive, CPSC Chairman Elliot Kaye said March 25 (58 DEN A-19, 3/26/15).
-
Health Data on Workers Exposed to Asbestos Not Subject to FOIA, District Court Says
Apr 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Lung function and chest imaging data that the Beveridge & Diamond P.C. law firm sought to obtain through a Freedom of Information Act request didn't belong to the federal agency from which it was requested and therefore isn't subject to FOIA, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has ruled (Beveridge & Diamond P.C. v. HHS, 2015 BL 88386, D.D.C., 1:14-cv-00080, 3/30/15)
At issue were health outcome data involving workers exposed to Libby amphibole asbestos. The asbestos is a contaminate in the vermiculite that was mined from 1881 to 1990 in Libby, Mont., first by gold miners, then the Zonolite Co., and eventually W.R. Grace & Co.
Hundreds of former mine workers and Libby residents have been diagnosed with asbestos-related illnesses linked to amphibole asbestos in the ore.
In June 2013, Beveridge & Diamond sought a variety of documents from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. More than 300 pages of records were provided to the law firm, but the lung function and chest imaging data weren't, the district court said in its decision March 30.
Data Belong to University
The Department of Health and Human Services didn't create, obtain or have control over the data Beveridge & Diamond sought. Consequently, the documents weren't agency records that could be obtained through a FOIA request, Judge Emmet Sullivan ruled.
The lung function and chest imaging data belong to the University of Cincinnati, which received an HHS grant and other federal funds to study exposed workers, the court said.
This is the second unsuccessful attempt Beveridge & Diamond has made to obtain risk-assessment related information about Libby amphibole asbestos.
In January, the same court ruled the Environmental Protection Agency did not have an obligation to turn over the same information (15 DEN A-17, 1/23/15).
IRIS Assessment
The information will be used in a toxicological review the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program is preparing to examine the health hazards of Libby amphibole asbestos and the doses of this form of asbestos that could cause those effects.
On behalf of W.R. Grace, Beveridge & Diamond filed a request with EPA Feb., 26, 2014, asking the agency to correct certain allegedly erroneous information in its draft toxicological review of Libby amphibole asbestos.
In a September 2014 response, the EPA said it would consider the concerns raised as part of the public comments it has received on the draft document.
The EPA's draft assessment, released August 2011, concluded the particular type of amphibole asbestos found in Libby and Troy, Mont., causes cancer, thickening of the chest wall and other problems. The agency's Science Advisory Board supported the EPA's conclusions during a meeting it held in September 2012(186 DEN A-11, 9/26/12)
A final assessment hasn't been released, nor has the EPA provided a time line for its release.
-
Boxer, Markey Ask States to Explain Schools' Asbestos Programs
Mar 31, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Sam Pearson
Two Senate Democrats want to find out how states are complying with a nearly 30-year-old law that was Congress' first attempt to set safety standards for asbestos in school buildings.
Sens. Barbara Boxer of California and Ed Markey of Massachusetts sent letters today to 50 state governors asking for information on how their school systems are complying with the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act of 1986.
Since the law was implemented, "the extent of asbestos hazards remaining in schools across the nation is largely unknown," the senators wrote. "We think it is an appropriate time to assess how the law is being implemented in each state and whether any legislative or other reforms are needed."
Under the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act, public school districts, nonprofit and charter schools, and schools affiliated with religious organizations are required to inspect school facilities for material that contains asbestos. They're also required to keep asbestos management plans on file and take action to avoid or reduce the threat of asbestos exposure. In addition, schools are supposed to reinspect their facilities every three years and provide appropriate asbestos training to custodial staff, among other standards.
Like many other buildings, it's common for schools constructed before the 1980s to contain asbestos. Around half of all schools in the United States were built between 1950 and 1969, when it was common for contractors to use asbestos, according to the Mesothelioma Center. According to U.S. EPA, schools are not normally required to remove asbestos-containing material unless it is damaged or is expected to be disturbed by demolition or renovation activities.
The senators are requesting data on education agencies that are subject to the law and their progress performing asbestos inspections and assessing the risk posed by asbestos at the sites. In addition, Boxer and Markey are asking for information on how often the states require local authorities to inform them of their compliance with the asbestos law and how many local agencies have been found to be meeting the law's standards.
The letter also seeks information on whether fines have been assessed against noncompliant local school authorities, on compliance costs and on how state officials report asbestos statistics to EPA.
Boxer and Markey have been two of the most prominent opponents to a bipartisan bill by Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.) to update the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, in part because it would not create an accelerated process for EPA to ban asbestos faster than other substances.
-
White House to Name Ehrlich Chairman To Lead CSB on Interim Basis, Sources Say
Apr 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Robert Iafolla
In an effort to bring stability to the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board following the recent resignation of its chairman, the White House is planning to name board member Manuel Ehrlich Jr. to the position of interim chairman.
The White House is expected to install Ehrlich as interim chairman rather than allow the board to assign its executive and administrative authority to a single member or divvy up responsibilities among several members, according to two sources informed of the administration's plans.
The White House did not respond to Bloomberg BNA's requests for comment.
Ehrlich was nominated for the board by President Barack Obama in January of 2014 and confirmed by the Senate in December 2014. Prior to his appointment, Ehrlich spent over 50 years in the chemical industry, much of it with BASF Corp., according to the CSB website.
If the White House elevates Ehrlich, it would empower one side of the divided leadership at the Chemical Safety Board and would likely guarantee continued conflict over the functioning of the agency. Ehrlich is aligned with Rafael Moure-Eraso, who stepped down as chairman of the CSB under White House pressure March 26 but remains at the agency as a board member (59 DEN A-6, 3/27/15).
Ehrlich emerged as a divisive figure soon after joining the CSB in January for his role in consolidating power at the agency in the chairman's office. At a hearing March 4 of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for example, Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (D-Calif.) told Moure-Eraso and Ehrlich that the only way to begin rebuilding the CSB was for both of them to resign as soon as possible.
Shock, Disapproval
Reports that the White House could name Ehrlich as interim chairman was met with surprise and disapproval from inside and outside the CSB.
“I am shocked and believe this is a poor decision,” former CSB member William Wright told Bloomberg BNA March 31.
There was hope that the leadership issues would be settled after Moure-Eraso's resignation, a CSB staffer said, but news that Ehrlich could be appointed acting chair is a shock. If true, it could be devastating to morale, the staffer told Bloomberg BNA March 31.
Rather than have Ehrlich appointed as acting chairman, the United Steelworkers would prefer that the White House allow the board to work together to fill the leadership vacuum created by Moure-Eraso's resignation as chair, said Mike Wright, the union's director of health, safety and environment.
Wright said the United Steelworkers will work with Ehrlich. The union has reached out to Ehrlich on three occasions, but he has yet to respond, Wright said.
“That the White House would consider naming Manny Ehrlich as interim chair of the CSB is beyond curious,” an industry source told Bloomberg BNA March 31.
CSB dysfunction has managed to unite Democrats, Republicans, organized labor and industry, yet the White House seems to be making the CSB's dysfunction worse by giving interim chairman status to Ehrlich, the industry source said.
Consolidated Power at CSB
Ehrlich's ascension to interim chairman would be likely to leave the recent consolidation of power in place. Board members Mark Griffon and Richard Engler attempted to rescind the governance motion and restore the balance of power, but Ehrlich and Moure-Eraso blocked that move, according to a March 17 memorandum of the board vote.
In his statement attached to the vote memo, Ehrlich said he's willing to discuss the governance issues in a public forum but doesn't want to consider the matter outside the public's view.
But Ehrlich and Moure-Eraso voted against scheduling a public meeting to discuss the governance issues and other CSB matters by May 1, according to a March 27 memo of the board vote. The 2-2 tie meant the motion failed. The fifth seat on the boar is currently vacant.
Even after Moure-Eraso leaves, Ehrlich would apparently be able to block consideration of future motions if he has the power of the chairmanship. During his tenure as chairman, Moure-Eraso would indefinitely suspend consideration of motions when he didn't have the votes to secure his preferred outcome.
Meanwhile, the House panel with jurisdiction over the CSB is investigating the controversial governance changes. The House Committee on Energy and Commerce sent a letter to Ehrlich, Griffon and Engler on March 27 seeking information on the move to consolidate power in the chairman's office (60 DEN A-14, 3/30/15).
The White House has named Vanessa Allen Sutherland, chief counsel for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, as its choice to become CSB chairwoman. Sutherland and Kristen Kulinowski, a research staff member at the Science and Technology Policy Institute nominated to join the board, await hearings before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
-
(ACC Mentioned) The Shale Play Today - March 2015
Mar 31, 2015 | JD Supra Business Advisor
By Mark Clark , M. Katherine Crockett, & David Yaussy
In This Issue:
- West Virginia Senate Bill 423 Amends Aboveground Storage Tank Act:
Even before the June 6, 2014 effective date of the Aboveground Storage Tank Act (the "AST Act" or "Act"), W. Va. Code §§ 22-30-1 et seq., representatives of the industries most impacted by the expansive and detailed AST Act had been working to educate the public, regulators and legislators about the more burdensome and overreaching provisions of the Act....
- Utica Shale Production Up More Than 18 Percent, Natural Gas Production Up More Than 25 Percent:
According to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, the fourth quarter of 2014 saw an increase in natural gas production. Production from 779 horizontal Utica Shale wells jumped 18.1 percent. Natural gas production increased 25.6 percent. That's a 200 percent increase in oil production and 300 percent increase in natural gas production since 2012-2013. Will 2015 see the same production numbers?
- Will LNG Exports Reduce Global GHG Emissions? New Study Says Yes.
A study by Carnegie Mellon University has found that exporting natural gas from the U.S. can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The study also found that exports from the U.S. would have lower methane emissions than exports from Russia or Europe. Why the difference with natural gas from the U.S.?
- Speaking of Exports - The Chemical Industry Reaping the Benefits:
The American Chemistry Council recently reported that the U.S. shale industry will have a positive impact on manufacturing and the economy. It's expected that gross exports of shale gas derived chemical products will double, trade surplus for selected chemicals will increase, investments by U.S. chemical companies in shale-related projects are up, and the shale "revolution" will provide long-term competitive advantage for chemical manufacturers...
- North Central Pennsylvania and State Forest Lands Could be the Key to Large Reserves of Utica Shale Gas:
Seneca Resources has announced the successful completion of a well on state forest land in Tioga County. The test well generated 22.7 million cubic feet of natural gas daily, with expectations of one trillion cubic feet within Seneca's 100,000 acres. With this huge amount of shale gas potential, will the pipeline infrastructure follow?
Please see full newsletter below for more information.
-
McCarthy Signs Proposed Rule for Oil, Gas Effluent Going to Treatment Plants
Apr 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy signed off March 31 on proposed federal technical standards for effluent sent to publicly owned water treatment plants from shale gas and shale oil wells and other unconventional oil and gas wells.
The proposed pretreatment guidelines and standards (RIN 2040-AF35) are intended to protect wastewater utilities from pollutants that can pass through or interfere with the treatment process.
The White House Office of Management and Budget completed interagency review of the proposed rule March 30 a little more than four months after receiving it (225 DEN A-8, 11/21/14).
Most states allow little oil and gas effluent to be sent to publicly owned water treatment plants, leading some industry spokesmen to describe the proposed rule as a solution in search of a problem.
In Pennsylvania, where the issue rose to the attention of the EPA, such shipments have been ended—voluntarily, but under pressure from the state government. The wastewater may instead be trucked to Ohio for disposal in deep injection wells.
Chemicals, Minerals Stir Concerns
The effluents of concern to the EPA can include hydraulic fracturing chemicals and naturally occurring minerals that have risen to the surface along with oil or water.
In dry Western states, produced water from oil wells will in some cases be treated and released into streams, possibly at a private treatment facility rather than a publicly owned treatment plant. Often the primary problem with such water is salinity, given the nature of the mineral-laden water that often rises to the surface of a well along with oil.
Shale oil and shale gas developers such as Anadarko Petroleum Corp., Chesapeake Energy Corp. and Exxon Mobil Corp. likely will critique the proposed rule when it is publicly released.
-
Interior Official Emphasizes Pragmatism In Federal Support of Energy Production
Apr 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
Interior Department regulations are smoothing out the leasing of onshore oil and natural gas drilling sites and will be focused on pragmatic change when they next are applied to reducing the venting and flaring of gas, a federal official said March 31.
Janice Schneider, Interior's assistant secretary for land and minerals management, said lease planning for oil and gas development on federal lands is reducing litigation over such issues as environmental protection.
“Our onshore leasing reforms, things like the master leasing plans, I think are important,” Schneider said at a Natural Gas Roundtable forum, sponsored by the American Gas Association.
“We have real tangible benefits,” she said. “We've actually seen appeals drop by almost half—from over 40 percent to approximately 18 percent.”
She described development of domestic gas as a critically important trend that is central to much of the work Interior does, both onshore and offshore.
Interior has said it will propose regulations to reduce the venting and flaring of gas. That especially occurs when gas emerging from an oil well is flared—burned off—in situations where there is no gas pipeline to take the gas to market.
Because the Environmental Protection Agency regulates air emissions and has been tightening its regulatory controls over emissions from oil and gas production, there is the possibility of regulations overlapping. Schneider said Interior is working closely with the EPA to prevent duplication.
Interior to Address Waste Prevention
Interior, which has no authority to regulate air emissions, will exercise its authority to prevent waste of resources drawn from federal lands, she said.
The intention will be cost-effective regulations, Schneider said. In response to a question about the quality of cost-benefit estimates, she said she believed the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, within the White House Office of Management and Budget, does a good job of obtaining analyses of various economists during interagency review of a rulemaking.
The Interior official also wanted to put to rest concerns that land management plans being amended to protect the greater sage grouse on federal lands might undercut leases already acquired on those lands.
“As always, we are going to respect valid existing rights,” Schneider said. “In the context of the greater sage grouse conservation strategy, I want folks to understand that if you have an existing lease, you will be able to exercise your valid existing rights in developing energy resources.”
She added, “We will want to work with you to develop appropriate mitigation measures to lessen the impact on sage grouse and ensure maximum conservation of the species consistent with the terms of your existing lease.”
The greater sage grouse is a candidate for listing as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The bird is found in 11 Western states, including in areas where oil and gas development are considered primary threats to the bird's sagebrush habitat.
-
Terms of Drilling Leases Not Extended By ‘Force Majeure’ Provisions, Court Says
Apr 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
New York's highest court ruled March 31 that the “force majeure” provisions in oil and gas leases don't extend the primary terms of the leases (Beardslee v. Inflection Energy LLC, 2015 BL 89442, N.Y., No. 44, 3/31/15).
The New York Court of Appeals unanimously ruled in favor of landowners whose leases expired in 2012. Three energy companies—Inflection Energy LLC, Megaenergy Inc. and Victory Energy Corp.—argued that the state's effective moratorium on fracking triggered the force majeure clause in the contracts and, therefore, extended the terms of the leases.
Force majeure generally refers to an event beyond the control of the parties that prevents performance under a contract.
The court ruled on one of two certified questions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. It declined to rule on whether the state's moratorium amounted to a force majeure event, saying the question was “academic” given its ruling on the primary terms of the lease, which is contained in the “habendum clause.”
“Our holding is consistent with out-of-state ‘oil’ jurisdictions in which courts, applying similar contract principles, have held that language identical or similar to the force majeure clause at issue here cannot extend the primary term set forth in the habendum clause,” the court said in an opinion by Judge Eugene F. Pigott Jr.
Such a clause defines the type of interest and rights to be enjoyed by the grantee or lessee.
“And, as observed by our sister courts, had the energy companies intended for the habendum clause to be subject to other provisions of the contract, they could have expressly so indicated,” the court added.
Application to Drilling, Production
Thomas S. West of the West Firm PLLC, attorney for the energy companies, said the decision means the force majeure clauses in oil and gas contracts will only apply to the secondary term of leases, which covers drilling and production.
“The high court has established a rule of law that, absent express language in an oil and gas lease making it clear that the primary term is extended by defined events, the courts of New York State will not allow oil and gas leases to be extended under force majeure principles,” West told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail.
“Of course, we believe that the leases in question met that standard because the force majeure clause in question declares that the time associated with drilling delays is not counted against the lessee and drilling is the only way to extend the lease into the secondary term,” he said.
“In the end,” he added, “the decision stands for the proposition that the New York courts will protect landowners and require very explicit language to extend oil and gas leases through means other than drilling and production.”
Court ‘Rebuffed' Industry's ‘Overreaching.'
Deborah Goldberg, managing attorney at Earthjustice, told Bloomberg BNA that the New York court has once again “rebuffed overreaching by the oil and gas industry,” referring to the court's 2014 landmark decision upholding the right of local governments to ban fracking (126 DEN A-3, 7/1/14).
“Just last month, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected a similar attempt to extend gas leases at the expense of unwilling landowners,” Goldberg said in an e-mail. “We are gratified that the courts are refusing to tilt the playing field still further in favor of a wealthy and powerful industry.”
The decision in New York stems from a lawsuit brought by a number of landowners in federal court against three energy companies regarding leases to explore and potentially drill for natural gas using the practice known as fracking.
The landowners sought an order declaring that the five-year primary term of the leases had expired in 2012.
Moratorium Amounted to Force Majeure
The energy companies argued that the moratorium imposed by then-Gov. David Patterson (D) amounted to a force majeure event that extended the leases.
The court ruled in favor of the landowners, and the energy companies subsequently appealed to the Second Circuit, which certified the questions (Beardslee v. Inflection Energy, LLC, 761 F.3d 221, 2014 BL 211649 (2d Cir. 2014); 152 DEN A-10, 8/7/14).
The New York Court of Appeals said the contracts should be interpreted by applying the basic principles of contract law. “In light of these principles,” the court said, “ we hold that the force majeure clause does not modify the primary term of the habendum clause and, therefore, does not extend the leases.”
“The habendum clause in the leases does not incorporate the force majeure clause by reference or contain any language expressly subjecting it to other lease terms,” the court added.
State Expected to Ban Fracking
The administration of Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) has said the state will ban fracking, although a formal determination hasn't been released (52 DEN A-8, 3/18/15).
Fracking refers to the high-pressure injection of water, sand and chemical additives into geologic formations to create fractures through which hydrocarbons can flow to a well. The practice has become a focus of concern because of potential health and environmental dangers.
-
EPA Justifies Proposed Shale Gas ELG Due To Potential POTW Discharges
Mar 31, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA, in its just-released proposed first-time zero discharge effluent limitation guideline (ELG) for oil and natural gas wastewater, says the rule is necessary due to the potential that future shale facilities could send their wastewater to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), though the agency notes no such discharges are yet occurring.
“[B]ecause onshore unconventional oil and gas extraction facilities have discharged to POTWs in the past, and because the potential remains that some facilities can consider discharging to POTWs in the future, EPA proposes this rule,” the agency says in the proposal released March 31 ahead of its publication in the Federal Register. As a result, EPA says the proposed rule is not expected to result in any costs or pollutant removals.
“Because the data reviewed by EPA show that the UOG extraction industry is not currently managing wastewaters by sending them to POTWs, the proposed rule causes no incremental change to current industry practice that EPA measured as compliance costs or monetized benefits,” the proposed rule says.
However, EPA says, because POTWs may still receive requests from drillers to treat wastewater, the rulemaking will help ensure regulatory certainty and save POTWs the work of analyzing such requests.
The proposed rule, issued under section 304(m) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is aimed at filling what EPA says has become a gap in existing effluent limitation guidelines for the oil and gas industry to help ensure that the current practice of not sending wastewater to POTWs continues into the future.
“EPA has considered that while states, localities, and POTWs are not currently approving these wastewaters for acceptance at POTWs, some POTWs continue to receive requests to accept [existing and new unconventional oil and natural gas (UOG)] extraction wastewater. This proposed rule would provide regulatory certainty and would eliminate the burden on POTWs to analyze such requests,” EPA says in a fact sheet.
Current regulations for direct dischargers for onshore oil and gas wastewater set a “zero discharge” standard for discharges of pollutants to surface waters, but there are no existing rules for “indirect” dischargers of the sector's effluent, such as drillers that send their wastewater to POTWs for treatment before it is discharged.
But EPA’s acknowledgment that drillers are not currently discharging to POTWs is likely to reinvigorate calls from industry that the rule is unnecessary because the POTW issue is narrowly confined mostly to Pennsylvania.
The POTW issue became of particular concern in the Marcellus Shale region, partially due to challenges such as a lack of effluent limits for pollutants unique to the sector and partly due to Pennsylvania's geological constraints that limit the number of underground disposal wells -- EPA's preferred method of disposal of the sector's wastes.
Because the wastewater contains constituents not typical of POTWs, concerns include untreated discharges going to surface water, interference with the POTW's operations, accumulation in biosolids and formation of disinfection byproducts, which are toxic.
But industry groups oppose the pretreatment rulemaking, saying that since Pennsylvania changed its policies, few, if any, operators still discharge to POTWs, according to an industry spokesman. EPA's rulemaking is “a solution in search of a problem,” the spokesman has said.
Environmentalists' Support
Environmentalists generally support the need for strict pretreatment standards but have previously urged EPA to begin regulating the oil and gas sector's wastes in a more holistic way with a broader oil and gas wastewater rule, rather than piecemeal policies that only address specific portions of the sector.
For example, the March 31 proposed zero discharge ELG would only address oil and gas wastewater from unconventional extraction, or hydraulic fracturing from shale formations.
But EPA previously dropped its plan to issue an ELG for the coalbed methane sector, citing the sector's current economics, which would limit the agency's ability to meet the cost-effectiveness threshold in the CWA.
And the agency announced last year that it is launching a study of centralized waste treatment (CWT) facilities, or industrial plants, that accept oil and gas extraction wastewater, to examine whether current regulations provide adequate controls for treating such wastes.
EPA is planning a 60-day comment period on the proposed ELG after its publication in the Register. It will also hold a May 29 public hearing on the rule at agency headquarters in Washington, D.C.
The agency says in the proposal that based on its review, the sector's wastewater is typically managed through disposal via underground injection wells, reuse in subsequent fracturing jobs, or transfer to a privately owned wastewater treatment facility. The proposal would “prohibit the indirect discharge of wastewater pollutants associated with onshore UOG extraction facilities,” but EPA also outlines general concerns about the contaminants associated with the sector's wastes, which may influence the CWT study and any related policy.
For example, EPA says the wasterwater often “contains high concentrations of total dissolved solids (TDS), or salinity, and can also include organic and inorganic chemicals, metals and naturally occurring radioactive materials, all of which EPA says is “potentially harmful” and creates a need for appropriate waaste management practices. “As mentioned previously, wastewater from UOG extraction can contain high concentrations of TDS, radioactive elements, metals, chlorides, sulfates, and other dissolved inorganic constituents that POTWs are not designed to remove,” the proposal says.
-
Shell One Step Closer to Arctic Offshore Drilling
Mar 31, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Federal officials reaffirmed Royal Dutch Shell’s 2008 offshore oil and gas lease north of Alaska, bringing the company a significant step closer to drilling.
The affirmation of the Bush administration’s lease by the Interior Department came over the objection of environmentalists and wildlife advocates who say that any drilling in the delicate Arctic Ocean would hurt the environment and ecosystems.
It means that Interior can start its formal process to review Shell’s plans for an exploratory well in the Chukchi Sea, just over two years after Shell’s last botched attempt to drill there resulted in its rig running aground during a severe December storm.
“The Arctic is an important component of the administration’s national energy strategy, and we remain committed to taking a thoughtful and balanced approach to oil and gas leasing and exploration offshore Alaska,” Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said in a statement.
“This unique, sensitive and often challenging environment requires effective oversight to ensure all activities are conducted safely and responsibly,” she continued.
Shell wants to resume drilling this summer, but the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement and other federal agencies will have to approve its plan first.
The agencies have said that they’ll be extremely cognizant in their review of the 2012 failures and institute requirements on any drilling that would reduce the chances of problems, like a nearby rig for relief wells.
The 2008 lease was challenged in federal court, which sent it back to the agency for review.
Environmental groups lamented Interior’s reaffirmation.
“Today’s announcement is both expected and disappointing,” Susan Murray, a vice president at Oceana, said in a statement. “The Obama administration has steadfastly refused to fully and fairly evaluate the risks of selling leases in the Chukchi Sea and, instead, treats the leases sold in 2008 as if they’re set in stone.”
“We are disappointed in Interior’s rushed lease sale decision,” Erik Grafe, an attorney with Earthjustice, said in a statement. “Interior still has time to make a better decision when evaluating Shell’s drilling plan, and we sincerely hope it says no to Shell’s louder, bigger, and dirtier tactics, loaded with potential environmental harm.”
-
Interior Approves Bush-Era Leases in Chukchi, Clearing Way for Shell Drilling
Mar 31, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Phil Taylor
The Interior Department today issued final approval of an oil and gas lease sale in the Arctic Ocean that could clear a path for Royal Dutch Shell PLC to drill there this summer.
The agency's record of decision reaffirms a George W. Bush administration decision in 2008 to sell $2.7 billion in oil and gas leases in Alaska's Chukchi Sea, including $2.1 billion in leases to Shell.
BOEM's supplemental environmental review aimed to remedy what the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year found were deficiencies in the Bush administration's 2007 environmental review of the lease sale -- namely that it badly underestimated how much oil could be developed as a result of auctioning the waters.
The agency's final supplemental environmental impact statement assumed a new exploration and development scenario of 4.3 billion barrels of oil, up from an old estimate of 1 billion barrels.
Federal scientists believe the Chukchi contains 15.4 billion barrels of undiscovered technically recoverable oil -- one of the largest untapped sources of energy in the United States.
But environmental groups have been fighting to keep it buried below the seabed, arguing that drilling in the frigid and storm-prone waters is too dangerous and that burning the oil would accelerate global warming.
"The Arctic is an important component of the administration's national energy strategy, and we remain committed to taking a thoughtful and balanced approach to oil and gas leasing and exploration offshore Alaska," Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said in a statement today. "This unique, sensitive and often challenging environment requires effective oversight to ensure all activities are conducted safely and responsibly."
Today's decision clears the way for BOEM to formally consider Shell's revised exploration plan for the Chukchi, which calls for two drill rigs to sink up to six wells beginning in July.
An Interior spokeswoman said BOEM has not formally accepted Shell's exploration plan. Once it does, the agency will have 30 days to decide whether to approve it.
By late April, the multinational oil company could secure a conditional drilling permit for the Arctic operation, although several other federal and state permits would be required before drilling could actually begin.
Production of oil and gas in the Chukchi could require up to eight Arctic-class platforms and 589 wells for exploration, delineation, production and service over the next several decades, BOEM's review found.
At the company's January investor meeting, Shell executives said they anticipate spending $1 billion for this year's Arctic venture, even if the company isn't able to drill in the Chukchi.
Shell has already spent roughly $6 billion trying to develop its leases.
Greenpeace USA Executive Director Annie Leonard today said Interior's decision is "deeply disappointing" and that environmental activists will "oppose Shell at every turn."
"Shell may now have approval from the Obama administration to drill in the Arctic, but it does not have approval from the people," she said. "Millions around the world are saying 'no' to Arctic drilling and other extraction projects that we have to freeze to avoid catastrophic climate change."
-
Scientists Pressured Over Link Between Wastewater Injection, Quakes, E-mails Show
Apr 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Benjamin Elgin & Matthew Philips
Energy firms tried to slow science inquiries blaming them for earthquakes in Oklahoma, e-mails obtained by Bloomberg and other media outlets suggest.
Austin Holland, Oklahoma's state seismologist, got a request in November 2013 that made him nervous. It was from David Boren, president of the University of Oklahoma, which houses the Oklahoma Geological Survey where Holland works.
Boren, a former U.S. senator, asked Holland to his office for coffee with Harold Hamm, the billionaire founder of Continental Resources, one of Oklahoma's largest oil and gas operators. Boren sits on the board of Continental, and Hamm is a donor to the university, giving $20 million in 2011 for a new diabetes center.
Says Holland: “It was just a little bit intimidating.”
Holland had been studying possible links between a rise in seismic activity in Oklahoma and the rapid increase in oil and gas production, the state's largest industry. During the meeting, Hamm requested that Holland be careful when publicly discussing the possible connection between oil and gas operations and a big jump in the number of earthquakes, which geological researchers were increasingly tying to the underground disposal of oil and gas wastewater, a byproduct of the fracking boom that Continental has helped pioneer.
“It was an expression of concern,” Holland recalls.
Meeting Details Emerge in E-Mails
Details surrounding that meeting and others have emerged in recent weeks as e-mails from the Oklahoma Geological Survey have been released through public records requests filed by Bloomberg and other media outlets, including EnergyWire, which first reported the Hamm meeting.
The e-mails suggest a steady stream of industry pressure on scientists at the state office. But oil companies say there's nothing wrong with contact between executives and scientists.
“The insinuation that there was something untoward that occurred in those meetings is both offensive and inaccurate,” says Continental Resources spokeswoman Kristin Thomas. “Upon its founding, the Oklahoma Geological Survey had a solid reputation of an agency that was accessible and of service to the community and industry in Oklahoma. We hope that the agency can continue the legacy to provide this service.”
Likewise, Boren says such conversations are harmless.
Boren Says Meeting ‘Informational.’
“The meeting with Harold Hamm was purely informational,” the university president said in a statement on March 27. “Mr. Hamm is a very reputable producer and wanted to know if Mr. Holland had found any information which might be helpful to producers in adopting best practices that would help prevent any possible connection between drilling and seismic events. In addition, he wanted to make sure that the Survey (OGS) had the benefit of research by Continental geologists.”
Boren is on the board of The Bloomberg Family Foundation, founded by Michael Bloomberg, the owner of Bloomberg LP.
Before Holland became the state seismologist in 2010, there wasn't much for Big Oil and state researchers to argue about. Over the previous 30 years, Oklahoma had averaged fewer than two earthquakes a year of at least 3.0 in magnitude. In 2015 the state is on pace for 875, according to Holland.
Oklahoma passed California last year as the most seismically active state in the continental U.S. One significant change in drilling practices is contemporaneous with the increase in seismic activity: horizontal hydraulic fracturing. Fracking has been around for decades, but technological advances have allowed companies to drill sideways, injecting a high-pressure mix of water, mud, and sand into shale formations deep underground, creating access to previously unreachable pockets of oil and gas.
Oklahoma Oil Production Doubles
Oil production in Oklahoma has more than doubled over the past decade, creating new wealth for the state as well as an unwanted surplus. Horizontal wells can produce as much as nine or 10 barrels of salty, toxin-laced water for every barrel of oil. Much of that fluid is injected back underground into wastewater disposal wells. It's this water, injected near faults, that many seismologists-including those at the U.S. Geological Survey-say has caused the spike in earthquakes.
The Hamm and Boren meeting wasn't the only such informational session. In an e-mail from October 2013, Holland updated his superiors on a meeting he had in the office of Patrice Douglas, then one of the three elected members of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, which regulates that state's oil and gas companies. Also at the meeting was Jack Stark, then-senior vice president for exploration at Continental and now its president.
“The basic jist [sic] of the meeting is that Continental does not feel induced seismicity is an issue and they are nervous about any dialog about the subject,” wrote Holland. He also wrote that Continental and Douglas were concerned about his participation in a joint statement he'd recently signed with the U.S. Geological Survey suggesting a link between quakes and the oil industry.
As Oklahoma has become the capital of American seismic activity, scientists, citizens, and some state lawmakers have been critical of state officials for their perceived slowness in drawing a connection between earthquakes and oil and gas activities, which account for 1 in 5 jobs in the state. Over the past couple years, as research began to get published and many seismologists became convinced that earthquakes were being induced by wastewater disposal, the OGS remained on the fence. In early 2013 the academic journal Geology accepted a paper attributing a 5.6 magnitude quake that hit Oklahoma in 2011 to underground changes resulting from wastewater disposal wells. In March 2013, OGS put out its own statement, attributing the quake to “natural causes.”
And in February 2014, three months after Holland's meeting with Hamm, the agency released a statement playing down the role of industry, saying the “majority, but not all, of the recent earthquakes appear to be the result of natural stresses.”
Conflict of Interest, Critics Say
“This is a conflict of interest that we never before could've imagined,” says Jason Murphey, a Republican state representative from Logan County, which has been one of the most seismically active areas in the state over the past year. “When Boren facilitates that meeting, it sends a message to Austin Holland.”
Even when earthquakes appeared strongly correlated to wastewater injection, OGS has been reluctant to discuss a connection. In September 2013 a new disposal well was turned on in Love County in southern Oklahoma. Soon, quakes began to jolt the area, sometimes several a day.
The well reached its peak daily injection of more than 9,000 barrels of wastewater on Sept. 20, 2013. Three days later the area experienced a magnitude 3.4 quake, moving furniture inside homes and knocking down a chimney. Injection at the well was curtailed, then stopped altogether. The seismic activity dipped almost immediately.
Still, the OGS hesitated to link the two.
“We cannot rule out that this observation could be simply a coincidence,” Holland wrote in a report a week later. In early October, Holland spoke at a town hall meeting in Love County, where he again said no conclusions could be drawn about the cause of the quakes.
Many residents were frustrated by the lack of answers. But ExxonMobil geologist Michael Sweatt wrote in an e-mail to Holland: “I would like to congratulate you on a job well done at the Town Hall meeting in Love County. I believe you delivered an unbiased report on the recent earthquake activity and answered the residents' questions the best you could.”
Today, as the number of earthquakes continues to soar, Holland has evolved in his position. He recently told Bloomberg that the vast majority of the increase in earthquakes is due to the injection of oil and gas wastewater. Yet he bristles at any suggestion that industry pressure slowed him from reaching that conclusion. Oklahoma has naturally occurring earthquakes, he says, and there have been large spikes of natural earthquakes in the past where no oil and gas development was occurring. It was proper, Holland says, to start with the hypothesis that the quakes were not man-made.
“Science doesn't operate in beliefs,” he says. “It operates in demonstrable facts.”
-
Methane Concentrations in Well Water Unrelated to Fracking, New Study Finds
Apr 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas
Methane concentrations in underground drinking water wells in northeastern Pennsylvania appear to have no significant correlation with nearby fracking activities, a newstudy has found.
The findings contradict earlier studies that found methane concentrations up to six times higher in drinking water wells located within one kilometer of a gas well.
“Our data set is hundreds of times larger than data sets used in prior studies,” author Donald Siegel of Syracuse University in New York wrote in the study abstract. “In contrast to prior findings, we found no statistically significant relationship between dissolved methane concentrations in groundwater from domestic water wells and proximity to pre-existing oil or gas wells.”
Environmental advocates say horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing or “fracking”—a method of forcing water, chemicals and sand into rock to release trapped gas—has led to water contamination near natural gas drilling sites.
Among the earlier studies, Rob Jackson, professor of environmental and earth science at Stanford University, found that nonconventional drilling led to dangerous concentrations of methane in drinking water in Pennsylvania and Texas (179 DEN A-5, 9/16/14).
Study Analyzed 11,000 Water Samples
The new study, published this month in “Environmental Science & Technology,” analyzed 11,309 water samples obtained from Chesapeake Energy Corp., one of the companies extracting natural gas from the Marcellus Shale deposits in Pennsylvania through hydraulic fracturing.
One of the study's co-authors, Bert Smith, has co-authored previous studies about methane in shallow groundwater on behalf of Chesapeake Energy, according to online abstracts.
The samples came from active drinking water wells near 661 oil and gas wells in Bradford and neighboring counties, 92 percent of which were unconventional wells drilled with horizontal legs, the study said.
“What people don't seem to want to understand is that methane naturally occurs in almost all sedimentary rocks in the Appalachian Basin,” Siegel told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail March 31. “So finding high concentrations of it is no surprise, close to or far away from gas wells.”
Methane Depends on Groundwater Setting, Rocks
The amount of methane depends on the groundwater setting and rock types, Siegel said.
People also seem to ignore that water well drillers routinely install vents to remove natural gas when they drill wells, “and this has been done in Appalachia for decades, long before fracking the Marcellus came to town.”
George Jugovic Jr., chief counsel for the environmental group Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future (PennFuture), questioned the point of the study, which notes that faulty wells cause leaks and leaks have occurred.
“I guess he was attempting to show what we already know, which is that in northeast Pennsylvania there is methane in shallow groundwater,” Jugovic told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail March 31. “That is really not the issue—it is how much methane is in the water, and whether fracking makes it worse, whether fracking releases other chemicals, and whether fracking changes the concentrations or location of methane already present (through pressure changes).”
Methods Questioned
Jackson, the author of earlier studies that found correlations between fracking and methane, said he would need to know more about the study methods to properly evaluate the new analysis.
“If, as the authors state, they sampled water from the taps of homes, rather than from the water wells, and after water softeners and other treatments, then that's a problem for any study of water chemistry,” Jackson told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail March 31.
The “inverted bottle sampling method” isn't used by other groups to characterize methane concentrations in water and is “inherently inaccurate,” Jackson said.
“We stand by our result that a minority of homeowners in the Marcellus and elsewhere have had stray gases migrate into their drinking water because of oil and gas drilling,” Jackson said in the e-mail. “The likeliest cause is poor well integrity, particularly casing and cementing issues, rather than hydraulic fracturing itself. Along with our methane data, there is a rich set of ethane, noble gas, and isotope data that confirm it.”
Team Followed Standard Regulatory Practices
Siegel told Bloomberg BNA that his team “adhered to standard regulatory practices used in sampling to determine if gas might be leaking from gas wells into domestic water.”
Chesapeake Energy Corp. didn't respond to a phone call and e-mail requesting comment about the study.
Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection is still reviewing the study, spokeswoman Amanda Witman told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail March 31.
Pennsylvania has about 700,000 private drinking water wells and more than 10,000 unconventional shale wells.
-
Schumer Called Mixed Bag for Energy Industry, Follows ‘Awesome' Reid
Apr 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who is emerging as the likely successor to Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) as leader of Senate Democrats, presents a mixed bag for the energy industry, analysts told Bloomberg BNA.
On the one hand, he opposes a mandate requiring billions of gallons of ethanol and other biofuels into the nation's fuel supply and supports hydraulic fracturing. On the other, he supports more stringent crude-by-rail requirements that could increase oil industry costs and has voted to put a price on carbon and repeal oil industry tax incentives.
Schumer, currently the Senate's No. 3 Democrat, was the author of an amendment to 2002 energy legislation that would have stricken the renewable fuel standard from the bill. The bill never became law, but it was a predecessor to the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which established the renewable fuel standard.
“This provision adds an astonishing new anticonsumer, anti-free market requirement that every refiner in the country, regardless of where they are located, regardless of whether the state mandates it or not, and of whether the state chooses a different path to get to clean air, must use an ever increasing volume of ethanol,” Schumer's office said in a 2006 statement. He added that the “expensive ethanol mandate will increase gas prices. It is nothing less than an ethanol gas tax levied on every driver.”
Joins Oil Companies in RFS Opposition
The requirement, which was expanded by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 to require 36 billion gallons of biofuel in the motor supply by 2022, is opposed by refiners such as ExxonMobil Corp. and Chevron Corp., which are required to blend it into their product.
Lawmakers frustrated with the Environmental Protection Agency's ongoing delays in issuing the annual RFS requirements have vowed to alter the law in 2015, but analysts have mixed views about how successful those efforts will be (8 DEN B-7, 1/13/15).
In addition, Schumer in remarks made on MSNBC in 2014 said many other Democrats have supported fracking, which is used to develop unconventional sources of oil and gas, such as shale gas. The technique is opposed by environmentalists, but it has made the dramatic U.S. oil boom possible.
Democrats Seen Supporting Fracking
“Overall, the Democrats throughout the country have supported fracking. The President has, most of us have, and it's worked quite well. It has to be done carefully, and it has to be done right,” Schumer said, adding that he would support the use of fracking in New York “if it's done carefully.”
New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D), however, announced a ban on the practice in the state because of public health and environmental concerns in late 2014 (243 DEN A-2, 12/18/14).
In addition, Schumer has been a proponent of energy efficiency, introducing legislation in 2009 that would have set up a national Energy Efficiency Resource Standard that would have required electric utilities and natural gas distributors to achieve savings of 15 percent and 10 percent, respectively, between the years 2012 and 2020. The bill was never enacted into law.
More Stringent Crude Rail Rule
Other energy issues that Schumer has championed include more stringent federal requirements for trains shipping crude-by-rail, including mandating volatility standards that could increase costs for Bakken oil producers.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's proposed rule on enhanced tank car standards for crude oil and other flammable liquids is expected to be finalized in May. The proposed version didn't address the volatility issue.
“I think he sees a grand bargain in working with all of the different sides and all of the different sources of energy,” said Israel “Izzy” Klein, a former policy adviser for Schumer. “He's done hearings on energy efficiency, and he's done hearings on energy independence, and he's also been a tremendous supporter of renewables.”
Schumer has secured commitments of support from most of his caucus to replace Reid, who announced March 27 that he wouldn't seek reelection in 2016, according to Bloomberg News (60 DEN A-15, 3/30/15).
Won't Easily be Replaced
Reid, who has made promoting clean energy and fighting climate change one of his signature issues and has been key in making Nevada one of the leading states in the country for solar installations, won't easily be replaced, analysts noted.
“It would be hard to follow Mr. Reid's footsteps. They would be big shoes to fill,” Melinda Pierce, the Sierra Club's director of federal policy, said in an interview. “That is something Senator Reid was absolutely passionate about.”
Still, Schumer is considered one of the leading Democrats when it comes to the environment, Pierce said.
According to the League of Conservation Voters, which ranks lawmakers based on their energy and environmental legislative records, Schumer has a lifetime score of 91 percent because of votes for measures to extend clean energy tax credits and against the Keystone XL pipeline.
Schumer Not Focusing Enough on Climate Change
Still some environmentalists, such as RL Miller, who chairs the California Democratic Party's environmental caucus and the co-founder of the super-PAC Climate Hawks Vote, are concerned that Schumer hasn't made climate change enough of a focus.
“Reid has been awesome,” Miller told Bloomberg BNA. “Nobody can fully replace somebody that good.”
A Schumer spokesman didn't return a request for comment.
-
The Legal and Economic Case for Obama’s Clean Power Plan
Mar 31, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Richard Revesz
The Clean Power Plan—the centerpiece of President Obama’s effort to address climate change—was crafted to make compliance as flexible as possible. To reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants, which account for a third of our nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, the EPA sought to avoid imposing costly technology-based requirements on individual plants. Instead, it set statewide carbon reduction targets that states can meet through any means they choose: improvements in the efficiency of energy production, increased use of natural gas and renewable energy, programs that help consumers save energy, or any other strategy the states prefer.
This flexible approach is one of the rule’s greatest strengths—it will allow states and energy companies to reduce their emissions through the cheapest and most effective means available. Ironically, political figures, led by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, are urging states not to prepare compliance plans even though they understand that the alternative, a federal plan, would be more expensive for the regulated plants and, by extension, their customers. Critics of the Clean Power Plan overlook not only the cost-reducing benefits of the EPA’s approach, but also more than three decades of history, during which administrations of both parties have designed regulations to provide maximum flexibility, resulting in significant cost savings and net societal benefits.
Under President Ronald Reagan, the EPA established a marketable permit system to phase out leaded gasoline. The 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act, championed by President George H.W. Bush, established a system of tradable allowances for sulfur dioxide emissions. And, during the administrations of Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, the EPA developed interstate pollution rules that allow trading as a way to reduce the costs of compliance. Most significantly, under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, which the U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld, states can adopt any combination of reduction strategies, including participation in interstate emissions trading markets and the creation of consumer energy efficiency programs.
The Clean Power Plan is a logical extension of these past flexible policies, which have saved tens of billions of dollars in control costs while generating enormous health benefits for the American public. Moreover, the EPA is on strong legal footing in adopting some of the cost-reducing measures from prior regulatory efforts. Every president since the early 1980s has rejected the legal arguments against this type of flexible regulation, and the Supreme Court decisively rejected such an argument less than a year ago.
If the EPA were forced to abandon its flexible approach, the result would be higher compliance costs for electric utilities and higher energy prices for their consumers. When the agency solicited comments on the design of the rule last year, states overwhelmingly requested flexible compliance options. The agency listened, but political attacks on the rule could undermine this design. In the case of the Clean Power Plan, flexibility is worth fighting for.
-
After Missed Deadline, EPA Should Withdraw Power Plant Rules, 19 Attorneys General Say
Apr 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency missed a statutory deadline to finalize carbon dioxide performance standards for new power plants, which should force it to withdraw that rule as well as the Clean Power Plan, 19 attorneys general said.
The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to finalize its new source performance standards (NSPS) within one year of being proposed, but the EPA missed a Jan. 8 deadline to issue final carbon dioxide standards for new power plants it proposed under Section 111(b) in 2014. The EPA should withdraw that rule as well as its Clean Power Plan, which would set carbon dioxide emissions rates for existing power plants under Section 111(d), the attorneys general said in a letter released March 30.
“Furthermore, because the proposed Section 111(d) rule is predicated on the publication of a lawful final Section 111(b) rule, EPA's failure to finalize the Section 111(b) rule within the statutorily required time frame has imposed substantial harms upon many states,” the attorneys general said in the letter sent to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. “Specifically, states are currently expending considerable time and resources developing implementation plans required by the proposed Section 111(d) rule.”
The letter was signed by the attorneys general of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. Those attorneys general had also called the performance standards “unlawful” in joint comments on the proposed rule.
Rule Expected This Summer
The EPA announced in January that it would not issue its final performance standards for new power plants (RIN 2060–AQ91) until this summer, when it finalizes a package of rules regulating carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. The EPA had proposed a carbon dioxide performance standard of 1,000 pounds per megawatt-hour for new natural gas-fired power plants and 1,100 pounds per megawatt-hour for new coal-fired units, which would effectively necessitate use of carbon capture systems (5 DEN A-1, 1/8/15).
The EPA is required by the Clean Air Act to issue its performance standards for new power plants before it can finalize its emissions standards for existing units. As part of its proposed Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33), the EPA would set carbon dioxide emissions rates for the power sector in each state. State regulators would then determine how best to achieve those emissions reductions.
Delay Causes Uncertainty
The one-year deadline to finalize performance standards for new power plants was included by Congress because all facilities that commence construction after the date the rule was proposed will be subject to the carbon dioxide performance standards, the attorneys general said.
“Because of this uncertainty, once EPA announced its intention (through publication of the proposed rule) to create new emissions standards for fossil fuel-fired EGUs [electric generating units] and natural gas-fired stationary combustion turbines, some sources may have made the business decision to postpone construction until the final NSPS are issued. Congress specifically limited the time frame during which this uncertainty would be allowed by setting a precise one-year deadline within which EPA must act. But rather than comply with the law, EPA has let that one year deadline come and go.”
-
Officials Downplay Fears Of GHG Rule Suits Undermining UN Climate Plan
Mar 31, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Anthony Lacey
White House and other administration officials are downplaying concerns that pending lawsuits challenging EPA's greenhouse gas (GHG) rules for power plants will succeed and undercut U.S. plans, just submitted to the United Nations, to cut emissions by 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, which rely heavily on the agency's regulations.
On a March 31 call to announce that the United States has submitted its Intended National Determined Contribution (INDC) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Todd Stern, special envoy for climate change at the State Department, said that other countries ask him about the “solidity” of the administration's climate plans “all the time,” and in response he says that they are based on strong legal authority and as such undoing such by an act of Congress or court ruling is difficult.
“Undoing the kind of regulation that we're putting in place is something that's very tough to do,” he said.
The comments echo recent remarks by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy at a March 30 Politico event, where she doubted that federal courts would undercut the agency's existing source performance standards (ESPS) for power plants, potentially leaving the administration without a critical component of its commitment heading into this December's United Nations climate talks in Paris.
“I don't need a Plan B if I'm solid on my Plan A. We know how to do regulation under the Clean Air Act. We've been doing it for 40-plus years.” She added: “We've been having some pretty good success, and the Supreme Court has addressed the issue of carbon pollution three times already, so we want to make sure we get a fourth win under our belt.”
McCarthy and other administration officials are also emphasizing that the administration's plan will not require new congressional authority -- an action that the current Congress will not approve -- and is based on existing authorities.
Speaking on the March 31 call, President Obama's Senior Advisor Brian Deese said the plan “is grounded in an assessment of the potential to reduce emissions through our obligations under existing laws. These are laws that have already been passed by Congress and therefore no new legislation is necessary.”
He touted the legality of the administration's efforts to curb climate change, including its Clean Air Act rules to cut GHGs from existing and new power plants that the administration intends to finalize this summer. He said the rules are consistent with past practice, and the regulatory framework “undergirds” the INDC.
Such comments come as congressional opponents of the administration's climate agenda are reiterating that any agreement the administration may reach in Paris would not win Senate ratification -- though the administration is not currently planning to seek such approval.
“The Obama administration’s pledge to the United Nations today will not see the light of day with the 114th Congress,” said Senate Environment & Public Works Committee Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK).
Paris Talks
The administration's plan is required by a broad international agreement that allows UNFCCC member states to each submit their own unique commitments or INDCs, rather than negotiating binding international commitments, which detail the steps they will take to cut GHGs in order to inform major international climate talks in Paris in December.
The administration's plan offered few surprises and provided little new detail -- especially since it largely mirrors the administration's recent announcement with China that seeks to cut GHG emissions by identical amounts.
At the time of the announcement last November, many observers said that state and industry lawsuits challenging EPA's power plant rules were among the greatest uncertainty for the administration's global commitments. “Other countries will want to see that the U.S. commitments are real and meaningful,” said Gary Guzy, a former top official in both the Obama and Clinton administrations who now works for the law firm Covington & Burling.
Despite the legal uncertainties, the administration's plan touts EPA's rule as a significant portion of its commitments, noting that EPA is moving to finalize by this summer its CO2 rules for new and existing power plants.
It also outlines several additional steps the administration will be taking, including new rules for heavy-duty vehicles, upcoming methane standards for the oil and gas sector and municipal landfills, new rules limiting the use of refrigerant chemicals with high global warming potential and new energy conservation standards for buildings, appliances and equipment.
It also touted actions the administration has already taken, including landmark GHG and fuel economy standards for light-duty vehicles for model years 2012-2025 and for heavy-duty vehicles for MY14-18.
Taken together, these actions are intended to achieve the administration's overall targets. “The United States intends to achieve an economy-wide target of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 26%-28% below its 2005 level in 2025 and to make best efforts to reduce its emissions by 28%,” says the U.S. INDC.
In a fact sheet, the White House says that the INDC builds on recent international agreements on climate change including China's recent commitment to peak and then limit its GHGs and boost non-fossil energy consumption; and Mexico's announcement last week that is would peak its overall GHG levels by 2026.
“With these actions, as well as strong INDCs submitted by Norway and Switzerland, countries representing over 50% of global CO2 emissions have either announced or formally reported their targets. Today’s action by the United States further demonstrates real momentum on the road to reaching a successful climate agreement this December in Paris and shows President Obama is committed to leading on the international stage,” the fact sheet says.
While the White House touted actions by countries like Norway and Switzerland, officials were less willing to comment on the apparent failure by some large emitters to submit plans. On the March 31 call, Stern declined to comment on Canada's, Japan's and Australia's failures to submit their own plans. “I'm not going to speculate about the internal processes of those three countries or any other,” he said.
'Ambitious' Targets
Instead, Deese and Stern touted their belief that the administration's “ambitious” GHG target is achievable, and that the INDC is based on legally sound rules that will be in place before Obama leaves office. “This submission [to the UN] is ambitious and achievable within existing legal authority,” Deese said.
Asked about whether Congress might have to approve any international agreement to reduce GHGs that might result from the Paris talks, Stern said negotiations among countries are ongoing and that nothing has been resolved. “The legal form of the agreement is very much still part of the discussions,” he said.
But McCarthy in her remarks at the Politico event suggested that a Paris agreement might not need Congress' approval if the United States' obligations under any such deal are based on rules using existing legislative authority. “The good news is that everything the president is looking at, in terms of a U.S. commitment, he has the authority to do,” she said. “In fact, EPA has the obligation to [regulate carbon emissions], as the Supreme Court has told us. So, we just need to make sure that we're following the law and we should be all set.”
However, Inhofe and other lawmakers are vowing close congressional scrutiny of the upcoming climate talks, with Inhofe outright vowing that any climate treaty would fail in the 114th Congress.
“When a treaty comes before the Senate, I fully expect for a majority of my colleagues to stand with the rest of Americans who want affordable energy and more economic opportunity, neither of which will be obtainable with the president’s current climate deal,” Inhofe said in his March 31 statement.
Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) in a separate statement said, “Just as we witnessed throughout recent negotiations with Iran and during the previous climate agreement with China, President Obama and his administration act as if Congress has no role in these discussions. That’s just flat out wrong. These costly promises should not be forced upon families and workers across America without the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate.”
Blunt's office in a press release noted that the senator introduced an amendment to the fiscal year 2016 budget resolution that lays the groundwork for future legislation that would require the advice and consent of the Senate prior to any bilateral or international GHG agreement taking effect in the United States.
Supporters of EPA's and other agencies' efforts to regulate and reduce GHG emissions however commended the White House INDC and urged other countries to take steps to address climate change. For example, the League of Conservation Voters' President Gene Karpinski said, “This commitment sends another important signal to the world that tackling climate change is a very top priority for President Obama. Building on game changing announcements like the one unveiled with China last year, countries are coming together to tackle this challenge -- for the sake of our health, our economy, and our future.”
-
Obama Commits U.S. to 28 Percent Carbon Cuts
Mar 31, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia
The Obama administration formally pledged Tuesday that the U.S. will cut its greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 28 percent over the next decade — the opening salvo in an eight-month sprint toward reaching an international climate change deal.
The five-page submission to the United Nations repeats a pledge that President Barack Obama first unveiled four months ago in Beijing and relies on the EPA regulations that have been a centerpiece of his second-term climate agenda. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell immediately warned international negotiators to “proceed with caution” before trusting Obama’s promise — the continuation of the GOP’s attempt to undermine the administration’s climate strategy at every turn.
White House adviser Brian Deese announced the submission in a post on Medium. “The United States’ target is ambitious and achievable, and we have the tools we need to reach it,” he wrote.
The pledge calls for the U.S. to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. Meeting that target would also set the stage for the U.S. to push toward far deeper cuts, the administration said — perhaps exceeding 80 percent by 2050.
Green groups praised the administration’s move. “This important commitment sends a powerful message to the world: Together we can slash dangerous carbon pollution and combat climate change,” Natural Resources Defense Council President Rhea Suh said in a statement.
Tuesday’s submission, known in U.N. jargon as an Intended Nationally Determined Contribution, fulfills a mandate that countries submit plans detailing their contributions to the global climate effort before a December summit in Paris.
The heart of the U.S. commitment consists of proposed EPA power plant regulations that industry groups and congressional Republicans are already trying to undercut, both by pursuing court challenges and by urging states not to comply. But EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said this week that she’s not worried that the courts will overturn the rules and undermine the president’s pledge.
“We certainly don’t expect that to happen,” McCarthy said during a POLITICO policy forum Monday. “I don’t need a plan B if I’m solid in my plan A.”
Top U.S. climate negotiator Todd Stern told reporters Tuesday that no one has any reason to doubt the pledges.
“Undoing the kind of regulation that we’re putting in place is something that’s very tough to do,” he said. He added that “countries ask me about the solidity of what we’re doing all the time, and that’s exactly what I explain.”
In contrast, McConnell alleged in a statement Tuesday that the United States can’t meet Obama’s 2025 emissions target, “even if the job-killing and likely illegal Clean Power Plan were fully implemented.”
“Considering that two-thirds of the U.S. federal government hasn’t even signed off on the Clean Power Plan and 13 states have already pledged to fight it, our international partners should proceed with caution before entering into a binding, unattainable deal,” said the Kentucky Republican, who has lambasted Obama’s climate initiative as a “War on Coal.”
The statement was the continuation of McConnell’s “just say no” strategy on the president’s climate strategy. It also echoed Senate Republicans’ attempt earlier this month to undermine nuclear negotiations with Iran by telling leaders in Tehran that Obama can’t make binding commitments without backing from Congress.
The plan the United States submitted Tuesday provides little new detail on Obama’s climate plans, but it nonetheless allows the administration to make the case to other countries that its target is transparent, achievable and ambitious. That could help the U.S. — the world’s No. 2 carbon polluter — shake the years of complaints that it has largely shirked its responsibilities to tackle the climate problem, especially after the George W. Bush administration walked away from the 1997 Kyoto agreement.
Tuesday’s submission touts the actions the administration is already taking to cut greenhouse gas emissions, including the EPA’s power plant regulations as well as vehicle fuel economy rules and energy efficiency standards. In addition, the plan says the U.S. will “make best efforts” to hit the higher end of its target: a 28 percent carbon reduction.
The document says the U.S. is already on a path toward meeting Obama’s earlier target of cutting emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. Meeting the 2025 goal will require an additional reduction of of 9 to 11 percent beyond the 2020 target, according to the plan, as well as an “approximate doubling” of the 2005-through-2020 annual pace of emissions reductions.
The plan says the 2025 target also puts the United States on a path toward deeper emissions reductions in the coming decades.
“This target is consistent with a straight line emission reduction pathway from 2020 to deep, economy-wide emission reductions of 80 percent or more by 2050,” the plan says. “The target is part of a longer range, collective effort to transition to a low-carbon global economy as rapidly as possible.”
Jennifer Morgan, the global director of the World Resources Institute’s Climate Change Program, called the U.S. target “serious and achievable.”
“The United States’ proposal shows that it is ready to lead by example on the climate crisis,” she said in a statement. “By enacting these common sense actions, the U.S. can grow its economy and save money through cleaner technologies.”
International climate negotiators have embraced a bottom-up structure that allows individual countries to determine how they will cut emissions, abandoning failed efforts to impose top-down mandates. While that approach makes the talks more likely to succeed, it also means the end result will be less ambitious. Indeed, analysts agree that the final international pact almost certainly won’t do enough on its own to avert the most catastrophic effects of climate change.
The U.N. has strongly encouraged major polluters to submit their domestic plans well in advance of the Paris meeting. At interim climate talks last year in Lima, Peru, negotiators set a goal of countries issuing the plans by the end of March if they can.
But as of Tuesday morning, only the European Union, Switzerland, Norway and Mexico had submitted their plans. Most major polluters are expected to release their plans by June.
Still, the EU and U.S. pledges combined with China’s target of seeing its emissions peak by 2030 mean that the planet’s three largest carbon polluters have committed to taking action on climate change — a feat that once seemed impossible. (China has not yet formally submitted its domestic plan.)
It remains to be seen what other big polluters like India and Russia will do.
Despite some early progress, climate negotiators will have to clear a series of hurdles before they can clinch a deal, which would take effect in 2020. Negotiators must whittle down a 90-page negotiating text that is full of contradictory language being pushed by various countries. And they must strike difficult compromises on the legal framework of the agreement, as well as the degree to which wealthy nations will contribute billions of dollars to help poor countries deal with the effects of a warming planet.
Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress are already fuming because they likely will have little oversight of the climate deal, especially since the Obama administration is expected to ensure that the final agreement will not require approval from the Republican-led Senate. Sens. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) have launched a last-ditch effort to undermine that strategy, offering legislative amendments that would allow the Senate to weigh in on the deal.
-
White House: GOP Criticism of Climate Pact 'Hard to Take Seriously
Mar 31, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The White House on Tuesday rebuked Republican critics of its contribution to the United Nations climate pact, saying the criticisms are “hard to take seriously.”
Asked about congressional Republicans who want the Senate to have to approve an agreement, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said that politicians who are skeptical of the science surrounding climate change are not qualified to judge the matter.
“These are individuals who — many of whom, at least, deny the fact that climate change even exists, so I'm not sure they would be in the best position to decide whether or not a climate- change agreement is one that is worth entering into,” Earnest told reporters Tuesday.
His comments were directed at lawmakers such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who have all insisted that the international agreement the UN is working on is a treaty and cannot be enforced without Senate approval.
Those lawmakers, along with most Republicans, also doubt the scientific consensus that human activity is significantly contributing to climate change.
The White House submitted its contributions to the pact Tuesday, promising a 26 to 28 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2025.
“I think it's hard to take seriously from some members of Congress who deny the fact that climate change exists, that they should have some opportunity to render judgment about climate-change agreement,” Earnest continued.
Earnest defended the UN submission as “evidence once again how President Obama and the United States is leading the world to confront the challenge of climate change,” and would likely spur other major countries to follow suit.
-
Obama’s Strategy on Climate Change, Part of Global Deal, Is Revealed
Mar 31, 2015 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport
The White House on Tuesday introduced President Obama’s blueprint for cutting greenhouse gas emissions in the United States by nearly a third over the next decade.
Mr. Obama’s plan, part of a formal written submission to the United Nations ahead of efforts to forge a global climate change accord in Paris in December, detailed the United States’ part of an ambitious joint pledge made by Mr. Obama and President Xi Jinping of China in November.
The United States and China are the world’s two largest greenhouse gas polluters. Mr. Obama said the United States would cut its emissions by 26 to 28 percent by 2025, while Mr. Xi said that China’s emissions would drop after 2030.
Mr. Obama’s new blueprint brings together several domestic initiatives that were already in the works, including freezing construction of new coal-fired power plants, increasing the fuel economy of vehicles and plugging methane leaks from oil and gas production. It is meant to describe how the United States will lead by example and meet its pledge for cutting emissions.
But the plan’s reliance on executive authority is an acknowledgment that any proposal to pass climate change legislation would be blocked by the Republican-controlled Congress.
At the heart of the plan are ambitious but politically contentious Environmental Protection Agency regulations meant to drastically cut planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions from the nation’s cars and coal-fired power plants. The plan also relies on a speedy timetable, which assumes that Mr. Obama’s administration will issue and begin enacting all such regulations before he leaves office.
“We can achieve this goal using laws that are already on the books, and it will be in place by the time the president leaves office,” said Brian C. Deese, Mr. Obama’s senior adviser on climate change.
But the plan has also intensified opposition from Republican lawmakers who object to Mr. Obama’s effort to build a climate change legacy. Republicans have called the rules a “war on coal” and an abuse of executive authority. Nearly every potential Republican presidential candidate has criticized Mr. Obama’s climate change agenda. The issue is expected to be important in 2016 political campaigns, with Republican candidates vowing to undo Mr. Obama’s E.P.A. regulations.
Republican leaders immediately savaged the plan Tuesday and announced their intent to weaken or undo it — and, by extension, to block the international efforts to reach a climate accord in Paris.
“Even if the job-killing and likely illegal Clean Power Plan were fully implemented, the United States could not meet the targets laid out in this proposed new plan,” said Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader and Republican from Kentucky, who has been a vocal critic of the president’s plan.
“Considering that two-thirds of the U.S. federal government hasn’t even signed off on the Clean Power Plan and 13 states have already pledged to fight it,” Mr. McConnell continued, “our international partners should proceed with caution before entering into a binding, unattainable deal.”Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story
Environmental groups praised the plan, particularly the president’s effort to work around Congress.
“The United States’ proposal shows that it is ready to lead by example on the climate crisis,” said Jennifer Morgan, an expert on international climate negotiations at the World Resources Institute, a Washington research organization. The research of Ms. Morgan’s group has concluded that the United States can substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions under existing federal authority.
However, environmental groups also said far deeper cuts are necessary beyond 2025 to stave off the most devastating effects of climate change.
“In fact the U.S. must do more than just deliver on this pledge — the 28 percent domestic target can and must be a floor, not a ceiling,” said Lou Leonard, vice president for climate change policy with the conservation group World Wildlife Fund.
Republicans also adamantly oppose Mr. Obama’s efforts to reach the United Nations accord in Paris. To bypass the Senate — which would have to ratify United States involvement in a foreign treaty — Secretary of State John Kerry and other diplomatic officials are working closely with their foreign counterparts to ensure that the Paris deal does not legally qualify as a treaty.
Senator Roy Blunt, a Missouri Republican, has put together legislation intended to nullify Mr. Obama’s international climate change agreements. Republican leaders may try to add that as an amendment to must-pass legislation, like a critical spending measure later this year, to force the hands of Mr. Obama and other Democrats.
“Just as we witnessed throughout recent negotiations with Iran and during the previous climate agreement with China, President Obama and his administration act as if Congress has no role in these discussions. That’s just flat-out wrong,” Mr. Blunt said in a written statement.
“We will not stand by and allow the president to unilaterally enact bad energy policies that hurt our nation’s poorest families and young people the most,” he added. “I’ll continue working with my colleagues to ensure Americans’ voices are heard.”
Todd D. Stern, the State Department’s chief envoy on climate change, is telling other countries that the elements of Mr. Obama’s plan will stay in place despite Republican opposition.
“Undoing the kind of regulation we’re putting in place is very tough,” he said.
However, the rules have already come under legal assault. Republicans intend to stress to other nations that the regulations could still fall to legal challenges.
There is also growing concern that most other countries have yet to submit similar plans. At a United Nations accord signed in Lima, Peru, in December, countries agreed to submit their plans to one of the organization’s websites by the end of March. Climate policy experts said keeping to that timetable was important, so that each government prepared and analyzed its own domestic climate change plans and those of other nations.
But as of Tuesday, only the European Union, Mexico, Norway and Switzerland had done so. Most of the rest of the world’s major polluters — including China, India, Brazil and Russia — are not expected to submit plans until at least June, and some expect delays until at least October.
The longer countries wait to submit their plans, experts say, the harder it could be to achieve a substantial agreement in December.
-
The Senate Vote-a-Rama and What it Means for the Climate Fight
Mar 31, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Sam Parry
After last week’s vote-a-rama shenanigans in the Senate, I am feeling a renewed sense of hope about our ability to tackle climate change in the current political environment.
“Vote-a-rama” sounds like a gag, but it’s a very real procedural process involving Senate budget resolutions. In a nutshell: Senators can’t filibuster resolutions on budget reconciliation bills, so after the limited debate period ends, a flurry of amendments are often offered. These are, like the budget resolutions themselves, non-binding, but they’re interesting ways to gauge Congressional feelings on a number of topics, climate included.
While both sides can point to tactical victories among the scores of amendments offered last week, one critical result stood out: the Climate Denier Caucus failed to secure 60 votes on any of their most alarming amendments. Climate deniers are emboldened, but do they have the votes?
What does this mean? Going into this new Congress, we knew the Climate Denier Caucus would be emboldened. And with limitless financial support from the Big Carbon Lobby, they are a formidable political force. We should never take that for granted.
But, combined with the vote from January in which 60 Senators agreed that climate change is real and that humans are contributing to it, the Senate Climate Reality Caucus has demonstrated some political juice of its own.
This is important. This summer, the EPA is expected to release its final rule to set the first national limits on pollution from America’s fossil-fuel-fired power plants – the largest source of carbon dioxide pollution in the U.S. If climate deniers can’t secure the votes needed to block EPA climate action, these rules will go into force and we will take one gigantic step closer toward ending, once and for all, the era of unlimited carbon pollution.
These are hopeful signs. In the short-term, it means there may be enough Senators to prevent the Denier Caucus from winning direct legislative assaults on EPA climate action.
But we cannot let this momentum bloom into complacency. The Denier Caucus has many legislative tactics at their disposal, and with a savvy leader in Senator Mitch McConnell, we should expect many treacherous battles in the coming months.
And, taking the longer view, to turn the corner to climate safety, we not only have to win all the major fights this year – we have to build longer term toward moving these "reality" Senators into "action" Senators. That’s the next act in the titanic struggle that has been grinding on for the last quarter century between deniers and realists, one in which neither side has been able to secure clear victory.
But, as we look back at the vote-a-rama week that was, climate realists have reason to be optimistic. We’re standing up against the virtually unlimited financial resources of the Big Carbon Lobby – and so far, we’re more than holding our own.
-
The Bad GOP and the Good GOP on Climate Change
Mar 31, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Stephen Stromberg
The Obama administration officially committed the United States Thursday to cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 26 percent to 28 percent within 10 years. This is the sort of U.S. leadership necessary to keep major emitting nations moving toward significant curbs on the gases that cause global warming, a world effort that negotiators hope to formalize at a major conference in Paris this year.
As you might expect, much of the Republican reaction was irresponsible and counterproductive. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), for one, tried to sabotage the incipient global carbon effort: “Considering that two-thirds of the U.S. federal government hasn’t even signed off on the Clean Power Plan and 13 states have already pledged to fight it, our international partners should proceed with caution before entering into a binding, unattainable deal,” he said. In other words, McConnell counseled other countries that the United States wasn’t likely to keep its promises . . . because of opposition from McConnell and his party.
That’s not to say that Republicans have to accept the Obama administration’s policy without criticism or objection. Here, for example, is Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) on Tuesday’s announcement:
“The Obama administration’s national energy policy is practically a national windmill policy – which is like going to war in sailboats when nuclear warships are available. If the administration is serious about achieving energy independence and protecting our environment, it should work with Congress to unleash the clean, cheap, reliable sources of energy we need to power our 21st-century economy. That means doubling government-sponsored energy research, building more nuclear reactors, ending Washington’s obsession with wasteful subsidies like the wind production tax credit and solving our country’s nuclear waste stalemate.”
Alexander didn’t challenge the need to cut carbon dioxide emissions. He didn’t argue that American leadership will be useless because other nations won’t follow. He didn’t insist that inaction is somehow the best policy. He didn’t even object to President Obama’s topline goal to cut emissions 26 percent to 28 percent. Alexander criticized the way the president wants to get there, and he offered an alternative.
-
The Legal and Economic Case for Obama’s Clean Power Plan
|
-
Oil, Rail Industries Collaborate to Provide Safety Training
Mar 31, 2015 | The Bakken Magazine
By Patrick C. Miller
As part of an all-inclusive approach to improving the safety of crude shipment by rail, the American Petroleum Institute and the Association of American Railroads have released an education module for firefighters and first responders.
"Freight railroads are fully committed to the safe movement of crude oil and other hazardous materials by rail," said Edward Hamberger, AAR president and CEO. "This course is another example of how railroads and their customers work with communities coast-to-coast to help with awareness and preparedness for any type of incident."
The safety course—available now as a PowerPoint presentation and later on DVD—is designed to give first responders a basic understanding of crude oil being transported by rail tank car. It covers the basics of hazard identification, tank car design, and emergency response consideration, as well as the importance of following training and the incident command system.
“When it comes to shipping crude oil by rail our first priority is safety,” said Jack Gerard, API president and CEO. “While the first steps are to prevent and mitigate the impact of train derailments, if an incident happens, we also need to make sure firefighters and first responders have the knowledge they need to protect local communities.”
Gerard said a study of crude characteristics released last week by the U.S. Department of Energy provides another aspect of understanding how to safely ship Bakken crude and other sweet light crudes by rail.
“What’s significant about the findings at DOE is that the Bakken crudes are not unlike the other crudes out there and that there is no correlation between those properties and the severity of fire caused by derailment,” he said. “We know it’s a flammable product and we’re looking to make sure it’s characterized correctly so it’s packaged correctly and moved appropriately.”
Asked about proposals to raise the standards for rail tank cars, Gerard responded, “The tank car alone is not a silver bullet. We can’t look at that on its own and believe somehow that we’re going to improve safety.”
He added, “We’ve also got to work hard to make sure that we prevent accidents and be prepared to respond. Anything that would interrupt the energy marketplace and just holistically pull cars off the tracks is not a thoughtful approach.”
Course materials have been posted and are publicly available on the website of the Transportation Community Awareness and Emergency Response (TRANSCAER) program, which will distribute the course.
API and TRANSCAER partnered with the Federal Railroad Administration to identify states for the initial rollout of this program. It’s offered free of charge at hazmat and emergency response conferences across North America. Course offerings are confirmed or being planned in more than 15 states.
Fire departments and other state and local officials interested in having the course taught in their area should contact their TRANSCAER state coordinator. The DVD version of the program will be distributed by TRANSCAER to fire houses across the U.S.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested