Preview Newsletter
ACC Am Ap 27
-
Hearing on the Administration's Quadrennial Energy Review (QER)
Apr 28, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources
Location: Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 366/ 10:00 AM -
Markup, Nomination, Consideration of 22 GSA Resolutions
Apr 28, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
Location: 406 Dirksen Senate Office Building (SD-406)/ 10:00 AM -
H.R. __, The Ratepayer Protection Act, and H.R.__, the Targeting Rogue and Opaque Letters Act of 2015 (TROL Act)
Apr 28, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building/ 5:00 PM; Note: A second hearing will be held April 29th, at 10:00 AM -
Five Years After Deepwater Horizon: Improvements and Challenges in Prevention and Response
Apr 29, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation
Location: Senate Russell Office Building, Room 253/ 9:30 AM -
Oversight Hearing on "Zero Accountability: The Consequences of Politically Driven Science."
Apr 29, 2015 | The House Committee on Natural Resources
Location: 1334 Longworth House Office Building/ 2:00 PM -
Full Committee Markup
Apr 29, 2015 | The House Committee on Natural Resources
Location: 1324 Longworth House Office Building/ 5:00 PM -
Hearing on Energy Efficiency Legislation
Apr 30, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources
Location: Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 366/ 10:00 AM -
Strategic Petroleum Reserve Discussion Draft and Title IV Energy Efficiency
Apr 30, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2322 Rayburn House Office Building/ 10:15 AM -
Subcommittee Hearing on the Bureau of Land Management's Final Hydraulic Fracturing Rule
Apr 30, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources
Location: Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 366/ 2:30 PM -
Examining Microbeads in Cosmetic Products
May 1, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building/ 9:15 AM -
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Publishes Plastic Resins Statistical Reference Book
Apr 24, 2015 | Powder & Bulk Solids
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) has released the 2015 edition of its statistical reference book on plastic resins, The Resin Review. This annual publication is compiled from data collected by a third party on behalf of ACC’s Plastics Industry Producers’ Statistics Group, and other sources, and represents an authoritative resource for ... -
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Knocks Proposed Changes to California Disclosure Law
Apr 24, 2015 | Chem.Info
By Andy Szal
The American Chemistry Council sharply criticized modifications to California's Proposition 65 in comments to a state environmental agency earlier this month. In January, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment outlined a series of changes to Prop 65, a nearly 30 year-old initiative that requires the state to publish a list of... -
(ACC Mentioned) California Finds That BPA Causes Reproductive Harm
Apr 26, 2015 | Longevity Live
By Savannah Freemantle
Earlier this year California announced its intent to place bisphenol A (BPA) on the list of state chemicals known to cause reproductive harm (Proposition 65 list). This came hot on the heels of substantial new research, published in a summarized review that shows the negative effects of BPA on women’s reproductive health and suggests possible... -
(ACC Mentioned) VI Members are Awarded at the 2015 Responsible Care Awards
Apr 24, 2015 | The Vinyl Institute
Just in time for Earth Day, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) honored 21 of its member companies for implementing energy efficiency improvements in 2014. A total of 56 awards were presented at the 2015 Responsible Care Conference and Expo. The Responsible Care Energy Efficiency Awards program is one of many ongoing... -
Senators Craft Changes To TSCA Bill's Major Provisions Ahead Of Markup
Apr 24, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Senators are negotiating revisions to a bipartisan Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform bill ahead of an April 28 environment panel markup that includes changes to major provisions including contested language on when EPA can preempt state chemicals programs and the agency's power to regulate “articles” in products. -
EPW Panel To Vote On TSCA Reform Bill Amid Efforts To Broaden Support
Apr 27, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sam Pearson and Annie Snider
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee lawmakers tomorrow will vote on a bipartisan but contentious chemical safety reform bill, as well as amendments meant to solidify support for the controversial measure. The committee will mark up S. 697, or the "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act." -
Senate Bill Goes Wrong Way on Toxic-chemical Rules
| San Francisco Chronicle
An unlikely alliance of the chemical industry and some environmental groups has formed to support a bipartisan proposal to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976. It’s hard to find anyone who would disagree with Jeanne Rizzo, president and CEO of the Breast Cancer Fund, that the law is “by all accounts, an incredible failure”... -
(ACC Mentioned) Flares Emit More Pollutants Than Previously Thought, EPA Updates Find
Apr 27, 2015 | PowerSource
By Don Hopey
A new U.S. Environmental Protection Agency formula for calculating the amount of pollutants released by flares at refineries and chemical plants nationwide shows that those emissions are four times higher than previously thought. The EPA said last week that the court-ordered update of a decades-old method used by the government and... -
Senate Panel To Dig Down On BLM's Controversial Rule
Apr 27, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Phil Taylor
A Senate subpanel Thursday will probe the Bureau of Land Management's final rule for hydraulic fracturing, a regulation that has garnered intense criticism from Republican lawmakers and some Democrats. BLM Director Neil Kornze will defend the rule before the Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands... -
Fracking Rule Criticized for Vagueness, Questionable Strategies, Ineffectiveness
Apr 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
Specialists in the oil and gas industry see problems in the new federal regulations on hydraulic fracturing because of what the specialists describe as “vague” or “nebulous” elements, new obligations and a one-size-fits-all approach to regulation. Industry representatives told Bloomberg BNA they were still gathering information to estimate ... -
Texas Commission Orders Operators to Show Why Two Well Permits Shouldn't Be Canceled
Apr 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
The Texas Railroad Commission directed its hearings division to initiate proceedings requiring the operators of two disposal wells to show cause why the injection permits for the wells shouldn't be cancelled and the wells ordered shut-in, the commission announced April 24. The show cause proceeding was initiated because of an alleged... -
Colorado Joins Challenge to BLM Fracking Rule
Apr 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Colorado has joined with Wyoming and North Dakota in a lawsuit challenging the Bureau of Land Management's hydraulic fracturing rule (Wyoming v. Interior , D. Wyo., No. 15-CV-43, 4/22/15). The U.S. District for the District of Wyoming April 22 ordered that Colorado be joined as a petitioner in the lawsuit, which was filed in March after ... -
Texas Orders Two Oil Firms to Prove Well Isn’t Causing Earthquakes
Apr 24, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Erin Ailworth
Texas regulators have ordered a subsidiary of Exxon Mobil Corp. and another company to prove that their wells near Fort Worth aren’t causing earthquakes. A study published this week by seismic researchers at Southern Methodist University in Dallas connected two wastewater disposal wells operated by XTO Energy Inc., which is owned by Exxon... -
Oil & Gas California Approves Emergency Rules On Injection Well Program Compliance
Apr 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California oil and gas regulators have approved interim regulations they proposed earlier this month to bring the state's Class II underground injection well program into compliance with federal law. The regulations “are now in effect,” the Department of Conservation's Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) said in an April 23... -
North Dakota Governor Signs Bill Increasing Oversight of Gathering Pipelines
Apr 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mark Wolski
North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple (R) has signed legislation that will increase the state's oversight of gathering pipelines by requiring the development of new rules for their construction and operation. H.B. 1358, sponsored by Rep. Dick Anderson (R) and signed by the governor April 20, also will require pipeline operators to supply the state... -
Senate to Continue Probe Into Post-BP Spill Reforms
Apr 27, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Phil Taylor
A Senate panel Wednesday will be the latest to examine drilling safety reforms following the fifth anniversary of the BP PLC oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee will look at advances and remaining challenges in spill prevention and response. -
Dispersant Limits in Spill Response Proposal Could Hinder Cleanups, Oil Companies Warn
Apr 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Proposed revisions by the Environmental Protection Agency to how products would be listed as available to respond to oil spills would effectively ban the use of dispersants and would ultimately cripple the ability to effectively respond to releases, oil companies said. Environmental advocates generally applauded the revisions... -
Watchdog or Lapdog of Big Oil?
Apr 24, 2015 | San Francisco Chronicle
By Tom Hayden
Jerry Brown perhaps should put his DOGGR to sleep. Not his family dog, Sutter, but DOGGR — the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources — the 100-year-old agency that’s been handing out permits for drilling in the Central Valley without records, oversight or enforcement of 21st century environmental laws. -
Review: ‘Boomtowners’ Visits a North American Fracking Zone
Apr 24, 2015 | The New York Times
By Neil Genzlinger
You expect a certain tone from a workplace reality show, whether it’s about long-haul truckers or tuna fishermen or microbrewers. The underlying sensibility is that the job, however quirky or unheralded, is important and interesting and that the people doing it deserve respect. Now imagine that sensibility applied to one of the most... -
Moniz Heads To Hill To Tout QER Amid Legislative Maneuvering
Apr 27, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Hannah Northey
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, a savvy deal-maker and advocate for the White House, will appear this week before members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee busily crafting a comprehensive energy bill. Fresh off the agency's release of its highly anticipated Quadrennial Energy Review, the secretary's appearance could ... -
Ernest Moniz, ‘Rock Star’
Apr 24, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode
Interior Secretary Sally Jewell openly lamented the “conflict” her job brings. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy laid down a gauntlet for the power industry. Each came to Houston to speak at one of the world’s premier energy industry conferences, then was quickly gone. But Ernest Moniz schmoozed and stayed. -
E&C Panel to Vote on Bill Exempting States From Clean Power Plan
Apr 27, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Jean Chemnick
The House Energy and Commerce Committee will vote this week on legislation that would give states federal cover to choose not to comply with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. The measure by Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) cleared the subpanel last week with only Republican support, and it is on course... -
Oklahoma House Passes Measure Asserting Local Control Over Power Plan
Apr 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Stinson
In the latest pushback from Oklahoma City toward Washington's efforts to cut carbon pollution from power plants, the Oklahoma Legislature has adopted a measure designed to ensure that state energy policy is determined by local rather than federal officials. Touted by state officials as a means of protecting businesses and consumers from... -
McConnell, McCarthy to Face Off in Budget Hearing
Apr 27, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Jean Chemnick
U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy will come face to face this week with one of the most powerful political opponents of her agency's Clean Power Plan when she visits Capitol Hill to make her case for fiscal 2016 funding. The administrator will testify Wednesday afternoon before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee on which Senate... -
Democrats Revive Bill To Create EPA Green Infrastructure Grant System
Apr 24, 2015 | E&E News PM
By David LaRoss
House and Senate Democrats are reviving legislation that would create a system of stormwater infrastructure grants administered by EPA to support state and local use of green infrastructure, echoing the agency's recent focus on backing such projects with grants and technical assistance rather than through new federal requirements. -
U.S. Will Push for Cuts in Black Carbon, Methane as Kerry Takes Arctic Council Helm
Apr 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
The U.S. will use its two-year chairmanship of the Arctic Council to press for significant action in cutting black carbon and methane, two short-lived but powerful greenhouse gases that contribute to rapid melting of sea ice in the region, Secretary of State John Kerry said April 24. Kerry, on hand at the Arctic Council's Ninth Ministerial Meeting... -
OMB Considering Final Rule to Phase Out Use of HFCs With High Warming Potential
Apr 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The White House Office of Management and Budget is considering a final rule that would limit the use of various hydrofluorocarbons that have high global warming potential, according to the agency's website. The Environmental Protection Agency April 24 submitted the final rule to OMB for review. The rule is expected to ... -
Los Angeles-Area Air Agency Seeks Review Of Implementation Rule for Ozone Standards
Apr 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The South Coast Air Quality Management District, which regulates air pollution in Los Angeles and surrounding areas, is challenging a federal regulation governing state implementation of current national ozone standards South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1115, 4/24/15 -
EU Official Says TTIP Talks Engaged On Elements of Possible Energy Provisions
Apr 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rossella Brevetti
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) talks took a significant step forward in the ninth round on energy and raw materials, where negotiating teams for the first time “engaged extensively on all the elements that could be the subject of specific energy and raw materials provisions in this agreement,” EU chief negotiator Ignacio... -
California Sets Stage to Evaluate New Rules To Cut Emissions From Freight Transportation
Apr 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
The California Air Resources Board outlined a strategy for wringing additional emissions reductions from the transportation sector, a key source of harmful air pollution and greenhouse gases in the state. At a meeting in Sacramento, the agency's governing board gave staff a green light to begin evaluating about 20 ... -
The Urgent Need to Bolster Tank Car Safety Standards | Commentary
Apr 27, 2015 | Roll Call
By Rep. Donald M. Payne, Jr.
In 2013, 47 people were killed in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, when a runaway oil train derailed and exploded. In 2014, a train carrying crude oil derailed in Lynchburg, Va., sending three flaming tank cars into the James River and forcing evacuations of downtown homes and businesses. And just two months ago, a train hauling crude oil derailed in West...
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
Hearing on the Administration's Quadrennial Energy Review (QER)
Apr 28, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources
Location: Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 366/ 10:00 AM
-
Markup, Nomination, Consideration of 22 GSA Resolutions
Apr 28, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
Location: 406 Dirksen Senate Office Building (SD-406)/ 10:00 AM
-
Apr 28, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building/ 5:00 PM
Note: A second hearing will be held April 29th, at 10:00 AM -
Five Years After Deepwater Horizon: Improvements and Challenges in Prevention and Response
Apr 29, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation
Location: Senate Russell Office Building, Room 253/ 9:30 AM
-
Oversight Hearing on "Zero Accountability: The Consequences of Politically Driven Science."
Apr 29, 2015 | The House Committee on Natural Resources
Location: 1334 Longworth House Office Building/ 2:00 PM
-
Apr 29, 2015 | The House Committee on Natural Resources
Location: 1324 Longworth House Office Building/ 5:00 PM
-
Hearing on Energy Efficiency Legislation
Apr 30, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources
Location: Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 366/ 10:00 AM
-
Strategic Petroleum Reserve Discussion Draft and Title IV Energy Efficiency
Apr 30, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2322 Rayburn House Office Building/ 10:15 AM
-
Subcommittee Hearing on the Bureau of Land Management's Final Hydraulic Fracturing Rule
Apr 30, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources
Location: Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 366/ 2:30 PM
-
Examining Microbeads in Cosmetic Products
May 1, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building/ 9:15 AM
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Publishes Plastic Resins Statistical Reference Book
Apr 24, 2015 | Powder & Bulk Solids
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) has released the 2015 edition of its statistical reference book on plastic resins, The Resin Review. This annual publication is compiled from data collected by a third party on behalf of ACC’s Plastics Industry Producers’ Statistics Group, and other sources, and represents an authoritative resource for analyzing and understanding the U.S. plastic resins industry.
The 2015 edition contains detailed tables on North American resin production, sales, industry capacities, and utilization rates from 2004-2014. Sales data for major thermoplastic resins are segmented into various end-use markets from 2010–2014, and a table with historical data on U.S. plastics production and sales and captive use tracks the trend from 1973 to 2014.
The publication explains the basic chemistry of plastics and manufacturing processes, and includes material flow diagrams and monomer derivatives diagrams. It also details the history of plastics development and modern-day applications and provides a glossary of basic plastics terms.
The 2015 edition of The Resin Review is $300 for a PDF download or $350 for a hard copy, plus tax, shipping, and handling, and can be ordered at www.resinreview.com.
The ACC Plastics Industry Producers’ Statistics Group makes available detailed reports (including monthly production and end-use sales figures for major thermoplastic and thermoset resins) to subscribers of its various services. For more information about subscription options and to place an order, call 202-249-7000 or visit www.americanchemistry.com/resin-report-subscriptions. -
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Knocks Proposed Changes to California Disclosure Law
Apr 24, 2015 | Chem.Info
By Andy Szal
The American Chemistry Council sharply criticized modifications to California's Proposition 65 in comments to a state environmental agency earlier this month.
In January, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment outlined a series of changes to Prop 65, a nearly 30 year-old initiative that requires the state to publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or reproductive harm.
The agency proposed requiring companies to list 12 specific chemicals if included in their products, including lead, mercury and phthalates. Current law generally does not require chemicals that qualify under the law to be specifically mentioned in warning labels.
In a letter to the OEHHA, ACC vice president for regulatory and technical affairs Michael Walls wrote that the changes "continue to retain problems such that they will not achieve any of their stated objectives."
He specifically called the 12-chemical "super list" flawed and accused the agency of "cherry-picking" those substances. The letter added that the state does not have the authority to create such a list; Walls urged the agency to withdraw the proposal "in full."
"They will likely make many of the current problems with Proposition 65 worse," Walls wrote. "[T]he proposed regulations will encourage more abusive bounty hunter suits, rather than reduce litigation; the proposal will generate more consumer confusion, not less."
The public comment period for the proposed changes elapsed on April 8; if approved, the new standards would have a two-year phase-in period for companies to conform. -
(ACC Mentioned) California Finds That BPA Causes Reproductive Harm
Apr 26, 2015 | Longevity Live
By Savannah Freemantle
Earlier this year California announced its intent to place bisphenol A (BPA) on the list of state chemicals known to cause reproductive harm (Proposition 65 list).
This came hot on the heels of substantial new research, published in a summarized review that shows the negative effects of BPA on women’s reproductive health and suggests possible negative side effects on that of male reproductive health as well.
California representative scientists and agencies are working hard at compiling the scientific evidence, whilst the American Chemistry Council (ACC) represents the chemical industry in its attempts to block the public health protections.
In 2008 California made their first attempt to move BPA onto the Proposition 65 list due to the National Toxicology Program’s conclusion that BPA damages the developing fetus. The ACC challenged California in court at this time and, although the court concluded that the ACC’s understanding of the National Toxicology Program’s analysis of BPA was “misinformed and confused” and ultimately ruled against them, the ACC moved for a new trial. This will inevitably add extra cost to, and delay the process of, placing BPA on the Proposition 65 list. What is BPA?
BPA is a toxic chemical found in plastic products, canned food and beverages, and paper receipts. If BPA enters the human body it causes a hormonal reaction similar to the female hormone oestrogen, and can disturb biological processes at very low concentrations. How Are You Exposed to BPA?
When BPA containing plastics are heated BPA is released into the food product being contained and can be absorbed by the body. BPA is also referred to as a carcinogen.
How to Reduce Your Exposure to BPA?
Regular plastic water bottles are ok so long as you don’t heat them. It is hard plastic that you want to be wary of, or plastic that is described as PC (polycarbonate).
To be on the safe side never heat anything in a plastic container, only use glass or ceramic /china containers. The same can be said for daily usage. Rather err on the side of caution. What Has Been Done About BPA In South Africa?
On the 21st October 2011, thanks to a request from CANSA, the government passed a law that stopped the importation, distribution and sale of baby bottles containing BPA.
“Although we’re very pleased with government passing this law, and the effort of some leading retailers having cleared their shelves of BPA baby bottles, we remain extremely concerned about the bulk of unsafe baby bottles in use.” says Sue Janse Van Rensburg, CANSA’s CEO. “To make the public aware of the lurking health hazard, CANSA launched this campaign joined by our ‘Smart Choice’ Seal partners, NUK , Nuby and Pretty Baby, supported by Shoprite Checkers and Interwaste recycling with 50 eeZeeBins.”
-
(ACC Mentioned) VI Members are Awarded at the 2015 Responsible Care Awards
Apr 24, 2015 | The Vinyl Institute
Just in time for Earth Day, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) honored 21 of its member companies for implementing energy efficiency improvements in 2014. A total of 56 awards were presented at the 2015 Responsible Care Conference and Expo.
The Responsible Care Energy Efficiency Awards program is one of many ongoing initiatives at ACC to enhance energy efficiency. Member companies are required to consider operational energy efficiency as well as waste minimization, reuse and recycling when developing their environmental, health, safety and security plans.
The 2015 Energy Efficiency Award winners were selected from the following five categories:
Energy Efficiency Program
Significant Improvement in Manufacturing
Environmental Impact
Non-Manufacturing Improvement
Public Outreach
ACC also recognized chemical industry leaders for exceptional accomplishments in chemical management, including environmental, health, safety and security (EHS&S) performance. ACC Responsible Care award winners qualify based on exemplary performance, and are selected by a committee made up of internal and external experts.
The following awards were presented at the 2015 Responsible Care Conference & Expo:
Responsible Care Employee of the Year Award
Responsible Care Partner Award
Responsible Care New Company of the Year Award
Product Safety Award
Responsible Care Facility Safety Award
Waste Minimization, Reuse and Recycling Award
Several Vinyl Institute members were recognized among ACC’s membership, including:
Eastman Chemical,
ExxonMobil Chemical,
Occidental Chemical, and
Lubrizol.
ACC’s awards are similar to those presented at the VI Annual Meeting last November. VI members are recognized each year for continuous improvements in worker safety and protecting the environment at plant sites across North America.
Over the past 26 years the vinyl industry’s commitment to the environment and worker safety has reduced emissions substantial and improved our occupational injury and illness rate by 82 percent. Receiving these awards speaks to the investments our members have made, and continue to make, in safety training, process improvements, and emissions reductions
The Vinyl Institute congratulates our members on their success and commitment to continuous improvement.
-
Senators Craft Changes To TSCA Bill's Major Provisions Ahead Of Markup
Apr 24, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Senators are negotiating revisions to a bipartisan Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform bill ahead of an April 28 environment panel markup that includes changes to major provisions including contested language on when EPA can preempt state chemicals programs and the agency's power to regulate “articles” in products.
But even if the Senate can agree on a measure that garners enough support to clear the upper chamber, House lawmakers are pushing a narrower TSCA reform measure that they see as having better prospects of winning broad support as it avoids many of the controversial provisions in the much broader Senate bill.
Rep. Gene Green (R-TX) in an April 24 interview with Inside EPA suggested the two chambers will have to reconcile their differences in an eventual conference committee. But he expressed his support for the House's plan to “go smaller and address the biggest issues” for chemical law reform, rather than the Senate's approach.
The Senate Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW) has announced that it plans to hold a markup of the bipartisan TSCA reform bill, S. 697, on April 28. The bill introduced by Sens. David Vitter (R-LA) and Tom Udall (D-NM) at press time has the support of 20 co-sponsors, compared to a competing TSCA bill introduced by EPW ranking member Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) that has four co-sponsors.
No Republicans are backing the Boxer-Markey measure, S. 725, and instead stakeholders are focusing on revisions to S. 697 ahead of the markup in an attempt to resolve long-running fights on issues such as preemption, EPA's regulatory authority on articles, and other issues that have killed previous TSCA reform bills.
One industry source says talks between Vitter, Udall and EPW Democrats are focused on the timing of preemption; judicial review of EPA decisions on chemicals as “low priorities;” the ability of states to “co-enforce” their own similar rules; and the agency's authority on articles. “There's been really good progress on” those issues, the source says, but it is not clear whether new language will “be able to get across the finish line” at the markup.
One environmentalist says, “I think we'll see lots of changes and discussion at the markup” that reflects concerns raised during a March 18 EPW hearing on the legislation, including on preemption, and deadlines for EPA to take action on a chemical it has decided does not meet the bill's “unreasonable risk” safety standard. “I also think we'll see movement on articles -- we're looking forward to seeing something in the right direction.”
State 'Co-Enforcers'
A major criticism of S. 697 from Boxer, some states, environmentalists and other EPW Democrats has been that it would bar states as “co-enforcers” of TSCA and create a gap of up to seven years in which neither state nor EPA regulations would be in effect on a high priority chemical because the high priority designation would trigger preemption even before the agency takes any regulatory action.
At press time, Boxer and Markey's bill, S. 725, has the backing of independent Sen. Bernie Sanders (VT) and Democratic Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Richard Blumenthal (CT) and Barbara Mikulski (MD).
But sources indicate that negotiations have made progress on those provisions, attempting to resolve criticisms from EPW Democrats, including Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).
For example, during the March 18 hearing, Merkley suggested that provisions preempting states from enforcing “identical” rules as those promulgated by EPA are “stepping away from a strong enforcement regime.”
At the environment committee hearing, Whitehouse referred to the provision as “simply an effort to make sure there aren't enough cops on the beat to catch them if they misbehave.”
Whitehouse also expressed concern over whether EPA “low-priority” designations for chemicals would be judicially reviewable, asking if we could “end up in a situation in which nobody could challenge.”
On the issue of timing of preemption, Merkley said he would be looking for TSCA reform legislation that leads to “strong rules that enable states to act when federal rules are not in place.”
A second industry source suggests that ahead of the April 28 EPW markup, senators are negotiating over where in the high-priority designation process would be appropriate for preemption to occur, with an eye toward moving the trigger for preemption to a later stage in the process to appease Democrats.
The first industry source suggests that a recent cosmetics bill introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) “could help Democrats to accept a deal on preemption” in a TSCA bill by serving as a model to resolve the dispute. Feinstein's bill, S. 1014, would preempt new state requirements for a limited time frame of up to a year when the U.S. Food & Drug administration announces a review of a cosmetic ingredient.
House Legislation
Meanwhile, House lawmakers are working to revise a discussion draft TSCA bill that will likely be introduced with changes some time in mid-May, before a markup slated for May 14, a congressional spokeswoman says.
Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY), ranking member of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, speaking to Inside EPA April 23, said the talks have been making progress and “you'll see a roll-out in the near future hopefully that reflects the progress we've made.”
Tonko did not say whether he would support a final draft of the bill, but at an April 14 House energy panel environment subcommittee hearing called the measure a “great start.”
The House draft bill, floated by Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), chair of the energy committee's environment panel, takes a different approach than either of the two Senate bills.
Observers agree that the lower chamber's measure could be much more likely to win broad bipartisan backing than either Senate bill because it is significantly limited in scope compared to the upper chamber versions. More than 100 pages shorter than either Senate bill, the House legislation sidesteps a suite of potentially controversial policy provisions that have stymied the Senate's efforts and also helped kill a broader House bill in the 113th Congress.
For example, the bill significantly narrows preemption of state chemicals programs, allowing preemption only to occur after EPA would take final action to restrict a chemical, compared to the Senate legislation.
Green, speaking in the April 24 interview with Inside EPA, said the differences in the two chambers' approach may well result in lawmakers having to work out the differences in conference, which he said “would be a novelty” for this Congress. “Right now, one of my concerns is we would need to know what we're voting on, if we get a bill through the House, and they get a bill through the Senate, we have some buy-in,” Green said.
He said he is reluctant to offer support for a Senate bill given that “we have a bill that address a number of the issues” with current TSCA, backing the House's choice to “go smaller and address the biggest issues.”
All three bills -- the House legislation and the two Senate measures -- aim to overhaul the 1976 TSCA, which many stakeholders including EPA, environmentalists and industry groups have said is out of date. Proponents of toxics law reform say updates are necessary to address thousands of chemicals already in the marketplace.
Policy Provisions
The House draft appears to take a similar approach to the Senate bill on some issues, such as retaining an "unreasonable risk" standard that EPA would have to meet in determining the safety of chemicals, and removing a mandate that EPA assess the "least burdensome" alternative to restrictions for a substance.
The measures in that the House bill would not establish the tiered system for screening chemicals that is included in the Senate approaches. Instead, the lower chamber's measure would establish mechanisms for EPA either on its own or at industry request launch an evaluation of a chemical's risk.
The House draft legislation also differs in its approach form the Senate bill to how EPA considers action to take to mitigate risks from chemicals used in “articles” or finished products.
The House draft bill says that EPA may apply prohibitions or restrictions on articles on the basis of a chemical ingredient “only to the extent necessary to mitigate the necessary risk.”
It also appears to exempt replacement parts manufactured prior to the effective date of a rule absent an EPA finding that the parts contribute “significantly” to the identified risk.
Critics of the Senate bill have attacked language they say would "hamstring" EPA's ability to regulate chemicals in articles by requiring the agency to prove that consumers face "significant exposure" to harmful substances in articles before the agency could regulate them. “My understanding is that the Senate is considering adopting the House language” on articles, according to a third industry source. The first industry source says the House language is a “natural place to look” given that both EPA's toxics chief Jim Jones and environmentalists during the House hearing did not object to the language.
-
EPW Panel To Vote On TSCA Reform Bill Amid Efforts To Broaden Support
Apr 27, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sam Pearson and Annie Snider
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee lawmakers tomorrow will vote on a bipartisan but contentious chemical safety reform bill, as well as amendments meant to solidify support for the controversial measure.
The committee will mark up S. 697, or the "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act."
The bill to update the Toxic Substances Control Act by Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.) boasts a significant roster of bipartisan support. However, it has attracted criticism from some environmental groups, and the Environmental Defense Fund remains the largest environmental organization to endorse it.
Since a contentious hearing last month, stakeholders have been negotiating some of the more controversial parts of the legislation, but it's unclear exactly which amendments will be offered this week. A TSCA modernization bill has only left committee once before, when former Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) advanced his "Safer Chemicals Act" on a party line vote in 2012 (E&E Daily, Aug. 2, 2012). Senate leaders did not take action on that bill, though.
The amendments are expected to be presented as a manager's package, a group of amendments both sides have agreed to in advance, said Andy Igrejas, director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families. But Igrejas said it's not clear whether the changes agreed to will be enough to allay the concerns of his group and others, which remain highly skeptical of the plan.
"This whole idea that this Senate bill is so comprehensive and does all these great things, if you just strip it down, a lot of what it does is confused and would lead to fairly limited progress on the federal level," Igrejas said.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the panel's ranking member, has emerged as a vocal opponent of the Udall-Vitter bill and has advanced her own bill, S. 725, or the "Alan Reinstein and Trevor Schaefer Toxic Chemical Protection Act," with Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.). However, the bill lacks the support of Republicans and industry groups, whose assent is needed to reach President Obama's desk in a GOP-controlled Congress.
Boxer said last week that Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) were working with Udall and Vitter on possible changes to the bill (E&E Daily, April 22).
"We're working to make the bill better," Booker told E&E Daily, though he didn't elaborate.
Some of the changes that could occur include allowing states to enforce state laws identical to federal protections, a process known as coenforcement, or adjustments to the timing of the point at which federal chemical rules would supersede a state's restrictions, said Richard Denison, a senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund.
A lobbyist involved in the discussions on the bill said senators may be seeking to earn the backing of Booker, Merkley and Whitehouse, "but it will be very hard to do, as long as there continues to be this, as Senator Whitehouse put it, a 'death zone,' that states would be prohibited from acting on chemicals that had not been subject to a final agency action."
Other changes could include addressing an issue in which the bill could make it more difficult for U.S. EPA to restrict articles that contain a chemical even after the chemical itself has been determined unsafe, Denison said. But it could get dicey if GOP senators or the chemical industry want concessions in exchange for those changes, Denison said.
"This is obviously a big step in the process and one that, I think, will sort of lay the groundwork for what happens next," Denison said, "and I'm not expecting unanimity, but there's been an awful lot of process engaged in to try to address concerns raised, and I expect quite a bit of that will be reflected in what gets voted out of the committee."
The negotiations may mean the markup shows a greater consensus, and fewer verbal fireworks, than the initial Senate hearing, if lawmakers are able to win over at least some of the recalcitrant members, Denison said. Water bills
The committee will also consider two bipartisan water bills, along with S. 544, or the "Secret Science Reform Act," a bill that would restrict U.S. EPA scientific activities and require greater disclosure of agency procedures (see related story).
S. 653, from Sens. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and John Boozman (R-Ark.), would reauthorize a modest federal grant program for water resources research across the country.
The program, which funds research on state and regional water challenges and trains hydrologists and other scientists, was first started in 1964. Its authorization expired in 2011. The new bill would authorize $7.5 million a year for grants to research institutes and $1.5 million a year for a competitive grants program.
A second water measure, from Sens. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), is aimed at helping some 50,000 small and rural communities meet Safe Drinking Water Act requirements.
S. 611 would reauthorize the Safe Drinking Water Act's technical assistance and training provision for six years at $15 million per year. So far, it has drawn 16 co-sponsors.
Schedule: The markup is Tuesday, April 28, at 10 a.m. in 406 Dirksen.
-
Senate Bill Goes Wrong Way on Toxic-chemical Rules
| San Francisco Chronicle
An unlikely alliance of the chemical industry and some environmental groups has formed to support a bipartisan proposal to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.
It’s hard to find anyone who would disagree with Jeanne Rizzo, president and CEO of the Breast Cancer Fund, that the law is “by all accounts, an incredible failure” because of the maddeningly slow process of getting potentially dangerous toxic substances out of circulation.
This is an unusual case in which an industry desires new federal regulations. Its major concerns are twofold: One, the public is growing increasingly wary of chemicals in consumer products and skeptical of the government’s performance as a watchdog of such. Also, the industry is worried about states, such as California, that are stepping up their own regulatory efforts.
The process for reviewing toxic substances is so cumbersome that the Environmental Protection Agency has been unable to ban the use of asbestos in products sold in the U.S., years after its health dangers became so apparent that its manufacture and sale became illegal. The EPA has required safety testing of less than 1 percent of an estimated 80,000 registered synthetic chemicals.
But it could get worse. Much worse. The so-called reform bill recently introduced by Sens. David Vitter, R-La., and Tom Udall, D-N.M., would accelerate the testing of high-risk chemicals ever so marginally — just 10 in the first year.
Their bill gained the support of the Environmental Defense Fund but is vigorously opposed by many others.
The major objection to the Vitter-Udall bill from the environmental and public health groups is that it would preempt states from stepping into the void when the federal government lacks the will or resources to enact or enforce meaningful toxic chemical regulation. In a letter to Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., state Environmental Protection Agency Secretary Matthew Rodriquez warned that the bill could even go beyond regulations specifically aimed at chemicals and erode state clean air and water laws.
State Attorney General Kamala Harris’ office said in a letter to the Senate that the draft represented an “unnecessary evisceration of state regulatory authority.” Or, as Michael Green of the Center for Environmental Health put it, by excluding state enforcement the chemical industry is “trying to reduce the number of cops on the beat.”
Boxer, who has been a champion of meaningful toxic substance regulation, has suggested that the chemical industry had far too much influence in crafting the Vitter-Udall bill. “Call me old-fashioned,but a bill to protect the public from harmful chemicals should not be written by chemical industry lobbyists,” she said last month.
Boxer and Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., have proposed an alternative reform bill that would, among other key elements, allow states to continue to exceed federal law in regulating toxic chemicals.
In 1986, Californians passed Proposition 65, which has been highly effective in forcing companies to change the composition of their products to reduce consumers’ exposure to potentially toxic chemicals. Examples range from lead in baby bibs to cadmium in jewelry to 4-methylimidazole in soft drinks.
Californians long ago realized they could not count on the federal government to protect public health. States must not lose that right to take action against toxic chemicals.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Flares Emit More Pollutants Than Previously Thought, EPA Updates Find
Apr 27, 2015 | PowerSource
By Don Hopey
A new U.S. Environmental Protection Agency formula for calculating the amount of pollutants released by flares at refineries and chemical plants nationwide shows that those emissions are four times higher than previously thought.
The EPA said last week that the court-ordered update of a decades-old method used by the government and individual industrial facilities to calculate pollution releases will provide more accurate estimates of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds released by the flaring or burning of waste gases at those facilities.
The change was triggered by a 2013 lawsuit against the EPA by Environmental Integrity Project, a Washington, D.C., environmental enforcement advocacy organization.
The EPA said the new formula does not apply to, and should not be used by, the expanding oil and gas development sector, a grouping that encompasses thousands of wells and compressor stations that occasionally flare gases, or gas processing facilities that regularly flare. An example of the latter is an ethane “cracker” that Shell Chemical Appalachia, a division of Royal Dutch Shell, is considering building along the Ohio River in Monaca, Beaver County.
The Environmental Integrity Project said it was disappointed by the exclusion of the oil and gas sector and is considering further legal action.
According to the lawsuit, EPA studies show that flaring releases pollutants at much higher levels than those used in an outdated guideline, which was based on 30-year-old data and hadn’t been updated every three years as the Clean Air Act requires.
Calculations based on the new formula, according to Environment Integrity Project, indicate that an estimated 500 flares at approximately 100 refineries nationwide could be releasing up to 52,800 tons of volatile organic compounds annually instead of the 13,200 tons estimated by the EPA under the old formula. It also means that the public health toll from smog producing VOCs, which can cause respiratory problems and include carcinogens, is likely more than $120 million a year instead of the $30 million estimated under the old formula.
“The VOC air pollution plume from flares is four times larger than we thought, and that’s too big to ignore. It multiplies their contribution to health problems,” said Eric Schaeffer, executive director of the Environmental Integrity Project.
The EPA did not release information about how the new formula would impact permitting for those facilities.
Two industry trade groups, the American Chemical Council and the American Petroleum Institute, declined to comment on the new guideline, but during the public comment period on the new formula they expressed concerns it could produce emissions estimates that exceeded facility permit limits and could result in requirements to control emissions under federal and state operating permits.
Mr. Schaeffer, a former head of the EPA’s enforcement division, said the new emissions estimates likely will mean that more refineries and chemical plants will be required to obtain air pollution control permits and limit emissions. He also said oil and gas facility flares could emit even more pollutants because of combustion inconsistencies.
“If the pollution released by petrochemical plants is four times higher, the flaring pollution from oil and gas operations is not going to be lower,” he said. “They’re going to be higher because they don’t get a clean burn.”
The EPA declined to say when it would establish a new emissions factor for the oil and gas industry. Bob Schell, who heads the EPA group that developed the refinery flare emissions factor based on field tests in Texas and Arkansas, said he is not aware of any oil and gas facility test data under consideration by the EPA.
Susan Rickens, a state Department of Environmental Protection spokeswoman, said the new emissions factor will provide the state regulator with better estimates of chemical plant and refinery pollutant releases from flaring, and the state will begin using the new formula in its emissions inventories and permitting process.
“Changing the emission factors will have an impact on the calculation of actual emissions from these units that have not had [individual] emission testing done on them,” Ms. Rickens said. “The owners and operators of the affected units must demonstrate compliance with the existing regulatory standards.”
According to the DEP, there are 182 industrial facilities in Pennsylvania classified as either chemical plants or refineries, and 68 industrial flares. Some of those facilities operate multiple flares.
Sixteen chemical or refinery operations are in Allegheny County, but none regularly flare waste gases.
According to the EPA, its emissions factors are used by industrial facilities to estimate and report their emissions, but facilities can also use actual emissions stack testing to report their emissions. The EPA, in turn, uses those industry emissions reports to calculate local, regional and national emission inventories that identify and quantify individual pollution sources and establish emissions control targets.
Emissions from flaring can contain carbon particles, also known as soot, unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sometimes sulfur dioxide and volatile organic compounds. How much of those pollutants are emitted depends on the degree of combustion efficiency. Properly operated flares achieve at least 98 percent combustion efficiency, but Mr. Schaeffer said petrochemical facility flares have an average combustion efficiency of 92 percent.
-
Senate Panel To Dig Down On BLM's Controversial Rule
Apr 27, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Phil Taylor
A Senate subpanel Thursday will probe the Bureau of Land Management's final rule for hydraulic fracturing, a regulation that has garnered intense criticism from Republican lawmakers and some Democrats.
BLM Director Neil Kornze will defend the rule before the Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining. The panel is led by Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), a top critic of the BLM rule whose home state is challenging the regulation in federal court.
"The Bureau of Land Management's rule is a solution looking for a problem," Barrasso said in a March statement immediately following the rule's release. "This duplicative rule will only put the West at an even greater disadvantage to other areas of the country."
Barrasso in a February committee hearing argued that Wyoming's hydraulic fracturing regulations are among the strongest in the country and include base-line water testing and mandatory disclosure of chemicals used to frack wells.
He'll likely press Kornze on whether Wyoming's regulations are strong enough to supplant BLM's fracking regulations. Under the rule, state regulations deemed as strong or stronger than BLM's can suffice. Mineral development on public lands is a top source of revenue for the Cowboy State.
The BLM rule, finalized in late March after more than four years of public outreach, was the agency's first major update to fracking regulations in three decades and sought to tamp down public worry about the integrity of wells and the possible escape of fracking fluids.
It applies to the roughly 3,400 wells that are hydraulically fractured on public lands annually, forcing operators to disclose fracturing chemicals to the industry-based FracFocus and banning pits at well sites, requiring wastewater to be stored in metal tanks, among many other provisions (Greenwire, March 20).
Jewell in February told Barrasso that Wyoming "has done a very good job in providing regulations that are forward thinking, and we've learned from Wyoming as well as some other states."
While the rule aims to offer certainty for drillers, two major trade groups are also challenging it in court. Jewell said the federal rule will act as a regulatory backstop in states whose regulations are weaker than Wyoming's.
"Many states are not sophisticated like Wyoming," Jewell said. "These activities are relatively new. Their regulations have not kept up, if they have them at all."
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the panel's ranking member, may have a different take on the BLM rule.
Wyden last September was among a dozen Senate Democrats who wrote a letter to Office of Management and Budget Director Shaun Donovan urging the White House to ensure the "strongest possible safeguards" for human health and the environment were incorporated into the final rule.
"The rapid expansion of the utilization of [hydraulic fracturing] in the United States has caused significant concern regarding the possible contamination of groundwater sources, air pollution and the protection of public health and safety," the senators wrote.
Among other things, the letter called for disclosing chemicals before fracking begins. BLM's rule gives companies up to a month after fracking to disclose chemicals.
Schedule: The hearing is Thursday, April 30, at 2:30 p.m. in 366 Dirksen.
Witnesses: BLM Director Neil Kornze; others to be announced.
-
Fracking Rule Criticized for Vagueness, Questionable Strategies, Ineffectiveness
Apr 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
Specialists in the oil and gas industry see problems in the new federal regulations on hydraulic fracturing because of what the specialists describe as “vague” or “nebulous” elements, new obligations and a one-size-fits-all approach to regulation.
Industry representatives told Bloomberg BNA they were still gathering information to estimate the workability and cost impacts of the final rule published March 26 by the Bureau of Land Management. They said two of the most notable problems are an unclear approach to testing steel casing in a well and the strategy adopted for assuring the integrity of cement around the casing.
The Bureau of Land Management's final rule updated requirements for well integrity testing, wastewater management and chemical disclosure for wells using hydraulic fracturing on federal and Indian lands (55 DEN A-14, 3/23/15).
The rule is sufficiently vague on well integrity tests that companies won't learn what the BLM wants until they get into permitting applications under the new rule, said Sam Knaizer, government affairs manager for Whiting Petroleum Corp.
Similarly, Knaizer said it may be several months before anyone learns what state rules will be covered by waivers allowing those state rules to supersede the parallel federal rules. The waivers will be for specific elements within regulations, not for a state regulatory program as a whole.
Few Improvements Seen
The Interior Department agency accepted very little of the industry suggestions for improvements from the proposed version of the rule, said Kathleen Sgamma, vice president of government and public affairs at the Western Energy Alliance, an industry association.
Industry offered many comments after seeing the proposed rule, but “it's amazing how few points are taken,” Bruce Hinchey, president of the Petroleum Association of Wyoming, said.
The Western Energy Alliance has its members analyzing the rule's details and passing their analyses to an economist for a cost estimate, but that work will take some time, Sgamma said. She added that some costs can't be calculated, such as the delays that might come from additional permitting steps or inadequate BLM staff to handle their new workload.
The rule also creates legal liabilities through “affirmative obligations” to take certain steps, such as gathering and reporting certain data. The legal liabilities aren't costs that can be calculated in advance.
Casing Test Puzzles Industry
The rule requires a mechanical integrity test, a pressure test of the steel casing in a well before the start of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. The test could assure the ability of the well to withstand the pressures used during fracking to force water, sand and chemical additives down a well.
The rule specifies that the mechanical integrity test isn't equivalent to the casing pressure test required by current federal regulations.
“So, then what is it?” Knaizer asked rhetorically. Industry is not sure what the mechanical integrity test will be, he said.
“We are not going to learn until we get into the permitting,” Knaizer said.
Cement Requirements Questioned
Another point of concern is the set of requirements for what to do when a cement evaluation log indicates there may be a problem with cement integrity.
“They're trying to look at a cement evaluation log as a silver bullet,” Sgamma said. “That is not how it works.”
The BLM rule requires that a series of remedial steps be launched if a cement evaluation log indicates there may be a problem. But Sgamma said the mandated steps may not fit well with what an engineer would say are the best adaptive steps.
Adaptation of procedures to varying geology in varying oil and gas fields is another worry for the industry.
“We're getting mixed signals” on BLM's willingness to allow adaptations, Knaizer said.
Water Zones, Wastewater Tanks
The rule requires companies to identify all usable water zones that a well might intersect. Under current practice, companies obtain that information from state or BLM officials.
Knaizer said BLM officials have been telling industry that the water data are no big deal because so much of the information is already available. To Knaizer, that is a gross overestimation of the available data.
Companies are facing the prospect of drilling wells to identify usable water zones before drilling an oil or gas well, he said. That will add to surface environmental disturbance and to legal liability for assuring that the identification of aquifers is done, Knaizer said.
The rule also requires covered storage tanks for wastewater rather than allowing use of lined pits. That will add to expenses in many states, but in many others it will not be a new cost factor.
Wyoming is one of the states where tanks already are used, and the Appalachian region of the Marcellus and Utica shale gas production, including parts of Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio, also has shifted to tanks instead of pits.
BLM Criticized on Basic Strategy
The basic concern that triggered development of the rule was worry about the risk of water pollution from fracking fluids and hydrocarbons.
Geoffrey Thyne, a geochemist with experience in the oil industry who also has taught at the Colorado School of Mines, said the BLM failed to address the concern directly and effectively.
The way to determine whether fracking fluids are getting into aquifers is to put unique chemical tracers into frack fluid for each well, Thyne said in an explanation e-mailed to Bloomberg BNA.
“While the industry continues to say this is either not possible or too expensive—that is not true,” Thyne said. “For instance, current industry practice in selected wells is to put a different tracer in each stage,” he said, referring to the multiple stages of a fracturing job.
“That would be up to 30 different tracers per well,” Thyne said. “They do this to try and understand which stages are productive.”
Instead, he said, the BLM issued a rule that “has a number of details that are vague and don't really address the fundamental problem.”
-
Texas Commission Orders Operators to Show Why Two Well Permits Shouldn't Be Canceled
Apr 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
The Texas Railroad Commission directed its hearings division to initiate proceedings requiring the operators of two disposal wells to show cause why the injection permits for the wells shouldn't be cancelled and the wells ordered shut-in, the commission announced April 24.
The show cause proceeding was initiated because of an alleged connection raised by new seismic research between ongoing operation of the wells and seismic activity in the vicinity, the commission said. The wells are located in the area of Azle, Texas, which is 16 miles northwest of Fort Worth, Texas.
The two wells at issue are XTO Energy Inc.’s West Lake SWD No. 1, Newark, East (Barnett Shale) Field, Parker County; and Enervest Operating's Briar No. 1, Caughlin (Strawn) Field, Wise County, the commission said.
The two wells were permitted prior to the commission's rule amendments addressing disposal well activity and seismic activity, the commission said.
On April 21, the journal Nature Communications published a study done by a seismology team from Southern Methodist University that found a combination of gas field fluid injection and removal is the most likely cause of earthquakes occurring near Azle at the end of 2013 and the beginning of 2014. The SMU report remains under review by commission staff, the railroad commission said.
“The Railroad Commission has in place strong rules addressing the issue of seismicity and disposal well activity, and it is incumbent upon us to apply these rules where and when appropriate for the protection of public safety and our natural environment,” Chairman Christi Craddick said in a statement. “In light of SMU's study linking disposal well activity to earthquakes in 2013, it is important to assess this new information in relation to the continued operational safety of the wells.”
The show cause hearing is set for June 10 and 11 for XTO Energy and June 15 and 16 for Enervest Operating, the commission said.
-
Colorado Joins Challenge to BLM Fracking Rule
Apr 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Colorado has joined with Wyoming and North Dakota in a lawsuit challenging the Bureau of Land Management's hydraulic fracturing rule (Wyoming v. Interior , D. Wyo., No. 15-CV-43, 4/22/15). The U.S. District for the District of Wyoming April 22 ordered that Colorado be joined as a petitioner in the lawsuit, which was filed in March after the BLM, part of the Interior Department, issued a final rule regulating the use of fracking on federal and Native American lands (55 DEN A-14, 3/23/15). Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman (R) said the lawsuit challenges whether the BLM can impose its own fracking regulations when federal law leaves that authority to the states. “The debate over hydraulic fracturing is complicated enough without the federal government encroaching on states' rights,” Coffman said in a statement April 24. “This lawsuit will demonstrate that BLM exceeds its powers when it invades the states' regulatory authority in this area.” The rule includes requirements for wellbore integrity, public disclosure of fracking chemicals and wastewater storage in covered tanks. The amended complaint is available at http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/State_of_Wyoming_v_United_States_Department_of_the_Interior_Secre.
-
Texas Orders Two Oil Firms to Prove Well Isn’t Causing Earthquakes
Apr 24, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Erin Ailworth
Texas regulators have ordered a subsidiary of Exxon Mobil Corp. and another company to prove that their wells near Fort Worth aren’t causing earthquakes.
A study published this week by seismic researchers at Southern Methodist University in Dallas connected two wastewater disposal wells operated by XTO Energy Inc., which is owned by Exxon, and EnerVest Operating LLC, with a series of earthquakes in Azle, Texas. On Friday the Texas Railroad Commission, which regulates the state’s oil and gas industry, told officials at both companies that they need to appear at hearings scheduled for June to justify why their wells shouldn’t be shut down.
Azle, 17 miles northwest of Fort Worth, experienced a string of earthquakes between November 2013 and January 2014 that were most likely caused by high volumes of drilling wastewater injected deep into the ground as natural gas was pumped out, the study said.
The Railroad Commission of Texas said it is reviewing SMU’s research.
The process of hydraulic fracturing, in which water, chemicals and sand are pumped into the ground under high pressure, results in large volumes of wastewater. Leftover wastewater is often pumped back underground into so-called disposal wells, which have been linked to earthquakes by several studies.
XTO said it looked forward to discussing the issue with regulators and university researchers. “We follow a protocol, a scientific-based protocol, when we site our disposal wells,” said Suann Lundsberg, a spokeswoman for the company.
EnerVest cast doubt on the SMU study. “We have serious questions about some of the assumptions in the SMU paper, and we look forward to sharing these with the Commission,” said Ron Whitmire, a company spokesman.
Critics of fracking have questioned whether the industry’s practices are to blame for an increase in earthquake activity in states such as Texas.
Meantime, new scientific findings released Tuesday again linked earthquakes to the practice of injecting wastewater from oil and gas operations deep underground, adding to a growing consensus among researchers that energy development is probably causing seismic activity in Oklahoma, Texas and other parts of the U.S.
In October, the Texas Railroad Commission adopted regulations on wells used to dispose of drilling fluids. Under the rules, enacted to protect against possible earthquakes caused by the wells, a new disposal well can’t be sited without an evaluation of data from the U.S. Geological Survey about the earthquake history within a 100-square-miles around the proposed site.
The new rules also give regulators the power to modify, suspend, or end a disposal well permit if scientific data show that it is contributing to earthquake activity, or is likely to do so.
The commission said those amended rules are one reason it is asking questions about the XTO and EnerVest wells.
“It is incumbent upon us to apply these rules where and when appropriate for the protection of public safety and our natural environment,” said Christi Craddick, chair of the commission. “In light of SMU’s study linking disposal well activity to earthquakes in 2013, it is important to assess this new information in relation to the continued operational safety of the wells.”
The commission previously investigated whether these disposal wells near Azle were contributing to earthquakes, but didn’t uncover evidence of a definitive connection.
-
Oil & Gas California Approves Emergency Rules On Injection Well Program Compliance
Apr 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California oil and gas regulators have approved interim regulations they proposed earlier this month to bring the state's Class II underground injection well program into compliance with federal law.
The regulations “are now in effect,” the Department of Conservation's Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) said in an April 23 written statement.
“We now have a firm plan and schedule—achieved with the input and cooperation of other regulatory agencies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—to bring all the state's injection wells into compliance with the federal Safe Drinking Water Act,” State Oil & Gas Supervisor Steven Bohlen said.
The emergency regulations expire Oct. 20, but DOGGR is developing another rulemaking package to make the regulations permanent, Bohlen said. The goal is to issue that rulemaking notice by the end of May, he said.
The California Office of Administrative Law approved the emergency rulemaking package April 20.
Proposed by DOGGR April 2, the regulations establish deadlines for the state to correct flaws found in an EPA audit of the state's underground injection practices the EPA conducted in 2011 (64 DEN A-1, 4/3/15).
A key deficiency uncovered by the audit, and later confirmed by the state, was that DOGGR had allowed for several years the drilling of some injection wells for use as disposal wells in nonexempt aquifers, which could be a source of water suitable for drinking or irrigation.
Last summer, DOGGR and the state water board launched an evaluation of all 50,000 injection wells in the state, focusing first on wells drilled into zones with the highest water quality. DOGGR already shut down 23 waste wells deemed too close to beneficial-use wells.
The interim regulations establish a schedule for regulators to eliminate all injection into nonexempt aquifers that do not naturally contain oil reservoirs and with water quality of less than 3,000 milligrams per liter of total dissolved solids by Oct. 15, or sooner if water supplies are threatened. By Feb. 15, 2017, injection into all other nonexempt aquifers with water quality of less than 10,000 total dissolved solids must be halted.
Also, the regulations require injection into 11 aquifers with an unclear exemption status to cease by Dec. 31, 2016, unless the EPA determines the wells are exempt.
-
North Dakota Governor Signs Bill Increasing Oversight of Gathering Pipelines
Apr 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mark Wolski
North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple (R) has signed legislation that will increase the state's oversight of gathering pipelines by requiring the development of new rules for their construction and operation.
H.B. 1358, sponsored by Rep. Dick Anderson (R) and signed by the governor April 20, also will require pipeline operators to supply the state with plans for leak protection and for the monitoring of underground systems. It also includes $1.5 million to help the state to reclaim private and public lands and waters affected by oil and gas development.
Gathering pipelines transport gases and liquids from the commodity's source—such as rock formations located far below the drilling site—to a processing facility, refinery or a transmission line, according to the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
Tessa Sandstrom, spokeswoman for the North Dakota Petroleum Council, told Bloomberg BNA April 23 that the legislation could be the most far-reaching gathering pipeline legislation passed in the country. She said its provisions calling for research into different monitoring systems could ensure that science will be the basis for future monitoring efforts.
She said the council also applauded the legislation's use of abandoned oil and gas well plugging money to reclaim and restore land and water resources that have been affected by oil production efforts.
Under the bill, the state will transfer $1.5 million to the University of North Dakota's Energy and Environmental Research Center to study construction standards and monitoring systems for gathering lines in the state.
The study must include an analysis of the ratio of spills and leaks occurring in North Dakota compared to other large oil and gas producing states that have substantial volumes of produced water.
The bill states that the North Dakota Industrial Commission, which consists of the state's governor, attorney general and commissioner of agriculture, will work with the research center to compile its information.
Agencies to Examine State's Regulations
Moreover, the Department of Mineral Resources will work with it to examine the state's existing regulations on construction and monitoring of crude oil and produced water pipelines. DMR and the center also will be required to examine the feasibility and cost effectiveness of requiring leak detection and monitoring technology on new and existing pipeline systems.
Alison Ritter, spokeswoman for the department, told Bloomberg BNA April 24 that the legislation was very significant in that it will enable development of rules that ensure pipeline safety by using the best available technology for pipeline leak detection.
H.B. 1358 included an emergency clause, she said, thereby giving the Energy and Environmental Research Center the ability to lay the groundwork for its study of pipeline safety. She said once it presents its report in December, the department will begin the rulemaking process. The process, she said, is likely to take about 10 months.
Ritter added that H.B. 1358 was also noteworthy because it provides money to clean up “legacy’’ environmental problems involving land disturbed by oil and gas production more than 30 years ago, and because it allows for a study of saltwater contamination cleanups.
Administrative Rules Needed
Once the Environmental Research Center has prepared its report and recommendations, the commission will adopt administrative rules necessary for improving crude oil and produced water pipeline safety.
H.B. 1358 also requires the commission to establish a pilot project to evaluate a pipeline leak detection and monitoring system.
Other provisions included in the bill will require operators of gathering pipelines to submit to the state the results of independent pipeline inspections and require them to provide the industrial commission with the engineering specifications and drawings for all of their pipelines. The legislation also will require operators to develop plans for pipeline monitoring and leak detection.
Officials with the North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources were unavailable for comment.
-
Senate to Continue Probe Into Post-BP Spill Reforms
Apr 27, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Phil Taylor
A Senate panel Wednesday will be the latest to examine drilling safety reforms following the fifth anniversary of the BP PLC oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee will look at advances and remaining challenges in spill prevention and response.
The April 20, 2010, blowout and explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig killed 11 men and discharged millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf, the nation's largest oil spill.
Since the spill, the Interior Department established a drilling safety rule setting new standards for well design, casing and cementing, as well as a Safety and Environmental Management Systems (SEMS) rule to enhance environmental protection and workplace safety aboard drilling rigs. It proposed two new rules this year to enhance the safety of Arctic oil exploration and the reliability of blowout preventers.
The Commerce panel has jurisdiction over the Coast Guard and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, each of which plays significant roles responding to and remediating offshore oil spills.
"This hearing, coming after a request from the committee's ranking member, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), will hear testimony from expert witnesses on the improvements in prevention and response that have occurred following the oil spill, as well as ongoing challenges and opportunities," the committee said on its website. "This hearing will review the lessons learned in the wake of the spill and the steps taken to make offshore oil and gas exploration safer."
While experts have lauded the Obama administration's regulatory response to the BP spill -- particularly steps to prevent and immediately contain potential spills -- environmental advocates and some former government officials warn there have been relatively few advances in cleaning up oil that does escape into the ocean.
The harm that BP's lost oil has caused to Gulf marine wildlife is not yet fully understood (Greenwire, April 17).
A report commissioned by the Coast Guard in 2011 found the agency was unprepared to handle the BP spill. Its preparedness for environmental crises had "atrophied over the past decade" after Sept. 11, 2001, as the terrorist attacks dramatically increased the agency's responsibilities and diminished the agency's coordination and communications capacity, the report found (Greenwire, April 11, 2011).
Later that year, a top Coast Guard official told a Commerce subcommittee that the United States would be woefully unprepared if an oil spill such as BP's Deepwater Horizon occurred in the Arctic Ocean, where the Coast Guard has no base from which to mount a response to an oil spill (E&E Daily, July 28, 2011).
More recently, Coast Guard and NOAA officials have studied whether drones could be used to track oil spills, assist in search-and-rescue operations, and monitor ship activity off Alaska's northern shores and at other potentially hazardous sites (EnergyWire, Sept. 2, 2014).
The House Natural Resources Committee last week held its own hearing to discuss safety innovations since the BP spill, taking testimony from a top Interior Department official and industry leaders.
Schedule: The hearing is Wednesday, April 29, at 9:30 a.m. in 253 Russell.
Witnesses: To be announced.
-
Dispersant Limits in Spill Response Proposal Could Hinder Cleanups, Oil Companies Warn
Apr 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Proposed revisions by the Environmental Protection Agency to how products would be listed as available to respond to oil spills would effectively ban the use of dispersants and would ultimately cripple the ability to effectively respond to releases, oil companies said.
Environmental advocates generally applauded the revisions to Subpart J of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), though some urged the EPA to go further still and explicitly ban the use of dispersants, which they said pose long-term risks to human health and the environment.
The U.S. Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy also raised concerns that a significant number of small businesses will be “adversely impacted by new testing requirements” and that the EPA underestimated costs associated with the proposed rule. The office urged the EPA to repropose the regulation after conducting an initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
The EPA originally proposed the revisions in January to incorporate lessons learned from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill (80 Fed. Reg. 3380). Included in the proposed rule were expanded requirements for information on the toxicity and effectiveness of response materials, revisions to the authorization process, additional mandatory monitoring of products following use, up-front limitations on the use of certain materials and requirements for greater information sharing with first responders (09 DEN A-8, 1/14/15).
Comments on the proposed rule were due April 22.
Would Effectively Ban Dispersants
Oil industry companies, including Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and Shell Oil Co., warned that the proposed rule (RIN 2050-AE87) might inadvertently mean dispersants could no longer be used as part of an oil spill response “toolbox.”
“It is clear that much work needs to be done before the Agency should finalize a rule in this key area of spill response,” the American Petroleum Institute and National Ocean Industries Association wrote in joint comments. “We believe the proposed rule will likely result in dispersants being eliminated as a response technique.”
The proposed rule inappropriately focuses on the toxicity of the material itself, rather than utilizing a net environmental benefit analysis, according to the groups. Offshore dispersant use is preferable to the “long-term environmental damages that will occur when untreated oil strands and persists in shoreline environments,” they said.
As written, the proposed rule could eliminate all dispersants on the current National Contingency Plan list and could potentially “delay dispersant use resulting in unnecessary environmental damage,” the comments said.
Multiple comments by oil companies and industry groups also warned that the agency's regulatory impact analysis was “substantially flawed” and “significantly underestimates” the potential costs to small businesses.
“It is our belief that severely limiting use of dispersants by establishing arbitrary thresholds for listing, adding burdensome controls over an already effective pre-authorization process, and requiring activities during a response that do not contribute directly to the operational, decision-making activities, such as additional dispersant monitoring or water sampling may result in a less effective response,” Exxon Mobil wrote in its comments.
Environmental Advocates Generally Pleased
Unlike the oil industry, environmental advocacy organizations generally voiced support for the revisions to “outdated” regulations but said the EPA should do more to encourage safer alternatives to the current generation of dispersants.
“Many of the current generation of available dispersant chemicals have repeatedly demonstrated that the ecosystem costs of dispersant application can, over the longer term, potentially exceed any short-term ecosystem benefits derived from their use,” the Ocean Foundation said in its comments . The organization “recommends against any blanket pre-approval of the application of dispersants without the availability of a new generation of non-toxic, biodegradable, and benign dispersants that have been fully tested in the field at scale.”
While the proposed rule marks a good first step, “more thorough” toxicity testing for dispersants is needed, the foundation said. Companies should also be forced to broaden the information they share with first responders and intensive monitoring should be conducted whenever products are applied, the organization wrote.
Other groups said the proposed rule contained significant improvements from the response to the Deepwater Horizon incident.
“EPA is encouraged to stand firm on the dispersants restrictions set forth in the amendments,” the Louisiana Environmental Action Network said in comments. “The health of humans and the environmental flora and fauna are dependent on EPAs restrictions associated with the use of dispersants.”
Small Business Concerns Raised
Meanwhile, the SBA Office of Advocacy said the EPA “lacks a factual basis” for its certification under Section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act that the proposed rule would not have a significant impact on small businesses.
“Advocacy is concerned that EPA has underestimated the number of small businesses that will be adversely affected by new testing requirements and underestimated the other costs that will be imposed on small businesses, such as research and development, lost intellectual property, and lost sales due to removal from the NCP schedule,” the comments state.
According to the comments, 61 of the 81 businesses likely to be affected by the proposed rule are small businesses. The office recommended that the EPA extend the testing and compliance period for materials, grant short-term extensions for products recently added to the NCP and retain confidential business information protections to lessen the burden of the proposed rule.
-
Watchdog or Lapdog of Big Oil?
Apr 24, 2015 | San Francisco Chronicle
By Tom Hayden
Jerry Brown perhaps should put his DOGGR to sleep. Not his family dog, Sutter, but DOGGR — the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources — the 100-year-old agency that’s been handing out permits for drilling in the Central Valley without records, oversight or enforcement of 21st century environmental laws.
The agency was created prior to Upton Sinclair’s 1927 novel, “Oil!,” on which Daniel Day-Lewis’ 2007 film, “There Will Be Blood,” was based. Oil was to California what cotton was to Mississippi, a booming industry based on subsistence labor, migration, racism, vigilantism, and government officials looking the other way.
Times change but slowly. Current Kern County Sheriff Donny Youngblood, who says Kern ought to be a county in Arizona, opposes President Obama’s immigrant-rights policy. There are an estimated 66,000 undocumented immigrants in Kern County, whose population is majority Latino. More than 22 percent of its people live below the poverty line, 69 percent of them within one mile of an oil well.
The barren place is a bit like Mississippi in the ’60s, powerful enough to defy progressive norms or laws on the national level. The federal government in 1982 transferred its power to California to monitor and regulate the 42,000 injection wells that dump toxic waste fluids into groundwater. That monitoring didn’t happen, a lapse that the feds say is shocking. The human carcinogen benzene has been detected in fracking wastewater at levels 700 times over federal safety standards. Health impact studies are inadequate, but Kern community hospital managers say the county has one of the highest cancer rates in the country, which is expected to double in 10 years.
How did it happen that the Obama Environmental Protection Agency is pushing the Jerry Brown EPA to comply with modern environmental law? The same Gov. Jerry Brown signed that 1982 agreement, giving Big Oil an opportunity to oversee itself. Those were the days when President Ronald Reagan’s Anne Gorsuch ran the federal EPA, perhaps convincing California that it could do a better job.
As a result of the 1982 transfer, the feds say California has failed at oversight and record-keeping. With the feds watching, the state has two years to implement a meaningful monitoring plan.
Brown has tried to fix the problem, which undercuts his claim that drilling and controversial fracking can be addressed by beefed up regulations instead of a moratorium on fracking that most environmentalists want. He has added more professional staff to DOGGR and installed a new director, Steve Bohlen, who promises to clean up the place. Since last summer, the agency has shut down 23 injection wells out of 2,500.
The preference of one experienced state official is to peel back DOGGR, move it to Cal EPA and turning it into a real regulatory agency instead of a lapdog for the oil industry. But Brown officials prefer the uphill task of reforming DOGGR from within, and have signaled they will veto any bill that brings the agency under state EPA jurisdiction. The Legislature is going along with his incremental approach, so far.
The task will be daunting. The DOGGR mandate has been to drill, baby, drill, says state Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara. DOGGR’s legal mandate calls for “increasing the ultimate recovery of underground hydrocarbons,” not determining whether drilling or fracking are sustainable and safe for aquifers or human health. Her SB545 is still a work in progress, however. It stops the archaic custom of drilling permits being obtained and accepted without any written approvals or findings, which upsets the feds and shuts out the public. Until recently, an oil company simply gave notice of its intent to drill and was entitled to proceed unless the agency said no in writing within 10 days. Under Jackson’s bill, an application to drill will require written approval, and the paperwork will be posted on the DOGGR website. In addition, the bill will limit the Kern custom of keeping records about chemicals and water impacts confidential, even when a well has gone into production.
However, the bill’s language makes oversight optional by saying that DOGGR “may” require an operator to implement a monitoring plan. Decision-making power is devolved to the division district deputy in Kern, which is like expecting a Mississippi sheriff to carry out federal law in 1964 — or the present Kern sheriff to enforce immigration law today. Nor does the bill give the state EPA or health experts any shared authority in the permitting process.
At the heart of the scandal is the historic power of Big Oil against the emergence of California’s clean-energy economy with its priorities of renewable resources and efficiency. The Democratic majority in Sacramento is hobbled by a pro-drilling contingent, led by Republicans with a number of Central Valley Democrats. The oil lobby spent $9 million in 2014 in a failed attempt to exempt themselves from the state’s cap-and-trade law. The effort was led by Assemblyman Henry Perea, D-Fresno, along with 16 Democratic legislators. In a more striking example, state Sen. Michael Rubio, D-Bakersfield, left his seat in 2013 to begin lobbying for Chevron, one of the major firms along with Occidental Petroleum operating in Kern’s oil fields. The oil lobby is spending large sums to cultivate friendly Democratic candidates and underwrite advertising campaigns warning of a “hidden gas tax” if their privileges are threatened.
Many Sacramento insiders believe that Brown has made concessions to Big Oil in order to protect his considerable progress toward clean-energy goals while not confronting the industry the way he took on the nuclear lobby in the ’70s. That’s understandable, if it works. Now, however, his regulatory reputation needs rebuilding. What if his DOGGR won’t hunt? What if it’s beyond reform? What will the governor and Legislature do if facing open defiance from the powers that be in Kern on a range of issues from clean air and water to the protection of children’s health to environmental justice? With the drought on everyone’s mind, can he allow the state’s aquifers to be threatened by the carcinogenic wastewater of oil production?
The DOGGR scandal drills deeply into the foundations on which state politics are built.
-
Review: ‘Boomtowners’ Visits a North American Fracking Zone
Apr 24, 2015 | The New York Times
By Neil Genzlinger
You expect a certain tone from a workplace reality show, whether it’s about long-haul truckers or tuna fishermen or microbrewers. The underlying sensibility is that the job, however quirky or unheralded, is important and interesting and that the people doing it deserve respect.
Now imagine that sensibility applied to one of the most controversial practices in the United States today: hydraulic fracturing, the petroleum-extraction technique commonly called fracking. “Boomtowners,” a series that begins Sunday on the Smithsonian Channel, is about the oil boom in the Bakken shale formation, which covers parts of Montana, North Dakota and Canada.
Like the oil companies, the show performs a type of extraction. It tries to tell the story of the transformation the boom has wrought in the region by extracting certain character types from among the population. There are oil workers, of course, some just there to grab a few good paychecks and then move on, others with families looking to set down roots. There is a minister, a lesbian couple, a judge who talks bluntly about the type of people the boom has brought to the area.
“The people that we’re seeing in these courtrooms now are belligerent, confrontational,” the judge, Greg Mohr, says. “I’ve asked people to remove their hats in the courtroom, and one guy says, ‘What happens if I don’t?’ ”
And, of course, there are fracking opponents. The series gives them plenty of time, and yet people who view fracking as a long-term environmental disaster of our own making will find this show glib. It’s as concerned with the price of groceries and the hazards of driving big-rig trucks on mountainous roads as it is with what fracking might be doing to the landscape. Sure, watch it if you want a view of life in a fracking zone that tries to give it a rugged, Wild West-style chic. But then go watch a documentary about fracking, like “Gasland.”
-
Moniz Heads To Hill To Tout QER Amid Legislative Maneuvering
Apr 27, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Hannah Northey
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, a savvy deal-maker and advocate for the White House, will appear this week before members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee busily crafting a comprehensive energy bill.
Fresh off the agency's release of its highly anticipated Quadrennial Energy Review, the secretary's appearance could pave the way for the upper chamber to set aside differences over climate change and focus on the practical concerns of implementing U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
Moniz is slated to testify on the QER, a report that calls for a combination of spending and tax credits over a decade to strengthen U.S. energy infrastructure and offset the effects of climate change. Half of the money called for in the report -- about $15 billion -- would go toward modernizing the electric grid and incentivizing the replacement of aging natural gas pipelines.
While the Obama administration has requested about $350 million for upgrading the grid in DOE's fiscal 2016 budget, Moniz last week signaled that Congress will need to get creative in finding additional funds (EnergyWire, April 24).
A number of Democrats on the committee, including ranking member Maria Cantwell of Washington, are already planning on introducing legislative language that falls in line with the QER's thrust of upgrading the country's expansive grid, while other members could build language off the discourse with Moniz (E&E Daily, April 24).
Cantwell will join Democratic Sens. Al Franken of Minnesota, Mazie Hirono of Hawaii and Ron Wyden of Oregon and Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) in introducing a bill to modernize the United States' aging electric grid and bolster storage.
Other ENR members have introduced what appear to be conflicting proposals.
New Mexico Democratic Sen. Martin Heinrich's bill would allow the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission -- under certain circumstances -- to step in and approve power lines that states reject, while Arkansas Republican Sens. John Boozman and Tom Cotton want to make sure states and local governments have the right to buck the federal government if a power line is built through their backyards.
The QER remains silent on the prickly issue of granting FERC such backstop authority, a mechanism that's triggered sharp backlash among state regulators. Yet proponents say expanding FERC's ability to approve long-distance power lines that run into state opposition is critical to unlocking stranded pockets of wind and solar, many in the West.
Instead, the administration's blueprint highlights the challenges facing new transmission and pipeline projects, calling for more analysis and research and acknowledging the need to streamline decisions and reduce the time to permit and build new projects while allowing for ample public consultation and transparency. Moniz's testimony tomorrow could help illuminate how both priorities could be reconciled as part of a compromise energy bill.
The committee's Republican leadership will also be keen to learn from Moniz.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, the panel's Republican chairwoman who is considering a number of transmission and reliability provisions, said during an interview last week that she was encouraged by earlier conversations with Moniz, who had suggested the road map could help serve as a template for an energy bill.
Even the House GOP, known for opposing administration efforts, applauded the report for underscoring the need to update domestic energy policies to account for newly abundant resources (E&E Daily, April 22).
Schedule: The hearing is Tuesday, April 28, at 10 a.m. in 366 Dirksen.
Witness: Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz.
-
Apr 24, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode
Interior Secretary Sally Jewell openly lamented the “conflict” her job brings. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy laid down a gauntlet for the power industry. Each came to Houston to speak at one of the world’s premier energy industry conferences, then was quickly gone.
But Ernest Moniz schmoozed and stayed.
The energy secretary — or “Ernie,” as top industry players know him — landed here Wednesday, served as the star attraction at a no-media-allowed dinner that night and was still hanging around the next day, courting the media in a series of one-on-one interviews. At the dinner, the smartphone camera flashes were visible as dozens of people pressed near his small stage, before the assembled executives asked for his musings on crude oil exports, 3-D printing technology and newfangled nuclear reactors. “There was a lot of laughing,” one person in the room said afterward.
None of this will make President Barack Obama’s energy policies any easier to sell on Capitol Hill — the very reason why Jewell’s and McCarthy’s appearances here were much more like trips to the lion’s den. And Moniz’s Energy Department still faces its share of problems, including liberals who lambaste his pro-fracking stances, as well as GOP lawmakers who criticize DOE’s financial support for big wind and solar projects and its role in shutting down the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste effort.
But Moniz is a genuinely popular figure with some of the president’s harshest critics in Congress and industry. In the button-down world of oil, gas and power CEOs, he’s a celebrity whose status has only gained luster thanks to his crucial role in the U.S. nuclear talks with Iran.
“More than one person has referred to Ernie as a rock star,” said Daniel Yergin, a Pulitzer-winning oil historian who serves as ringleader of the annual CERAWeek conference. “He’s not only an energy secretary with a Ph.D. in theoretical physics. He’s also an energy secretary with a lot of charisma.”
“He’s one of the most knowledgeable, capable energy secretaries we’ve ever had,” Hess Corp. CEO John Hess said.
Moniz’s praise from the oil industry isn’t exactly endearing to green critics, who dislike his backing of liquefied natural gas exports, fracking and nuclear power. “We are not his biggest fans, no,” said Mitch Jones of the environmental group Food & Water Watch.
“He continues to be a big advocate for fossil fuels … much more so than even [former Secretary] Steven Chu, and he’s been bolder about it,” said Ben Schreiber, climate and energy program director at Friends of the Earth.
For a 70-year-old physicist from MIT, the term “rock star” has to be graded on a curve — and Moniz dismisses the label as a “strange appellation I will not seek.” But he has shown an undoubted taste for the limelight during his two years as secretary: trading barbs with Jon Stewart about his Quaker Oats hairdo, throwing out the first pitch at Fenway, and taking the stage as what he calls “the intermission act for Usher” during last weekend’s Earth Day concert on the National Mall.
His Earth Day gig, he said, “entailed speaking for four minutes to 200,000 young people who wanted Usher back on stage.” But he says it’s understandable that his role in the Iranian negotiations has attracted so much attention.
“Presumably it was a big surprise that the energy secretary would be involved in this kind of very high-profile negotiation,” Moniz said in an interview with POLITICO. He said his qualifications for that role included his past jobs as DOE undersecretary, as well as the “unparalleled kind of set of experiences” he gained working on nuclear nonproliferation after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Moniz has one advantage compared with fellow Cabinet members Jewell and McCarthy: While their agencies writes the heavy regulations on fracking, offshore drilling and power plants’ carbon pollution, the Energy Department mainly does policy, doles out money and oversees the nation’s nuclear weapons. (More than half of the agency’s budget goes to nuclear security and cleanup, and most of its regulatory powers involve developing efficiency standards for consumer products like washing machines and commercial refrigerators.) But he has also shown the political skills that eluded Chu, a Nobel-winning physicist who took relentless pounding from Republicans in Congress during Obama’s first term.
That has made Moniz a crucial part of the administration’s sales pitch to lawmakers on the Iranian negotiations. And while it’s unclear he can make Obama’s climate agenda go down any easier with its critics, at least the lines of communication are open.
“Ernie reflects the administration and the administration’s policies,” Yergin said. “But he’s certainly somebody that you can talk to regardless of whether you’re in the energy industry or an environmentalist.”
Others in industry draw a line between Moniz and the president he serves. For example, American Petroleum Institute CEO Jack Gerard counts Moniz as a likely ally in the oil industry’s push to end the 40-year-old U.S. ban on crude oil exports, even though Moniz’s own public comments on the issue have been cagey.
“If Ernie were left on his own, we’d be comfortable with him moving forward,” Gerard said in an interview. “But he has to answer to others that might have a different view.”
Still others are flat-out fans.
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski praises Moniz as a “wonk” she can trust.
“He’s a guy who’s straight up and honest with ya,” said the Alaska Republican, who has feuded with Jewell over Interior’s limits on Arctic drilling and the department’s refusal to allow a gravel road to run through a refuge in the state.
This week marked at least the sixth time Moniz has come to CERAWeek, an annual gathering that drew an estimated 2,500 people from more than 50 countries, including the CEOs of Exxon and BP, the Canadian and Mexican energy ministers and the president of Iceland. He drew applause despite pushing back on some of the industry’s favorite policy demands, for instance by dismissing the Keystone XL oil pipeline debate as a “blip” and saying oil producers haven’t yet made a “compelling” argument for ending the 40-year-old ban on U.S. oil exports.
McCarthy and Jewell each used their appearances at the conference to defend the administration’s policies.
“I have never been in a job that has had this much conflict,” Jewell said during a public exchange with Yergin, which she held in addition to a closed-door session with industry figures. McCarthy, meanwhile, insisted that EPA won’t back down on its power plant rules. “Let’s get serious. Let’s talk about reality, let’s put our heads together and make this work,” she said.
But organizers gave of their more bold-faced-name treatment to Moniz: The amply attended dinner where he spoke Wednesday night — billed as a “Conversation with Ernie Moniz” — occupied two conference rooms, compared with just one for Monday’s dinner with a panel that included Icelandic President Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson.
Moniz’s department still had to share the spotlight at a news conference Thursday, where he fielded questions about trade, the State Department, the Commerce Department, DOT and the troubled Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. “You know, the Department of Energy is pretty interesting too,” he said later, noting that DOE’s mission encompasses “weapons and windmills, quarks and quagmires.”
“Whether it is Iran negotiations or EPA rules, etc., obviously we play a role in the multi-agency discussion, particularly because of our technology expertise … and our capacity which is unparalleled in the government to carry out agency-related analysis,” he said.
At Wednesday’s closed-door dinner, Moniz avoided making any major news but entertained the crowd with flashes of his usual deadpan humor. “I’m thinking about using a 3-D printer to replicate Dan Yergin,” he said at one point.
Earlier Wednesday, after Canadian Natural Resources Minister Greg Rickford gave a long spiel about his country’s six-year-long wait for approval of the Keystone pipeline, the moderator asked if Moniz had any response. “No!” he responded.
Moniz’s political skills mark a contrast with Chu, who for all his undoubted brilliance faced endless grief from the GOP for the bankruptcy of the DOE-aided solar firm Solyndra, along with his past musings about the benefits of European-style high gasoline prices. Moniz also supports green energy but has shown a notable friendliness to natural gas: After a long delay during Chu’s tenure, for example, DOE has begun approving gas-export permits at a faster pace.
“Here is a guy that is just pragmatic as the day is long,” Murkowski said. “He’s a bit of a policy wonk … and loves it, and I think people respect that.”
Moniz largely stays out of the fray on the oil industry’s drive to end the 40-year-old ban on U.S. crude oil exports, saying the Commerce Department has jurisdiction over the issue. But he wasn’t always so reluctant to weigh in. He turned heads in December 2013 when he said limits on overseas crude sales “deserve some new analysis and examination,” which many tea-leaf-readers took as a sign that the administration favored lifting the ban.
Moniz has another high-profile international role coming at the end of the year: He will chair an International Energy Agency ministerial meeting in Paris a few weeks before the start of December’s climate summit, where the U.S. hopes to negotiate a global agreement to rein in the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.
-
E&C Panel to Vote on Bill Exempting States From Clean Power Plan
Apr 27, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Jean Chemnick
The House Energy and Commerce Committee will vote this week on legislation that would give states federal cover to choose not to comply with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
The measure by Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) cleared the subpanel last week with only Republican support, and it is on course for speedy passage in the full committee late this week. Whitfield has said he hopes to see the House take up the bill soon after.
Whitfield's proposal would bar EPA from implementing a federal plan to regulate power plant carbon dioxide in states that do not choose to comply with the existing power plant rule. It also would grant all states a reprieve from requirements to submit implementation plans until judicial review of the rule concludes.
Whitfield said at last week's markup that a legislative stay on the rule is warranted because it is unprecedented in scope and would be costly to states like his own that rely on coal.
"We've heard from state officials who have been warning that the rule's accelerated deadlines are not workable for many of them and will create significant issues for them," said Whitfield. Some utilities and electrical co-ops will have to retire facilities they are still paying off, he said, and some regulators warn of reliability issues.
Whitfield said his bill would mandate more "workable" timelines and permit states to exhaust their legal options before having to submit a state implementation plan.
But EPA emphasizes that the rule is still in draft form and will likely change before it is final. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told executives from the utility industry and other sectors last week that the agency has heard stakeholder comments about early compliance requirements and other aspects of the rule and that it is likely to take them into account.
The Clean Power Plan, she said, "will give you the time and space you need to take a reliability-first approach that's in line with your long-term planning, and gives you the latitude to adapt as market demands change."
Schedule: The markup begins Tuesday, April 28, at 5 p.m. in 2123 Rayburn, and continues Wednesday, April 29, at 10 a.m. in 2123 Rayburn.
-
Oklahoma House Passes Measure Asserting Local Control Over Power Plan
Apr 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Stinson
In the latest pushback from Oklahoma City toward Washington's efforts to cut carbon pollution from power plants, the Oklahoma Legislature has adopted a measure designed to ensure that state energy policy is determined by local rather than federal officials.
Touted by state officials as a means of protecting businesses and consumers from overreach by the Environmental Protection Agency, S.B. 676 passed the Oklahoma House in a 68-21 vote on April 23.
The measure would allow for legislative oversight of carbon dioxide emissions plans submitted to the EPA to ensure the plan complies with the Clean Air Act.
Passing out of the Oklahoma Senate March 10 following a 44-0 vote, the measure authored by state Sen. Greg Treat (R) is part of a campaign by multiple states to resist the EPA's proposed rule to limit carbon dioxide emissions from electric power plants. The bill now goes back to the Senate for a final vote.
According to the Oklahoma Sierra Club, the bill would amount to giving the attorney general and the Legislature executive powers they weren't intended to have—allowing the pair to have the final word in Oklahoma's environmental policy in terms of the Clean Air Act.
“SB676 is unneeded, given the Oklahoma Attorney General has already found numerous ways to voice his grievances with the EPA and the federal government over environmental issues he disagrees with without this legislation in place,” Oklahoma Sierra Club Director Johnson Bridgwater told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail.
“We also feel this bill does nothing to help assure Oklahomans their right to safe, clean air, which is the goal of establishing federal clean air standards,“ Bridgwater added in the April 24 e-mail.
Oklahoma's Fight against Overreach
John Tidwell, Oklahoma State director of Americans for Prosperity, welcomed the measure, saying it would “protect taxpayers and consumers in the Sooner State from the overreach” of the EPA.
“SB 676 will provide our Governor, Attorney General, state agencies and our elected officials, with the tools necessary to avoid exorbitant compliance costs and to fight the implementation of a regulation that has unsettled legal authority under the Clean Air Act,” according to an April 24 release.
According to a bill summary, SB 676 would define “state implementation plan,” which is required by the Environmental Protection Agency as a means to meet federal standards for clean air.
The measure would create statutory requirements for SIPs “such as consideration of its effect on small business and local regulation efforts, and an approval process that includes the Oklahoma Office of the Attorney General and the Legislature.”
Bill Could slow Policy-Making Process
Sierra's Bridgwater stressed the bill's potential for slowing down the policy-making process in the years ahead.
“[W]hat was stated on the House floor is that this bill would require all future Oklahoma Attorneys General to treat the state implementation plans as possibly ‘illegal/unconstitutional,’” he said.
“[I]f we get new government in Oklahoma that is not of that opinion and does not suspect all EPA requirements as being suspect, this would make them have to review items by law and issue an opinion rather than just allow them to move forward,” Bridgwater said.
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt joined a lawsuit in August 2014 with 11 other states against the EPA's June 2014 proposed Clean Power Plan that would require existing power plants to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030.
Senator, Attorney General Hail Bill
U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R) hailed the bill as part of the state's case for opposing the federal plan in the April 1 editorial pages of the Tulsa World, pointing to the efforts of state environmental regulators to improve the state's air quality and protect the health of local citizens.
“Despite long-standing success, the Obama administration is attempting to commandeer the role of state environmental regulators, taking it a step further to dictate what type of power can be used to power Oklahoman's homes and businesses,” according to the April 1 editorial.
The measure is also the latest effort from the Oklahoma capitol to assert state control over energy policy.
On April 23, the Oklahoma House approved a measure that would allow the state's oil and gas regulator to control regulations on oil and gas while prohibiting or deterring local officials from banning oil and gas activities in their cities (79 DEN A-18, 4/24/15).
-
McConnell, McCarthy to Face Off in Budget Hearing
Apr 27, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Jean Chemnick
U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy will come face to face this week with one of the most powerful political opponents of her agency's Clean Power Plan when she visits Capitol Hill to make her case for fiscal 2016 funding.
The administrator will testify Wednesday afternoon before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee on which Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell serves. The Kentucky Republican has spent the winter and spring striving to convince state officials to "just say no" to EPA's flagship carbon rule.
He has advised them in letters and newspaper columns that the proposal for existing power plants is on shaky legal footing, and that EPA lacks power to enforce the kinds of reductions it demands of states. The only way EPA can gain that power, McConnell argues, is if governors hand it to the federal agency by submitting state implementation plans that become federally enforceable (Greenwire, March 4).
The Senate's most powerful member has offered himself as a legislative champion for states he says would be harmed by the rule. "I won't stand idly by while the administration tries to ram it past my constituents in an illegal or unconstitutional manner," he wrote in a recent Lexington Herald-Leader op-ed. He added, "It's a fight I intend to win."
It is not clear what form McConnell's offensive will take; he said recently it was still taking shape. But a likely strategy involves adding language to legislation funding EPA and the Interior Department for the coming fiscal year. Such riders have been successful in the GOP-led House for several years, but it is unclear whether they could pass muster in the Senate. President Obama would be likely to veto any bill that scuttled his marquee climate rule.
McConnell has also shown an interest in using the Congressional Review Act to veto EPA's rules. His bid to use the CRA to kill the new power plant proposal faltered last year because it was still in draft form (E&E Daily, May 30, 2014).
McConnell's office did not return inquires Friday about whether he will press Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) to include policy language in her panel's spending bill to limit the EPA rule.
Murkowski spokesman Robert Dillon said the chairwoman would use the hearing to drive home points she made in a recent one-on-one meeting with McCarthy about the way the Clean Power Plan would affect rural Alaska, especially generation that serves tiny, isolated communities on the North Slope. Those facilities may not have access to the kinds of reductions that are possible in more concentrated population centers in the Lower 48, Dillon said.
"The rules don't pencil out," he said.
But while Murkowski has been critical of the Clean Power Plan and the similarly contentious "Waters of the U.S." rule -- and both are likely to be brought up Wednesday -- Dillon said decisions had not been made yet about any policy riders. Budget battle
Murkowski has called the president's fiscal 2016 overall request "wishful thinking."
She, McConnell, and other Interior and Environment subpanel Republicans seem unlikely to embrace the president's call for a 6 percent raise for EPA funding in fiscal 2016, especially as it includes a boost in funding for regulatory activities.
The proposal would increase funding for Clean Air Act regulatory activity from its current level of $448 million to $487 million, with much of the increase going to support EPA's bid to finalize the three power plant carbon standards this summer. A $4 billion request for a new infrastructure fund outside the proposed discretionary budget is also likely to raise eyebrows. Administered by EPA, the fund would go to states that exceed the Clean Power Plan's requirements by reducing emissions quicker or deeper than mandated.
Overall, EPA is asking for $8.6 billion for the fiscal year that begins in October (Greenwire, Feb. 2). The request includes cuts in funding for the popular Clean Water and Drinking Water state revolving funds, though not as steep as in previous years. The budget blueprint's $2.3 billion proposal for the programs is a $54 million cut from fiscal 2015 enacted levels that Congress seems likely to restore.
Wednesday is McCarthy's fourth Capitol Hill appearance this year to defend her agency's budget before appropriations and authorizing committees in both the House and Senate.
McConnell's Kentucky colleague, House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R), left little doubt during a February hearing that he planned to see EPA's budget cut. He told McCarthy he was "disappointed" that EPA planned to spend so much money on its "war on coal" (E&E Daily, Feb. 27).
The House also announced last week that it would clamp down on funding for environmental programs in fiscal 2016 overall, leaving less money for EPA and other agencies (E&E Daily, April 23).
McCarthy will be accompanied Wednesday by EPA acting Chief Financial Officer David Bloom.
Schedule: The hearing is Wednesday, April 29, at 2:30 pm. in Dirksen 124.
Witnesses: EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and EPA acting Chief Financial Officer David Bloom.
-
Democrats Revive Bill To Create EPA Green Infrastructure Grant System
Apr 24, 2015 | E&E News PM
By David LaRoss
House and Senate Democrats are reviving legislation that would create a system of stormwater infrastructure grants administered by EPA to support state and local use of green infrastructure, echoing the agency's recent focus on backing such projects with grants and technical assistance rather than through new federal requirements.
The bills, known as S. 896 in the Senate and H.R. 1175 in the House, would authorize new appropriations to fund the stormwater grants, as well as establishing up to five regional EPA stormwater centers responsible for guiding research on stormwater infrastructure and providing technical support to state and local authorities.
While the legislation mirrors a bill proponents were unable to move through the 113th Congress, it could have a better chance this year as EPA and states are searching for mechanisms to finance "green" stormwater retention techniques such as bioswails and permeable pavements. EPA and others have touted such measures as an important and less-costly means of controlling stormwater runoff than traditional "gray" storm sewers.
S. 896 was introduced by Democratic Sens. Tom Udall (NM) and Dick Durbin (IL), while the House companion H.R. 1775 is sponsored by Maryland Rep. Donna Edwards (D) and 18 other Democrats.
In an April 14 statement, Edwards said the bill is designed to help combat "polluted stormwater runoff, flooding, and sewer overflow from highly urbanized areas flowing into surface waters without being treated," which she called a "growing threat to water quality throughout the U.S."
Although the bill does not specify the total appropriations for grants, it would require grants for implementing green infrastructure programs to make up exactly two-thirds of each year's disbursements, and grants for planning and development to make up one-third.
Individual planning and development grants would be capped at $200,000, while implementation grants would be limited to $3 million or less. The federal share of a project would be limited to 65 percent of its total cost.
While the bill does not include strict criteria for distributing grants, it directs EPA to prioritize applications from low-income and disadvantaged communities, as well as those from areas with combined sanitary and stormwater infrastructure.
Grant applicants would be required to "prepare and submit to the Administrator a schedule of increasing minimum percentages of the annual water to be managed using innovative stormwater control infrastructure under the program," according to the bill.
Along with the grant program and regional stormwater centers, EPA would also be required to craft voluntary measurable goals designed to "increase the percentage of annual water managed by eligible entities that use innovative stormwater control infrastructure."
S. 896 has been referred to the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW), while the House bill is before both the chamber's transportation & infrastructure panel and its science committee.
Watershed Restoration
Meanwhile, Senate Democrats are also pushing a bill aimed at coordinating watershed restoration activities in the Delaware River Basin.
Although the bill, S. 921, would give authority to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) rather than EPA, supporters say it would bring the agency and other federal entities together under a Delaware River Basin Restoration Program to create a "science-based, cost-effective" strategy for the region.
S. 921 is backed by Democratic Sens. Tom Carper (DE), Chris Coons (DE.), Cory Booker (NJ), Robert Menendez (NJ), Chuck Schumer (NY), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.) and Robert Casey Jr. (PA).
The bill does not establish new regulatory authority for FWS or any other agency, but tasks agencies with coordinating federal funding to a unified restoration effort for the basin. It would also create a competitive $5 million annual grant aimed at funding "on-the-ground watershed restoration projects." The bill was introduced April 14, and referred to EPW.
-
U.S. Will Push for Cuts in Black Carbon, Methane as Kerry Takes Arctic Council Helm
Apr 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
The U.S. will use its two-year chairmanship of the Arctic Council to press for significant action in cutting black carbon and methane, two short-lived but powerful greenhouse gases that contribute to rapid melting of sea ice in the region, Secretary of State John Kerry said April 24.
Kerry, on hand at the Arctic Council's Ninth Ministerial Meeting, April 24-25, in the Canadian town of Iqaluit to receive the gavel from Canada, said the U.S. is taking the reins at a “pivotal” time for the Arctic and global efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions and address climate change. Kerry said he and President Barack Obama “will work every single day” with members of the council “to help prepare Arctic communities” for increased melting of sea ice and other drastic changes already occurring in the region and press Arctic Council member nations to curb black carbon and methane.
The U.S. has been laying the groundwork for using the chairmanship to highlight the need for action on the two super pollutants since last summer, when it named Adm. Robert Papp Jr. as U.S. special representative to the council (189 DEN A-2, 9/30/14).
During their April 24 meeting, Arctic nation ministers adopted a Framework for Enhanced Action to Reduce Black Carbon and Methane Emissions.
U.S. Theme: One Arctic
The council is a multinational body coordinating policies among the eight Arctic states: Canada, Denmark (including Greenland and the Faroe Islands), Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the U.S. The U.S. theme for its two years at the helm—each nation essentially selects one at the beginning of the revolving chairmanship—is One Arctic: Shared Opportunities, Challenges, and Responsibilities. It will emphasize Arctic ocean safety, security and stewardship; improving economic and living conditions for native populations and other Arctic communities, and adapting to climate change.
The enhanced U.S. role comes in the run-up to a year-end summit in Paris where nearly 200 nations will enter into final negotiations on a global climate accord that would be the first to include actions from developed and developing countries alike.
On curbing emissions, a senior State Department official told reporters hours before Kerry spoke that the U.S. will push for reductions in gas flaring, particularly in the Arctic during oil exploration. Other actions will include the development of a “pan-Arctic digital elevation map” that will assist policy makers and scientists in monitoring reductions in sea ice and other environmental impacts in the region, the official said.
Departure From Economic Focus
The administration sought a “balanced” approach in its priorities to respond to concerns from environmental groups but also industry, the official said, in an attempt to find “the sweet spot” between the need to prepare for increased economic development in the region, including shipping, and demands that it use its chairmanship to push Arctic nations to curb emissions.
The U.S. priorities are seen as a departure from the economic development focus that has been central to Canada's chairmanship over the last two years, which included the creation of the Arctic Economic Council and adopted the theme “Development for the People of the North” for its 2013-2015 chairmanship, thus highlighting economic development issues within the Arctic Council.
-
OMB Considering Final Rule to Phase Out Use of HFCs With High Warming Potential
Apr 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The White House Office of Management and Budget is considering a final rule that would limit the use of various hydrofluorocarbons that have high global warming potential, according to the agency's website.
The Environmental Protection Agency April 24 submitted the final rule to OMB for review. The rule is expected to change the status of several HFC and HFC-containing blends that are currently listed as acceptable alternatives to ozone-depleting substances under the EPA's significant new alternatives policy (SNAP) program.
HFCs are typically short-lived but highly potent greenhouse gases. The EPA in August proposed, as part of President Barack Obama's climate action plan, to disallow the use of the widely used HFC-134a in light-duty vehicle air conditioning systems beginning in model year 2021 (133 DEN A-3, 7/11/14).
The proposed version also would bar the use of HFC-134a in new vending machines and retail food refrigeration equipment in 2016 and prohibit the use of HFC-125 in aerosol propellents.
Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, warned the EPA in an April 1 letter that manufacturers won't be able to replace the HFCs with cost-effective alternatives in time to meet what he described as unrealistic deadlines included in the agency's proposed rule (RIN 2060–AS18) (63 DEN A-5, 4/2/15).
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said the regulation would encourage companies to adopt more environmentally friendly alternatives. The agency estimated its proposed rule would achieve up to 42 million metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent in emissions reductions in 2020.
-
Los Angeles-Area Air Agency Seeks Review Of Implementation Rule for Ozone Standards
Apr 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The South Coast Air Quality Management District, which regulates air pollution in Los Angeles and surrounding areas, is challenging a federal regulation governing state implementation of current national ozone standards South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1115, 4/24/15
The lawsuit, filed April 24 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, seeks review of the Environmental Protection Agency's final rule setting various requirements for nonattainment area state implementation plans, including deadlines for meeting the ozone standards and requirements for how states must demonstrate that they attain the standards. The rule applies to the current ozone standards of 75 parts per billion, set in 2008.
The rule (RIN 2060-AR34), signed in February and published in the Federal Register March 6, also revoked the 1997 ozone standards for all purposes and established anti-backsliding measures for areas that still don't meet those standards (32 DEN A-14, 2/18/15).
Sam Atwood, a spokesman for the South Coast AQMD, told Bloomberg BNA April 24 that the lawsuit was filed over a “pretty narrow issue” with the implementation rule: the EPA's interpretation in the rule that states may not take credit for reductions of ozone precursors from sources outside of a nonattainment area for the purposes of meeting “reasonable further progress” obligations. The Clean Air Act requires state implementation plans for moderate and serious nonattainment areas to provide for annual incremental reductions in emissions.
District Has Aggregated Emissions
Atwood said that in the past, the South Coast Air Quality Management District has aggregated emissions from the South Coast air basin, which includes the Los Angeles metropolitan area, and the Coachella Valley, which includes Palm Springs.
Under the EPA's rule, those two areas would now need to meet the reasonable further progress requirements separately, which could be difficult for the Coachella Valley.
The Coachella Valley is much less populated than the Los Angeles area and not industrialized, he said. Most of the valley's air pollution problems are the result of transport of emissions and smog from the Los Angeles area, according to Atwood.
“They don't have major industries, they don't have the two largest ports in North America,” Atwood said. “They don't really have the emissions to reduce as readily.”
Atwood couldn't share the legal arguments the AQMD will raise but said the goal of the litigation is for the EPA to allow the reasonable further progress requirement to be met by aggregating emissions from the two air basins.
-
EU Official Says TTIP Talks Engaged On Elements of Possible Energy Provisions
Apr 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rossella Brevetti
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) talks took a significant step forward in the ninth round on energy and raw materials, where negotiating teams for the first time “engaged extensively on all the elements that could be the subject of specific energy and raw materials provisions in this agreement,” EU chief negotiator Ignacio Garcia Bercero said.
Bercero, who spoke April 24 at a press conference capping a week of negotiations in New York, said negotiators discussed how the TTIP could contribute to ensuring nondiscriminatory and transparent third-party access to pipelines and electricity grids or further regulatory cooperation in energy efficiency. No decision has been made about whether a dedicated chapter on energy and raw materials should be included in the TTIP, he said.
While welcoming progress in the round, U.S. chief negotiator Dan Mullaney said the U.S. was greatly disappointed with a recent European Commission (EC) proposal that would let member states “opt-out” of accepting imports of genetically modified food and feed authorized by the EU .
“It's hard to square the proposal with either the EU's existing international obligations or their aspirations for a seamless internal market,” Mullaney said. “We are still studying the proposal implications but we hope that the EU will move forward in a way that respects our decades-old rules on trade,” he added. U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman has also criticized the proposal.
However, Bercero commented that the proposal was fully consistent with EU international obligations and “in no way undermines” TTIP negotiations. He noted that the EC had just approved 19 pending genetically modified organism applications.
Services Revised Offers Being Prepared
Most of the TTIP negotiating teams met during the ninth round, with the exception of the services, competition, rules of origin and sustainable development teams, which continued technical exchanges conducted via phone or video, Bercero said. The two sides are preparing revised services offers that are expected to be tabled in advance of the next round, he said.
In the area of regulatory cooperation and rules, negotiators have been tasked to make as much progress as possible to prepare for a joint political review of these areas after the summer, Bercero said.
On regulatory issues, the sides discussed horizontal cooperation issues, as well as nine specific sectors—cars, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, cosmetics, engineering, textiles, chemicals, pesticides and information communications technology, he said. Pharmaceutical sector regulators continued exchanges on the potential recognition of good regulatory practices or on how to cooperate better to facilitate the approval of bio-similars, while medical device experts exchanged views on the potential mutual recognition of certain audits, Bercero said. Regulators will intensify technical exchanges in coming months, he added.
The two sides will continue to discuss a revised EU proposal on horizontal regulatory cooperation made in New York, Mullaney said.
In the regulatory coherence sphere, the overall goal is to ensure as much as possible that future regulations do not diverge in ways that are unnecessary, Mullaney said. In this endeavor, the ability to encourage good regulatory practices by publishing proposals and considering comments submitted can help with the development of better regulations and less divergence between U.S. and EU regulations, he added. With respect to technical barriers to trade, discussions included review of a new U.S. proposal addressing duplicative testing for products in the U.S. and EU markets, which creates unnecessary costs without increasing the level of protection, he said.
Mullaney, who is an assistant U.S. trade representative, said the round was held in New York—as opposed to Washington—to give additional stakeholders an opportunity to weigh in. On transparency, Mullaney said the U.S. side was working hard to strike the right balance between transparency and allowing negotiators “scope” to negotiate. “Transparency is extremely important to us,” he said.
Both sides tabled proposals on regulatory cooperation in previous rounds, and teams started identifying commonalities between the proposals.
Discussions progressed on concrete information tools that both sides could provide to small- and medium-sized enterprises in a dedicated chapter in the agreement, Bercero said.
In the area of customs and trade facilitation, the two sides already have a common consolidated text and are building on progress made in previous rounds, he said.
On market access, negotiators deepened their technical discussions aimed at reaching a better understanding on respective tariff offers, as well as on public procurement, he added.
The 10th round of TTIP negotiations will take place in Brussels.
-
California Sets Stage to Evaluate New Rules To Cut Emissions From Freight Transportation
Apr 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
The California Air Resources Board outlined a strategy for wringing additional emissions reductions from the transportation sector, a key source of harmful air pollution and greenhouse gases in the state.
At a meeting in Sacramento, the agency's governing board gave staff a green light to begin evaluating about 20 near-term measures and actions proposed in CARB's Sustainable Freight Strategy, a preliminary draft document to be integrated with a broader plan being developed jointly with other state agencies.
Once completed, the California Sustainable Freight Initiative would provide a framework for building a less-polluting, more efficient and modern freight transport infrastructure for the state's seaports, airports, rail yards and lines, distribution centers, warehouses, busy highways and border crossing.
Because the transition to a sustainable, near-zero emissions transport system will take years, California needs to take action now to ensure it meets clean air standards and the state's climate goals, agency staff told the governing board.
The CARB governing board approved a resolution directing staff to continue its work with the other state agencies, including the California Energy Commission, the California Department of Transportation and the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development to complete the broader plan.
“We're looking at making the system better, not just cleaner,” CARB Chairman Mary D. Nichols said.
Nichols and other board members said staff needs to work closely with the other agencies to explore revenue streams to fund the final plan.
“There's way more work to be done” on the freight initiative, she said.
Board Can Pursue Near-Term Measures
At the same time, the board said staff could be begin pursuing the near-term measures and actions.
These include developing standards to improve the in-use performance of trucks to make it easier for manufacturers to certify innovative heavy-duty truck engine and vehicle systems; developing a second generation of greenhouse gas requirements for trucks and trailers; pursuing measures to reduce emissions from ocean-going vessels and locomotives; and advancing efforts to deploy zero-emission delivery vans and small trucks, airport shuttles and transit buses.
Other near-term actions and projects outlined in the resolution call for the agency to petition the Environmental Protection Agency to develop lower nitrogen oxide standards for heavy-duty trucks for the model year 2018 and later and new national emissions standards for locomotives.
Any of the rules CARB adopts could be included in the state implementation plan to demonstrate attainment toward federal air quality standards, according to CARB staff.
State Must Main Competitiveness
Officials from other agencies spoke in support of the CARB staff's work so far but stressed that the final plan must maintain the state's competitiveness in the global supply system.
California's freight transport system is a major economic driver for the state, but the trucks, ships, locomotives, aircraft and the equipment that move the freight account for half of the diesel particulates, 45 percent of the nitrogen oxide emissions that contribute to the formation of ozone and fine particulates in the atmosphere and 6 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions, according to CARB.
Existing regulations and other measures have cut emissions of toxic diesel particulates at ports in Los Angeles and Long Beach by 80 percent over the past 10 years, but more emissions reductions are needed not just to attain federal air quality standards but also to reduce the health risks to the communities near the freight hubs, staff said.
Henry Hogo, an assistant deputy executive officer at the South Coast Air Quality Management District, said measures wouldn't cut nitrogen oxide emissions enough for the Los Angeles region to meet its 2023 deadline to attain the ozone standard.
-
The Urgent Need to Bolster Tank Car Safety Standards | Commentary
Apr 27, 2015 | Roll Call
By Rep. Donald M. Payne, Jr.
In 2013, 47 people were killed in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, when a runaway oil train derailed and exploded.
In 2014, a train carrying crude oil derailed in Lynchburg, Va., sending three flaming tank cars into the James River and forcing evacuations of downtown homes and businesses.
And just two months ago, a train hauling crude oil derailed in West Virginia, resulting in numerous explosions that sent tank cars into the nearby Kanawha River and the temporary closures of nearby water treatment plants. Scattered fires caused by the derailment continued to burn at the site almost a week later. At least one home was destroyed.
These accidents serve as a warning about the very real risks of transporting hazardous materials by rail — something that happens all the time throughout our nation and our state.
New data by the U.S. Energy Information Administration show that more than 1 million barrels of crude oil are transported by train across the United States every day.
And every day, tank cars carrying highly flammable crude oil make their way through New Jersey, weaving through residential areas and passing by schools, homes and businesses.
Think about the devastating impact that would result if one of these cars derailed. As the practice of shipping crude oil by rail increases, it’s time that we take action to increase the safety of our nation’s tank cars and mitigate the risks associated with the transport of hazardous materials.
This month, I introduced the Tank Car Safety and Security Act of 2015, legislation to strengthen the safety standards for DOT-111 tank cars that transport flammable liquids. According to the National Transportation Safety Board, these tank cars have a high incidence of tank failures during accidents.
My legislation requires the secretary of Transportation to revise federal standards for DOT-111 tank cars used to move flammable liquids.
The legislation requires all cars to include an outer steel jacket as well as thermal protection, full-height head shields and high-flow capacity pressure relief valves.
Tank cars built after October 2011 must be updated to include high-flow capacity pressure relief valves and design modifications to prevent bottom outlets from opening in the event of an accident.
In addition, the secretary of Transportation would be required to submit to Congress a plan to phase out older-model DOT-111 tank cars that are not retrofitted to meet the new safety standards.
Finally, the act directs the Transportation Security Administration administrator to issue a set of procedures to ensure that every rail car containing crude oil will not be left unattended when transferred from one carrier to the next.
Transporting flammable liquids and other hazardous materials always carries risks, but it’s critical that shipments of these materials are as safe as possible in order to mitigate these risks and safeguard our communities.
As we saw from the recent tank car incidents, the consequences of a derailed tank car carrying hazardous materials can be devastating, threatening water supplies and endangering the lives of many.
There is a clear need to ensure the safe transport of flammable liquids, and the Tank Car Safety and Security Act of 2015 aims to do just that by requiring safer tank cars and better inspections of cars and tracks.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested