Preview Newsletter
ACC AM May 13
-
(ACC Mentioned) Job Creation in U.S. Plastics Manufacturing Rebounding
May 12, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Jim Tankersley
Last June, Chevron Phillips Chemical broke ground on a pair of facilities in Texas. When they open in 2017, the company projects, those plants will produce a combined 1 million metric tons per year of plastic resin, which will find its way into plastic bags, piping and bottles. Along with a third plant, the facilities will create 400 new permanent jobs... -
(ACC Mentioned) American Chemistry Council Lied About Lobbying Role On Flame Retardants, Consultant Says
May 13, 2015 | The Center for Public Integrity
By David Heath
The chemical industry’s powerful trade group, the American Chemistry Council, has long maintained that it had nothing to do with an enormously successful but deceitful lobbying effort in state capitals to defend the use of potentially ineffective and toxic flame retardants in furniture. Now, in a rare breaking of ranks, a top industry... -
(ACC Mentioned) Cabot Corporation Plants Recognized for Safety Excellence
May 12, 2015 | Business Wire
By Vanessa Craigie
Cabot Corporation (NYSE: CBT) announced that three of its U.S. manufacturing facilities were recognized with “Certificates of Excellence” by the American Chemistry Council (ACC) for their safety achievements in 2014. These awards were presented to Cabot’s inkjet colorants plant in Haverhill, Mass.; fumed metal oxides plant in ... -
Revised TSCA House Bill Would Grandfather Some State Rules, Address PBT Chemicals
May 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
State chemical regulations in force prior to Aug. 1 couldn't be preempted under a revised draft bill to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act Control released by a House subcommittee May 12. The revised draft TSCA Modernization Act of 2015 also includes a new provision that would require the Environmental Protection Agency to ... -
Revised House TSCA Bill Includes 'Grandfathering' To Protect State Rules
May 12, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Revised House legislation to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) unveiled May 12 includes new language to “grandfather,” or preserve, existing state chemical laws among other changes that could boost bipartisan backing for the bill, including clarifications on when EPA should consider costs in TSCA rules. -
House Draft Bill Is Changed, Winning Support Of Key Democrats
May 13, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sam Pearson
House lawmakers released changes to a draft bill that tries to fix the worst aspects of the nation's chemical safety regulations late yesterday, ahead of a planned subcommittee markup tomorrow. The draft bill by Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy, has the... -
EPA to Put Added Focus on Nail Salons
May 12, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy says she is set to take on public health concerns and working conditions at nail salons. McCarthy will visit a San Francisco nail salon Wednesday to discuss public health issues with workers there, she said Tuesday. An EPA official said McCarthy will meet with a shop owner and the... -
The EPA Is Cracking Down On Nail Salons
May 12, 2015 | National Journal
By Clare Foran
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy will take a trip to a San Francisco nail salon Wednesday—a visit intended to shine a spotlight on health risks posed by the industry. McCarthy's West Coast trip arrives on the heels of a New York Times expose published last week that documented poor working conditions in... -
Metal Oxide Nanoparticles Affect Gut Microflora, Say Researchers
May 13, 2015 | Chemical Watch
US researchers have concluded that metal oxide nanoparticles, frequently present in foods, cosmetics and the environment, could affect human health through changes to the gut microflora. Using a model colon containing human gut bacteria, titanium dioxide, cerium and zinc oxides were shown to have effects on the properties of the microflora. -
Electric Groups Outline Potential Legal Issues With EPA's Definition of Solid Waste Rule
May 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The Environmental Protection Agency exceeded its statutory authority in the types of materials it regulates and in establishing stricter requirements for verifying recycling operations in its final definition of solid waste rule, four industry groups argued in a court filing (Utils. Solid Waste Activities Grp., D.C. Cir., No. 15-1083, filing, 5/8/15). -
Put America Back On A Growth Path With Energy Exports
May 13, 2015 | The Hill - Contributors
By Mark Bloomfield
Reports of a U.S. economic slowdown have added a real sense of urgency to major free-trade initiatives, ranging from President Obama's signature 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership to boosting exports of domestic crude oil and natural gas. Policymakers have a hugely important task facing them at this pivotal moment. They must find a way to reignite growth and sustain the economic recovery. One surefire way to do that is to expand trade with an ... -
Senate Bills Would Lift Drilling Restrictions, Increase Lease Sales, Revenue Sharing
May 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Restrictions on oil and gas drilling in federal waters would be lifted, revenue sharing would be expanded and the number of oil and gas lease sales required under the Obama administration's proposed five-year plan would be increased under three Senate bills announced May 12. The Offshore Energy and Jobs Act of 2015 (S. 1276) would lift... -
Senators Introduce Bills To Increase Offshore Drilling
May 12, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A group of senators introduced a trio of bills Tuesday to open up more areas of the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico and the Arctic to offshore oil drilling and to provide more oil revenue for states. Sen. Bill Cassidy's (R-La.) legislation would allow offshore drilling in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico in 2017 and require the federal government to hold leasing... -
As Ocean Drilling Expands, Obama Administration Turns Blind Eye to Offshore Fracking | Commentary
May 13, 2015 | Roll Call
By Kristen Monsell
America’s coastal communities got some disturbing news recently when Interior Secretary Sally Jewell pledged to open “vast areas” of the ocean to oil drilling. Under the shadow of the anniversary of the deadly Deepwater Horizon disaster, the Obama administration is moving quickly to greenlight oil and gas exploration in dangerously... -
Some House Democrats Quietly Backing Obama Leasing Expansion
May 13, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Phil Taylor
A dozen House Democrats are quietly backing President Obama's plan to open new federal waters to oil and gas drilling, parting ways with more liberal colleagues who have strongly opposed the president's plan. The Democrats, many of whom hail from oil-rich states, sent a March 27 letter to Interior Secretary Sally Jewell praising the plan to... -
Alaska’s Tricky Intersection of Obama’s Energy and Climate Legacies
May 12, 2015 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport
President Obama’s move to open up vast, untouched Arctic waters to oil and gas drilling as he pursues an ambitious plan to fight climate change illustrates the inherent tensions in his environmental and energy agenda. As the first president to seriously tackle climate change, Mr. Obama has proposed aggressive new rules to cut planet-warming... -
A Narrow Opening for Arctic Oil
May 12, 2015 | The New York Times
The Obama administration’s conditional grant of approval to Royal Dutch Shell to drill for oil off the coast of Alaska raises obvious concerns about the damage a major spill could cause to the fragile Arctic environment. But it is hardly a surprise. Shell acquired the lease for just over $2 billion in 2008, and, absent a very good reason, the government ... -
Coastal Senators Float Revenue-Sharing Proposals For Energy Bill Consideration
May 13, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Nick Juliano
The long-running effort by coastal lawmakers to increase the share of offshore drilling revenue going to their states' coffers is slated for fresh consideration as the Senate works to assemble a comprehensive, bipartisan energy bill this year. But it remains to be seen whether revenue-sharing proposals stand any better chance of success than in... -
Wastewater From Pennsylvania Fracked Wells Varies in Composition, USGS Study Says
May 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas
A study of wastewater produced by 13 hydraulically fractured shale gas wells in north-central Pennsylvania reveals a wide variety of microbial and organic compounds, leading researchers to conclude that the composition of produced water should be considered in its management. The analysis of water samples from wells in a 22-mile stretch... -
Texas Railroad Agency to Require Testing Of Four Disposal Wells Following Earthquake
May 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
The Texas Railroad Commission notified four disposal well operators they would be required to conduct well and reservoir testing after a 4.0 magnitude earthquake hit North Texas May 7. Five wells, operated by four companies, are within 100 square miles of the estimated epicenter, the commission said May 8. The operators have agreed to... -
Energy Department Clears Cheniere LNG Project
May 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Energy Department has authorized Cheniere Energy Inc. to export liquefied natural gas from its Corpus Christi, Texas, facility and shipping terminal to countries that don't have a free trade agreement with the U.S. The department is permitting Cheniere Energy to export up to 2.1 billion standard cubic fee per day of LNG for 20 years from its Corpus... -
Report: FBI Broke Internal Rules For Keystone XLProtesters
May 12, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The FBI has broken internal rules in investigating activists opposed to the Keystone XL oil pipeline, according to a report. The Houston field office investigated Keystone protesters between 2012 and 2014, but did not get necessary approval from office attorneys, as is required by protocol for probes involving controversial political matters, the... -
G-7 Ministers Foresee Global Energy Security in LNG as U.S. Kicks Off Exports
May 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Parkin and Nicholas Brautlecht
The Group of Seven industrial nations are seeking swift development of a global market for liquefied natural gas to help reduce dependency on suppliers like Russia. G-7 energy ministers, at a meeting May 12 in Hamburg, said an integrated global LNG market would thwart “single dominant” suppliers from cornering the gas market. -
Calculator Tallies Clean Power Plan Emission Savings From Building Codes
May 13, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Katherine Ling
A new calculator aims to save regulators some time and headaches in complying with U.S. EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan by adding up emissions savings if a state adopts the most recent building energy efficiency codes. The energy analytics firm ICF International created the calculator on behalf of the Alliance to Save Energy (ASE) ... -
Regulators Offer Interstate Clean Power Guidance
May 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Utility regulators offered states a draft memorandum of understanding to guide development of multistate plans to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed Clean Power Plan. The May 12 guidance developed by the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and the Eastern Interconnection States Planning Council ... -
Grid Experts Offer Interstate-Compliance Guide For EPA Carbon Rule
May 12, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jean Chemnick
Two organizations with expertise in grid reliability today released a set of practical recommendations for how state leaders can go about crafting an interstate compliance program for U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), which represents state utility regulators, and the Eastern... -
Capito To Unveil Bill Today To Scuttle Clean Power Plan, New Source Rule
May 13, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Jean Chemnick
Senate foes of U.S. EPA will launch their bid today to let states opt out of utility sector carbon rules, even as they continue to urge states to use their own authority to "just say no." Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) will roll out her bill at a news conference this afternoon flanked by five senators, including one Democrat -- original co-sponsor... -
Fuel Advocates Float Bills, Seek Inclusion In Broader Energy Talks
May 13, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Manuel Quiñones
Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota this week introduced a trio of bills meant to boost coal-fired power generation. Two Manchin bills co-sponsored by Heitkamp -- S. 1282 and S. 1283 -- would amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to establish a clean coal technology program and require the... -
Key Senate Aide Likely To Replace Departing Commissioner
May 13, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Nick Juliano
Philip Moeller, an outspoken Republican member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, announced yesterday that he plans to leave the agency in the coming months, creating an opening expected to be filled by a senior Senate GOP aide. Moeller's likely replacement is Patrick McCormick, senior counsel for the Senate Energy and... -
Murkowski Works To Gin Up Support For Minerals Overhaul
May 13, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Manuel Quiñones
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is working to generate support for her mineral policy overhaul bill ahead of a possible panel vote later this year. Murkowski yesterday said she was hoping for a markup of S. 883, known as the "American Mineral Security Act," by the summer. It could see floor action after... -
Goals of Critical Minerals Bill Supported At Hearing; Funds, Environment Are Concerns
May 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Sen. Lisa Murkowski's (R-Alaska) critical minerals bill has the right goal, but federal funding realities and recycling research questions could present obstacles, an Interior Department official and a Senate Democrat said at a May 12 hearing. The American Mineral Security Act of 2015 (S. 883), the subject of the Senate Committee... -
Trucks May Face Stricter EPA NOx Rules As Groups Debate Health Effects
May 12, 2015 | IndsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
Heavy-duty trucks and non-road equipment appear to be a lingering major source of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions that could potentially spur EPA to issue stricter NOx rules for the vehicles, sources say, while industry groups, health experts and others step up debate over the level of adverse health effects of the ozone-forming pollutant. -
Judges Ask Tough Questions On Standing, Merits In CERCLA Finance Suit
May 12, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
A panel of appellate judges asked tough questions of environmentalists and EPA during May 12 oral arguments in litigation attempting to force EPA to finalize long-delayed Superfund financial assurance rules for various industries, with judges weighing whether advocates have legal standing and voicing alarm over EPA's slow progress with the ... -
Industry Files Suit To Stop New Oil Train Rules
May 12, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The oil industry is suing to stop a number of provisions in a suite of oil-train transportation rules issued by the Obama administration. The American Petroleum Institute (API) said Tuesday that it filed the lawsuit in federal court Monday in an attempt to overturn those requirements it does not believe would improve the safety of crude oil... -
Oil Industry Asks Court to Block Rail Transport Safety Rules
May 12, 2015 | The New York Times
By Jad Mouawad
The oil industry is challenging new federal rules intended to improve the safety of oil-by-train transportation, opening the first legal fight in a two-year effort to reduce the risks of moving hazardous materials on railroads. The American Petroleum Institute, the industry’s main trade group, petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for...
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
-
(ACC Mentioned) Job Creation in U.S. Plastics Manufacturing Rebounding
May 12, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Jim Tankersley
Last June, Chevron Phillips Chemical broke ground on a pair of facilities in Texas. When they open in 2017, the company projects, those plants will produce a combined 1 million metric tons per year of plastic resin, which will find its way into plastic bags, piping and bottles. Along with a third plant, the facilities will create 400 new permanent jobs, along with 10,000 temporary ones while they’re being built.
Those jobs are part of a mini-resurgence of U.S. plastics manufacturing. The sector has added 60,000 jobs since mid-2009, a 12 percent increase. It has reversed a job-shedding trend that began in 2000, and it has nearly recouped all the jobs it lost in the Great Recession.
Industry advocates say more job growth is on the way: On Wednesday, the American Chemistry Council, a trade group, will release an economic analysis projecting that plastics makers will add 127,500 direct jobs over the next decade. That is thanks to $130 billion in investments that companies have announced since 2010.
The growth in the sector largely reflects the nation’s energy dynamics — and, in particular, the abundance of cheap natural gas being tapped in recent years.
Breakthroughs in hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, have sent U.S. gas production surging and pushed down electricity costs for consumers who rely on gas-fired power plants. Those lower prices have given many U.S. manufacturers, who are huge electricity users, a competitive boost in the global marketplace.
Industry groups have long said that that boost should spur more U.S. factory production and job creation; the country hemorrhaged manufacturing jobs in the 2000s. There isn’t widespread evidence that that has yet come to pass, at least not on the job front: Manufacturing as a whole remains more than 1 million jobs short of its pre-recession peak.
In plastics, the United States’ cost advantage in natural gas is particularly large, industry leaders say. Fossil fuels are not just a source of electricity for plastics manufacturing but are also an essential ingredient. Three-quarters of the raw materials, or feedstock, for American-made plastics are liquids distilled from natural gas. In Europe and China, those raw materials largely come from oil. Even with the recent drop in oil prices, the United States’ natural-gas-based feedstock is still dramatically cheaper than oil-based feedstock.
“Feedstocks in the U.S. have completely flipped our fortunes” compared with international competitors’, Steve Russell, vice president of the chemistry council’s plastics group, said in an interview. That advantage has fed through to an increase in U.S. plastics exports and projections for a tripling of those exports by 2030, said Martha Moore, the group’s senior director of policy analysis and economics.
The group’s analysis projects that investment and hiring will peak between 2018 and 2020, and that if hiring by suppliers and by service industries supported by factory jobs is factored in, the total jobs gain will reach 460,000.
Russell said he sees no reason to worry that the announced investments and projected hiring will not come through — largely because policymakers have shown no signs of slowing the projects. “We have not experienced permitting backlogs. We have not experienced other things that folks were afraid of,” he said. “It seems to be moving, to everyone’s surprise and appreciation.”
-
May 13, 2015 | The Center for Public Integrity
By David Heath
The chemical industry’s powerful trade group, the American Chemistry Council, has long maintained that it had nothing to do with an enormously successful but deceitful lobbying effort in state capitals to defend the use of potentially ineffective and toxic flame retardants in furniture.
Now, in a rare breaking of ranks, a top industry consultant is discrediting that story — and in so doing providing a window into the shadowy world of corporate advocacy and its use of front groups that aren’t what they appear.
After a Chicago Tribune investigation in 2012 exposed Citizens for Fire Safety as an industry group masquerading as a coalition of firefighters, educators, community activists, doctors and others, the chemistry council disavowed any affiliation with or support for the group.
The political consultant who ran Citizens for Fire Safety, however, says the council lied about its involvement. Grant David Gillham said the ACC helped create Citizens for Fire Safety and frequently coordinated with his organization.
“They flat out lied about it," Gillham said in a recent interview. "They denied that they ever did anything with us."
The American Chemistry Council — whose 153 members include powerhouses such as ExxonMobil, Chevron, Dow Chemical and DuPont — stands behind the accuracy of a past statement made by its president and chief executive officer, Cal Dooley, about having no affiliation with Citizens for Fire Safety. Now, however, the council acknowledges for the first time that it engaged in discussions and coordination with the group.
The council’s credibility is crucial as it currently works with a bipartisan group in the Senate to rewrite the law governing the regulation of toxic chemicals. The bill to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act passed a Senate committee recently by a vote of 15 to 5 and last week picked up 14 new senators as co-sponsors, virtually assuring it can pass the Senate.
Still, nearly every major environmental group opposes it, in part because the American Chemistry Council supports it.
“This is an industry that lies,” said Ken Cook, president and co-founder of the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit research and advocacy organization. “I think at this point anybody would be foolish to believe them when they say they are serious about reining in the abuses that they’ve committed.”
Cook said he believes the American Chemistry Council wants Congress to gut the power of states to regulate toxic chemicals and give all control to an easily manipulated Environmental Protection Agency.
It was states such as California, Maine and Washington — as opposed to the EPA — that took action to curb the use of flame retardants. Virtually all Americans are exposed to the chemicals, which float as dust particles from seat cushions in a typical home. Yet scientific research has linked some of these chemicals to health problems such as diabetes, IQ deficits, fertility problems and cancer. Some scientists have also questioned whether flame retardants provide any significant benefit in protecting people from fire.
The American Chemistry Council says that the EPA “has identified approximately 50 flame retardants that it says are unlikely to pose a risk to human health.” It says flame retardants “can help save lives.”
In June 2007, a bill banning some forms of flame retardants passed the California State Assembly and was sailing through state Senate committees. At that point, three flame-retardant manufacturers decided to form Citizens for Fire Safety. Those companies were Albemarle Corp., Chemtura Corp. and ICL Industrial Products. The new group quickly flooded the state with television and radio ads. Gillham says it spent $22 million in 2007 alone to defeat the California bill.
California state Sen. Mark Leno, a Democrat from San Francisco, said the group used questionable tactics such as having burn victims and children give emotionally wrenching testimony even though they had no knowledge of flame retardants.
It also paid $240,000 in 2010 through 2011 to Seattle burn surgeon David Heimbach, who the Tribune reported gave false testimony about babies killed in fires because of the lack of flame retardants. The newspaper found that the babies Heimbach identified didn’t exist, a finding verified by Washington state’s Medical Quality Assurance Commission.
“I can’t say that I’ve seen in my 13 years in Sacramento anything as crass and as insensitive,” Leno said in a recent interview.
After Citizens for Fire Safety was discredited in 2012, current and former lawmakers in Maine asked the American Chemistry Council’s leader to expel the three flame retardant companies behind the group for engaging in unethical tactics. The council’s Dooley wrote back on June 5, 2012, denying any involvement with Citizens for Fire Safety.
“ACC is not affiliated with Citizens for Fire Safety, and neither ACC staff nor resources were used to support activities undertaken by the group,” he wrote.
Gillham, however, said he was called to the ACC’s Sacramento offices at 10 a.m. on August 23, 2007, in the old Senator Hotel across the street from the California State Capitol. Sitting behind the desk was an ACC executive. It was at this meeting, Gillham said, that he was interviewed to head the new group to be called Citizens for Fire Safety. He said it was made clear that he was not to reveal his association with the chemical industry.
Gillham’s job was to make sure a bill in California to ban flame retardants failed. On Sept. 12, 2007, the bill was defeated in the state Senate by one vote.
Gillham said he was paid by the three chemical companies and reported directly to their CEOs. But he said he was in frequent contact over a five-year span with the American Chemistry Council to coordinate activities. He said Citizens for Fire Safety directed all calls from journalists to the council, which also handled all scientific matters on flame retardants.
Gillham provided the Center for Public Integrity calendar entries of meetings with ACC representatives, email conversations and strategy documents produced with the council. Among them was a tentative ACC agenda for a two-day meeting in its Washington, D.C., offices in July 2011 to discuss flame retardant issues. Gillham is listed as one of the speakers on “US State Advocacy.”
Gillham says he's going public because he believes the American Chemistry Council misled him about the safety of flame retardants. Last month, he stepped up to a microphone at a California State Senate hearing to announce his support for a bill requiring labeling of children's products containing the chemicals.
Anne Kolton, vice president of communications for the American Chemistry Council, told the Center, “ACC has made clear that we did not provide support for Citizens for Fire Safety.”
But she said that the ACC did support the flame-retardant companies, and that part of that included talking to other organizations like Citizens for Fire Safety.
“It’s an example of coordination between two separate groups,” she said. “This is a normal part of our job to understand what’s going on in the environment and to talk to other organizations as needed.”
The council’s Dooley wrote his June 2012 letter in response to a letter signed by several Maine lawmakers, including one-time Speaker of the House Hannah Pingree. Told by a Center reporter that the ACC said it coordinated with Citizens for Fire Safety but didn’t support the group, Pingree laughed.
“It seems very much about semantics and not substance,” she said.
Pingree said she was shocked that Dooley would have sent the letter and that the American Chemistry Council was still trying to defend it.
Referring to three flame-retardant companies, Dooley also said in the letter that “ACC does not advocate with state legislatures or state regulatory agencies on their behalf related to flame retardant chemistries.”
However, legislative and lobbying records in California obtained by the Center show that the council lobbied against three bills to put curbs on flame retardant use in 2007, 2009 and 2010.
Kolton acknowledged that the ACC lobbied against those bills, but said it wasn’t on behalf of the flame-retardant companies.
“We will get involved if there are important principles at stake or that it creates a bad precedent,” she said. “We will get involved if we think it will have negative ramifications for the broader industry.”
When asked what the important principles were, Kolton at first said she couldn’t remember. She later sent an email that said, “On your question of the principle at issue related to the California legislation — ACC opposed the bills because they sought to pass legislation related to a specific chemical without any consideration or review of scientific evidence by relevant experts.”
Leno, the California state senator, said the council was twisting the truth.
“These are very high-priced attorneys trying to further obfuscate and failing miserably,” he said. “They have been discredited, disgraced and dishonored. I don’t think they are believable in any way.”
-
(ACC Mentioned) Cabot Corporation Plants Recognized for Safety Excellence
May 12, 2015 | Business Wire
By Vanessa Craigie
Cabot Corporation (NYSE: CBT) announced that three of its U.S. manufacturing facilities were recognized with “Certificates of Excellence” by the American Chemistry Council (ACC) for their safety achievements in 2014.
These awards were presented to Cabot’s inkjet colorants plant in Haverhill, Mass.; fumed metal oxides plant in Midland, Mich.; and activated carbon plant in Pryor, Okla. in recognition of each location’s outstanding safety results throughout the past year. This is the highest safety certificate awarded to individual facilities by the ACC and is bestowed upon those that complete a year with no Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recordable injuries or illnesses, which result in days away from work, and no restricted workdays or job transfers among both employees and contractors.
“Safety is our number one priority and our performance in this area is world class. We are proud of the accomplishments of all of our facilities and especially honored by the ACC’s recognition of our safety performance at Haverhill, Midland and Pryor,” said Martin O’Neill, senior vice president, Safety, Health and Environment. “This recognition is a testament to the safety culture that our employees and leadership teams promote on a daily basis. As we continue to improve our safety, health and environmental performance, we will remain focused on achieving our goal of zero recordable injuries and zero incidents at all of our facilities globally.”
Cabot Corporation is a member of the ACC and an active participant in the Responsible Care program. Responsible Care is the chemical industry’s world-class environmental, health, safety and security performance initiative. For nearly 25 years, Responsible Care has helped ACC member companies significantly enhance their performance and reputation, discover new business opportunities, and improve the health and safety of their employees and communities and the environment as a whole.
About Cabot Corporation
Cabot Corporation (NYSE: CBT) is a global specialty chemicals and performance materials company, headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. The company is a leading provider of rubber and specialty carbons, activated carbon, inkjet colorants, cesium formate drilling fluids, fumed silica, and aerogel. For more information on Cabot, please visit the company’s website at: http://www.cabotcorp.com.
Forward-Looking Statements
Safe Harbor Statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995: Statements in this press release involving the Company that are not statements of historical fact are forward-looking statements and are subject to risks and uncertainties inherent in projecting future conditions, events and results. Such forward looking statements include statements regarding Cabot’s expectations pertaining to the timing of completion of the acquisition, the expected benefits of the acquisition and Cabot’s future financial performance, including expectations for growth. Such expectations are based upon certain preliminary information, internal estimates and management assumptions, expectations and plans. For a discussion of the risks and uncertainties that could cause results to differ from those expressed in the forward-looking statements, see "Risk Factors" in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K.
-
Revised TSCA House Bill Would Grandfather Some State Rules, Address PBT Chemicals
May 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
State chemical regulations in force prior to Aug. 1 couldn't be preempted under a revised draft bill to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act Control released by a House subcommittee May 12.
The revised draft TSCA Modernization Act of 2015 also includes a new provision that would require the Environmental Protection Agency to develop a list of chemicals that persist in the environment, bioaccumulate up the food chain and are toxic and to take expedited action to address them—provided funds are available.
Neither TSCA nor an earlier version of the subcommittee's draft bill specifically addresses PBT chemicals.
The House Energy and Commerce Environment and the Economy Subcommittee will mark up the draft bill May 14.
Other changes in the new bill, when compared to the version Subcommittee Chairman Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) released April 7, include that it would establish a special fund in the U.S. Treasury where fees the EPA would charge chemical manufacturers would be collected to carry out specific provisions of the bill.
The grandfathering in of state regulations and the provision on PBT chemicals could make the draft more acceptable to Democrats because environmental groups and some states have sought such provisions.
-
Revised House TSCA Bill Includes 'Grandfathering' To Protect State Rules
May 12, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Revised House legislation to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) unveiled May 12 includes new language to “grandfather,” or preserve, existing state chemical laws among other changes that could boost bipartisan backing for the bill, including clarifications on when EPA should consider costs in TSCA rules.
The updated bill, known informally as the TSCA Modernization Act, was released May 12 by House Energy & Commerce Committee Reps. John Shimkus (R-IL), Paul Tonko (D-NY), Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), and Fred Upton (R-MI), ahead of an energy panel environment subcommittee markup slated for May 14.
“We have all spent a great deal of time studying the law and negotiating solutions, and we have reached a strong bipartisan agreement that works to improve both chemical safety and commerce,” Shimkus said in a press release announcing the legislation, which is now 40 pages compared to an earlier 30-page version.
Shimkus, chairman of the environment subcommittee, in early April released the first draft of the legislation that gained a cautious welcome from some Democrats, as it appeared to include far less sweeping preemption and other provisions that have prompted concern from environmentalists, some Democrats and other stakeholders in a Senate TSCA bill offered by Sens. David Vitter (R-LA) and Tom Udall (D-NM).
The updated House draft appears to take further steps to try to address concerns from various groups, which could potentially help the measure attract greater support from Democrats and advocacy groups.
For example, while the earlier draft of the bill contained more limited preemption of state programs than the Senate bill, S. 697, the revised House bill adopts grandfathering language from the Senate bill to preserve existing state chemical laws enacted prior to Aug. 1, 2015 if they do not conflict with federal TSCA requirements.
Preemption has been a major flashpoint in the debate over how to reform the decades-old chemical safety law. The updated House bill would preempt new state chemical requirements other than those identical to EPA actions once the agency enacts a restriction or determines that a chemical meets the safety standard.
Comparatively, the recently amended Senate bill would limit preemption of new state regulation of chemicals to a period beginning when EPA defines the scope of uses of a chemical and ending when the safety determination is made, with an automatic waiver from the preemption in the event that EPA misses a deadline. Critics say this could lead to a gap in regulation while the agency reviews a chemical.
One environmentalist recently told Inside EPA that while they oppose the Senate bill, they would support the House preemption language, which closely resembles existing TSCA, if it adopted the grandfathering language.
The revised House bill also includes new deadlines for EPA to take action on chemicals, such as a period of three years for the agency to complete evaluation of a chemical, compared to the previous six months in the earlier draft that the chemical industry had supported. The updated legislation also includes a 90-day deadline for EPA to launch a rulemaking to restrict a chemical it has determined does not meet the safety standard.
During an April 14 hearing on the earlier draft House bill EPA toxics chief Jim Jones raised concerns about the deadlines in the bill, saying that six months was “unrealistically optimistic” for EPA to screen a chemical.
Legislative Changes
The bill also appears to address additional concerns raised by Jones and others during the hearing. For example, Jones said the bill's draft language to amend section 6(a) of TSCA was “ambiguous.” The language previously said EPA in deciding whether to craft a TSCA rule must examine a host of factors including benefits and "reasonable ascertainable economic consequences.” Jones added that it is "not clear how EPA is to consider cost" in determining whether to promulgate a 6(a) rule.
The revised language would require EPA to promulgate regulations that are “cost-effective, except where the Administrator determines that it is not practicable to protect against the identified risk using cost-effective requirements.” The updated measure would instead shift the economic consideration to what type of requirement is needed, as opposed to whether to promulgate a rule.
The concerns over the degree to which EPA may consider cost stem from a ruling in 1991 in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit struck down EPA's attempt to ban asbestos -- a known carcinogen -- under section 6, finding in Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA that the agency had not met its burden of proof to establish the chemical's risk could not be reduced by any other regulatory means.
The revisions to the bill also contain new language aimed at ensuring EPA would have use of funds collected as a result of the new user fees established in the bill, after Jones said during the hearing that the draft fee language would go into the general Treasury, making it difficult for the toxics program to access.
The changes to the House bill come as support for the Senate bill, S. 697, is broadening. The bill's lead sponsors, Sens. David Vitter (R-LA) and Tom Udall (D-NM), announced on May 7 that the legislation secured an additional 14 Democratic and Republican sponsors. The addition of the 14 new co-sponsors brings the total support for the bill, including Vitter and Udall, to 36 senators. The Senate bill cleared the Environment & Public Works Committee in a 15-5 vote following an April 28 markup and lawmakers have said they would like to see it debated on the Senate floor as early as June.
-
House Draft Bill Is Changed, Winning Support Of Key Democrats
May 13, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sam Pearson
House lawmakers released changes to a draft bill that tries to fix the worst aspects of the nation's chemical safety regulations late yesterday, ahead of a planned subcommittee markup tomorrow.
The draft bill by Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy, has the support of lawmakers of both parties, Shimkus said, including Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.), the subpanel's ranking member; Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.); and E&C Committee ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.).
In a joint statement, the four lawmakers called the draft bill to update the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 "a strong bipartisan agreement that works to improve both chemical safety and commerce."
"This is an opportunity to make meaningful reforms that will enhance consumer protections and strengthen our economy," the lawmakers said. "We look forward to advancing this important bill and finally seeing TSCA reform signed into law."
The latest version, known as the "TSCA Modernization Act," makes several changes in response to issues raised at a subcommittee hearing last month.
For example, the draft bill now requires that U.S. EPA complete a minimum of 10 chemical assessments per year. The bill also includes an accelerated path for a class of chemicals known as persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic, or PBTs, something that lawmakers declined to add to a competing Senate proposal. Despite this change, House members kept a section that would allow manufacturers to request evaluations of specific chemicals and did not modify the bill to allow EPA to refuse their requests. The draft bill also now requires that EPA-initiated assessments be completed within three years and industry-proposed assessments be wrapped up within six months. However, EPA could extend that deadline if necessary. After completing a risk evaluation, the agency would be required to propose risk management rules within 90 days.
At the hearing last month, Jim Jones, EPA's assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention, warned lawmakers about the industry-initiated assessment provision.
"In practice," he said, "this would likely lead to EPA focusing the majority of its limited risk evaluation resources on completing evaluations for chemical substances requested by industry" (E&E Daily, April 15).
Under this provision, EPA would be required to identify PBT chemicals and, within one year, determine which PBT chemicals the general population, or vulnerable subpopulations, face exposure from. EPA would then be required to propose regulatory action within two years to reduce the public's exposure to these chemicals.
However, the draft bill also allows a PBT chemical to be removed from the accelerated list if a risk assessment is initiated for the chemical under the same process afforded to other chemicals. It could also be removed from the PBT list if the industry requested an evaluation of the chemical.
The latest version of the bill also changes how it affects state laws after EPA has completed an evaluation of a chemical. Under the new version, lawmakers clarified that state evidence rules and air, water and waste disposal laws are not affected. In addition, states would be able to keep chemical enforcement laws passed prior to Aug. 1, 2015, on the books that do not conflict with federal law, and California's Proposition 65 chemical labeling program would also be allowed to continue.
Like the competing Senate bill, states would not be able to enact chemical restrictions or bans in the future if they exceed regulations prescribed by EPA. Under the earlier House bill, both existing and future state laws would have been pre-empted if they conflicted with an EPA rule.
The bill now allows EPA to issue renewable five-year "critical use" exemptions for chemicals that "are needed to avoid significant disruption of the national economy, national security or critical infrastructure" if regulations to reduce their risk are not cost-effective.
Andy Igrejas, director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, said last night that he was not yet prepared to support the plan but was encouraged by the progress. Igrejas said it wasn't clear enough how EPA may consider the cost of regulations when deciding whether to restrict a chemical. Jones raised some of those concerns at last month's hearing, as well.
"I hope that with some more debate and discussion, they can bring it to a place where the remaining issues are solved and we have a broader agreement," Igrejas said.
-
EPA to Put Added Focus on Nail Salons
May 12, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy says she is set to take on public health concerns and working conditions at nail salons.
McCarthy will visit a San Francisco nail salon Wednesday to discuss public health issues with workers there, she said Tuesday. An EPA official said McCarthy will meet with a shop owner and the California Healthy Nail Salon Collaborative, a group that works on health issues in salons.
The event comes after a New York Times article last week about poor working conditions at New York-area nail salons.The EPA already does some work on nail salon working conditions, partnering with a handful of other federal agencies to look at outreach programs and potential regulatory changes based around health concerns in shops, such as workers' exposure to chemicals. The agency released a guide on chemical exposure in shops in 2007.
"All of this is done in a way that's multilingual, so we can reach the target audience, but there is so much more work to be done," McCarthy said at a White House event on Asian-Americans and Pacific Islanders.
McCarthy said articles like the one in the Times, which has spurred outrage among officials in New York, are important tools for regulators to make their case for new public health rules.
"I know it's challenging when we read about the environmental challenges we have on the front page of the New York Times, but frankly, that's our job, is to get them on the front page of the New York Times so that we can get the leverage to regulate effectively and appropriately," she said.
"Education is great, but ensuring public health through law is really what we're all about."
-
The EPA Is Cracking Down On Nail Salons
May 12, 2015 | National Journal
By Clare Foran
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy will take a trip to a San Francisco nail salon Wednesday—a visit intended to shine a spotlight on health risks posed by the industry.
McCarthy's West Coast trip arrives on the heels of a New York Times expose published last week that documented poor working conditions in New York City-area nail salons, detailing how workers are routinely underpaid and overworked. The article sparked public outcry and prompted Gov. Andrew Cuomo to call for an investigation into worker treatment at nail salons.
"We know more visibility needs to be raised for these issues and we're working hard to reach communities and to educate folks," McCarthy said Tuesday at the White House Summit on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in Washington, where she announced her nail salon visit.
During her trip, McCarthy will meet with a local nail salon owner along with members of the California Healthy Nail Salon Collaborative, which is a coalition of salon workers, environmental groups, nonprofits, and government agencies.
Nail polish and other products found in salons contain an array of chemicals that may pose a threat to public health and the environment. Without proper handling, exposure to chemicals such as formaldehyde can lead to difficulty breathing, skin irritation and other health problems.
EPA already has put together a federal working group and doled out grants to organizations tackling the industry's public health and environmental impact created by the use of chemicals in nail salons, McCarthy noted.
"We've put together funding strategies, grants, that local communities and individual companies can access and we've put together a technical assistance team and all of this is done in a way that is multilingual so that we can reach the target audience, but there is so much more work to be done," McCarthy said.
McCarthy signaled optimism that headlines generated by The New York Times would raise awareness, but added that more needs to be done to shine a spotlight on the issue. "Not everybody—unbeknownst to The New York Times—reads The New York Times," she said.
-
Metal Oxide Nanoparticles Affect Gut Microflora, Say Researchers
May 13, 2015 | Chemical Watch
US researchers have concluded that metal oxide nanoparticles, frequently present in foods, cosmetics and the environment, could affect human health through changes to the gut microflora. Using a model colon containing human gut bacteria, titanium dioxide, cerium and zinc oxides were shown to have effects on the properties of the microflora.
The scientists, from the University of California, introduced environmentally relevant concentrations of nanoparticles – 0.01µg/l for ZnO and CeO2 and 3mg/l for TiO2 – into the model, which was designed to represent the human large intestine.
In a paper in Environmental Engineering Science, they describe running the model for five days and the changes induced by nanoparticles in the physico-chemical properties of the microflora. These include variations in microbial film forming potential, cell surface charges, sugar content of extracellular polymeric exudates, cell size, conductivity and short-chain fatty acid production.
-
Electric Groups Outline Potential Legal Issues With EPA's Definition of Solid Waste Rule
May 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The Environmental Protection Agency exceeded its statutory authority in the types of materials it regulates and in establishing stricter requirements for verifying recycling operations in its final definition of solid waste rule, four industry groups argued in a court filing (Utils. Solid Waste Activities Grp., D.C. Cir., No. 15-1083, filing, 5/8/15).
The groups also told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the EPA exceeded its authority under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act by requiring companies and recyclers to demonstrate four mandatory legitimacy criteria to take advantage of an exclusion from hazardous waste regulations.
The Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, the Edison Electric Institute, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association and the American Gas Association argued in a May 8 statement of issues that the RCRA regulation impermissibly applied the mandatory criteria to exclusions granted before 2008 and improperly created uniform recycling criteria for all hazardous secondary materials, among other issues.
Those groups lodged their challenge to the EPA's definition of its solid waste final rule (80 Fed. Reg. 1694) April 9. Additional industry groups, environmental advocates, and one of the world's largest copper and gold producers also asked the federal appeals court to review the regulation (72 DEN A-4, 4/15/15).
Revisions Finalized in January
The EPA finalized revisions to its 2008 definition of solid waste regulation in January with an approach the agency says balances reuse of hazardous secondary materials with additional human health and environmental protections.
About 5,000 facilities countrywide are expected to take advantage of the new rule, which would enable a number of frequently generated by-products in manufacturing operations to qualify for exemptions from hazardous waste regulations under RCRA if they meet certain conditions.
Under a newly created verified recycler program, the EPA would require companies to submit additional information upfront about their recycling operations and to demonstrate their ability to pay for cleanups. They would have to meet four mandatory legitimacy criteria to use the exclusions (08 DEN A-1, 1/13/15).
The industry groups said the new program contravenes RCRA, as does the EPA's decision to withdraw the previous “transfer-based exclusion,” which excluded from hazardous waste regulations materials generated by one company and then transferred to another company.
Dispute Over ‘Discarded' Materials
The EPA also improperly asserted regulatory authority over materials that didn't meet the statutory definition of “discarded” materials and were therefore not subject to any RCRA waste regulations, the groups said.
Disputes over what constitutes a “discarded” waste have arisen frequently during litigation in recent years over RCRA regulations.
-
Put America Back On A Growth Path With Energy Exports
May 13, 2015 | The Hill - Contributors
By Mark Bloomfield
Reports of a U.S. economic slowdown have added a real sense of urgency to major free-trade initiatives, ranging from President Obama's signature 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership to boosting exports of domestic crude oil and natural gas.
Policymakers have a hugely important task facing them at this pivotal moment. They must find a way to reignite growth and sustain the economic recovery. One surefire way to do that is to expand trade with an increasingly global economy and spur further job creation. In fact, according to a recent Department of Commerce study, exports have contributed more to the growth of the U.S. economy during the current recovery than in previous recoveries and was responsible for 30 percent of gross domestic product growth over the past five years.
Applying the same free-trade logic to our still prodigious domestic energy output promises to unleash substantial economic growth and job creation for years to come. In fact, there's so much U.S. crude oil available now that it sells for about $10 a barrel less than it does in the rest of the world. The White House and Congress should speed the trade policies needed to make the most of the vast untapped potential of U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) and crude oil while the nation still has a commanding lead in global energy markets. Opening up export markets for energy, and building the necessary port infrastructure, will also bring billions of dollars in new investment back into the oil and gas industry.
Back in September, the Brookings Institution and NERA Economic Consulting concluded that easing decades-old restrictions on U.S. crude oil exports would lead to higher domestic production, lower gasoline prices and new jobs. "After 40 years of perceived oil scarcity, the United States is in a position to help maximize its own energy and economic security by applying the same principles to free trade in energy that it applies to other goods," Brookings and NERA wrote. "By lifting the ban on crude oil exports, the United States also will help mitigate oil price volatility while alleviating the negative impacts of future global oil supply disruptions."
Lifting the crude oil ban, according to a study by energy consultants IHS, would add between $86 billion to $170 billion in additional annual domestic income and the creation of between 394,000 and 859,000 new jobs on average annually. The benefits would extend well beyond the energy sector. IHS found that only 10 percent of the jobs would be created in actual oil production, while 30 percent would be in the industry supply chain and 60 percent would come from the broader economy.
Likewise, if policymakers can find a way to break the regulatory logjam on LNG exports, the benefits will be sizeable. Earlier this year, the White House Council of Economic Advisers released its annual report to the president, which highlighted the significant role natural gas exports will play in delivering economic and environmental benefits. The report noted that "expanded natural gas exports would generate more jobs, incentivize increased domestic production, strengthen U.S. geopolitical security, promote a cleaner environment at home and abroad, and help American manufacturers maintain a healthy competitive cost advantage in natural gas."
The political drive to change our energy policies is gaining momentum on Capitol Hill. Earlier this year, Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) introduced a bipartisan bill to expedite LNG exports. And Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) recently announced that she would be introducing legislation to ease the crude export ban. She has long taken a leading role on this issue, working hard to harness support from her fellow lawmakers.
With U.S. economic growth stalling, now is the time for decisive action. The United States is a bona fide energy superpower, among the world's top producers of crude oil and natural gas. The energy surge has allowed domestic producers to invest, innovate and expand. More than ever, we need policies to drive more growth and align with the new realities of the global energy market.
-
Senate Bills Would Lift Drilling Restrictions, Increase Lease Sales, Revenue Sharing
May 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Restrictions on oil and gas drilling in federal waters would be lifted, revenue sharing would be expanded and the number of oil and gas lease sales required under the Obama administration's proposed five-year plan would be increased under three Senate bills announced May 12.
The Offshore Energy and Jobs Act of 2015 (S. 1276) would lift a moratorium on oil and gas development in the eastern Gulf of Mexico to allow access to “the largest undiscovered, technically recoverable, energy resources in areas 50 miles from the Florida coastline,” according to a bill summary.
The moratorium, put in place following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster, is set to expire in 2022. The legislation would direct the Interior Department to hold three lease sales in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico in 2018, 2019 and 2020, according to a bill summary.
Introduced by Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), the legislation also would lift a cap on revenue sharing in the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 from $500 million in 2017 to close to $700 million annually from 2018-2025, and to $1 billion annually from 2026-2055, the summary said. In addition, it would allow revenue sharing for the state of Florida starting in fiscal year 2017.
Only four states—Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas—are eligible under the act to receive 37.5 percent of revenues from offshore oil and gas development that would otherwise go to the U.S. Treasury.
The bill is co-sponsored by Sens. David Vitter (R-La.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) and Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), and it is supported by organizations that represent companies such as ConocoPhillips Co., Exxon Mobil Corp. and Halliburton.
Expanded Revenue Sharing in Alaska
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) announced a second bill May 12, the Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Lease Sale Act (S. 1278), that would expand revenue sharing in the state of Alaska.
Alaska currently receives 27 percent of revenues from oil and gas leasing and production in an area between three and six miles from shore known as the 8(g) zone, but it does not receive revenue sharing from beyond the six-mile limit, according to a bill summary.
The Murkowski bill would expand revenue sharing beyond that zone and require a minimum of three lease sales in each of the Beaufort, Chukchi and Cook Inlet planning areas during any five-year period, and annual lease sales in the 8(g) zone of the Beaufort and Cook Inlet planning areas, the summary said.
“With exploration proceeding in the Chukchi, and the Alaska offshore emerging as a key part of our national energy security, it is critical that we ensure revenue sharing for the state and coastal communities and invest in the workforce development, science and infrastructure necessary to bring these vast resources to market,” Murkowski said in a statement.
Lease Sales in South Atlantic
Separately, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and other East Coast lawmakers introduced legislation May 11 that would require the Interior Department to hold three oil and gas lease sales in the south Atlantic.
The Southern Atlantic Energy Security Act would allow states on the Atlantic Coast to participate in federal revenue sharing.
The Obama administration's draft five-year offshore oil and gas leasing program for 2017 and 2022 proposes a single Atlantic lease sale in 2021, which if held would be the first time federal leasing is allowed in federal waters off the Atlantic Coast since the early 1980s (76 DEN B-1, 4/21/15).
The bill (S. 1279), which is co-sponsored by Sens. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), David Perdue (R-Ga.) and Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), comes after the group penned a letter to Murkowski, asking her to include a provision to expand revenue sharing to Atlantic states in a broad committee bill she is drafting.
“We strongly believe that offshore energy and revenue sharing for coastal states go hand-in-hand and that any legislation considered by the committee should reflect that view,” said the letter, which was dated April 7. “In the mid- and south-Atlantic as in the Gulf of Mexico, we all agree on the principle that coastal states deserve a portion of the revenue from energy production” (68 DEN A-5, 4/9/15).
-
Senators Introduce Bills To Increase Offshore Drilling
May 12, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A group of senators introduced a trio of bills Tuesday to open up more areas of the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico and the Arctic to offshore oil drilling and to provide more oil revenue for states.
Sen. Bill Cassidy's (R-La.) legislation would allow offshore drilling in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico in 2017 and require the federal government to hold leasing sales for drilling sites there in the years following. The bill would also raise the cap on oil revenue Gulf states can take in.A bill from Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) would require leasing sales in three areas off the coast of Alaska and allow for revenue sharing for state and local governments.
Sens. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Tim Scott (R-S.C.) introduced a bill requiring three leasing sales in the Atlantic Ocean between 2017 and 2022, and establishing a revenue sharing program between East Coast states and the federal government.
The bills come one day after the Obama administration signed off on a Royal Dutch Shell plan to drill in Arctic Ocean north of Alaska. But 87 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf remains off-limits for oil and gas drilling, according to Cassidy's office.
Earlier this year, the Interior Department released a proposal to consider drilling in the Atlantic for the first time in decades, but restrict it to only three areas in the Arctic and maintain a ban on drilling in the Eastern Gulf.
Congressional Republicans have said the plan is too restrictive, and have called on the Obama administration to open up even more of the Outer Continental Shelf to drilling.
-
As Ocean Drilling Expands, Obama Administration Turns Blind Eye to Offshore Fracking | Commentary
May 13, 2015 | Roll Call
By Kristen Monsell
America’s coastal communities got some disturbing news recently when Interior Secretary Sally Jewell pledged to open “vast areas” of the ocean to oil drilling.
Under the shadow of the anniversary of the deadly Deepwater Horizon disaster, the Obama administration is moving quickly to greenlight oil and gas exploration in dangerously unpredictable Arctic waters and off the Atlantic coast, where an oil spill could devastate coastal economies.
Attempting to greenwash this dangerous expansion of drilling in America’s fragile ocean ecosystems, Secretary Jewell has talked up new regulations for offshore oil operations, including a rule on “blowout preventers” — the kind of valve that failed to seal the well in the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe.
But the Obama administration is utterly failing to address one of the oil industry’s riskiest and most rapidly expanding practices: offshore fracking.
That’s why Congresswoman Lois Capps, D-Calif., recently introduced a bill to prohibit fracking in federal waters in the Pacific Ocean until the administration conducts a study on the impacts of offshore fracking on the marine environment and public health.
In March, after years of delay, Jewell unveiled the first-ever regulations for hydraulic fracturing on onshore public lands. The rules are weak. They do little to reduce fracking pollution’s damage to America’s air, water and wildlife.
But as bad as the onshore rules are, it’s even more disturbing that the Interior Department is doing virtually nothing to regulate — or even track — offshore fracking.
The oil industry is already fracking near the California coast and in the Gulf of Mexico.
But in response to my organization’s public records request, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement admit they haven’t kept track of how many offshore frack jobs have been permitted in the Gulf of Mexico.
Offshore fracking is similar to what occurs onshore — companies blast huge amounts of water and toxic chemicals into the earth at high pressures to crack rock beneath the ocean floor.
But the unpredictable ocean environment makes offshore fracking especially dicey — and highlights the grave dangers of federal inaction.
Interior’s new onshore fracking rules are packed with industry-friendly loopholes. But they do put minimal restrictions on storage of polluted fracking wastewater. In contrast, fracking in our oceans is barely regulated at all.
The federal government even allows oil companies to annually dump up to 9 billion gallons of wastewater, including fracking chemicals, into California’s wildlife-rich Santa Barbara Channel. How much oil waste fluid is discharged into the Gulf of Mexico? Federal officials can’t say — they seem to have no idea.
They also don’t know all the chemicals used in fracking operations. But one peer-reviewed study found that up to 25 percent of fracking chemicals could cause cancer. And a review of chemicals used in offshore fracking in California found that many can kill or harm sea otters and other marine animals.
Onshore, fracking is done in 90 percent of wells on federal land, and it’s increasingly common offshore. Media investigations revealed that oil companies have fracked more than 200 wells off California’s coast. And, according to recent reports, the industry fracked at least 115 wells in the Gulf of Mexico in 2013 alone.
Oil companies plan to expand their use of fracking in the Gulf so they can extract oil from even deeper wells, according to recent reports. Fracking could also spread to the Atlantic, given Interior’s proposal to open waters from Delaware to Florida to oil drilling.
Meanwhile, federal officials charged with protecting us from oil industry pollution are allowing ocean fracking without notifying the public and without any meaningful review of the environmental risks.
Every offshore frack increases the threat of chemical pollution or a catastrophic oil spill in our delicate ocean environments. But instead of carefully studying such dangers, Interior is turning a blind eye, relying on outdated environmental assessments that don’t address fracking risks.
The truth is that offshore fracking is far too big a gamble to take with our oceans’ life-support systems. The federal government should prohibit this inherently dangerous practice.
Secretary Jewell certainly has no right to give the oil industry free reign to frack at will in our oceans — or to keep people living in seaside communities in the dark about this toxic industrial activity off our coasts.
-
Some House Democrats Quietly Backing Obama Leasing Expansion
May 13, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Phil Taylor
A dozen House Democrats are quietly backing President Obama's plan to open new federal waters to oil and gas drilling, parting ways with more liberal colleagues who have strongly opposed the president's plan.
The Democrats, many of whom hail from oil-rich states, sent a March 27 letter to Interior Secretary Sally Jewell praising the plan to hold future lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic Ocean and off Alaska's North Slope.
"Further development of our offshore resources will help our nation maintain its status as an energy superpower and, as a result, will help create additional good-paying American jobs, generate billions of dollars in new government revenue, and increase our nation's energy security," said the letter obtained by E&E Daily through a Freedom of Information Act request. "We encourage the department to proceed with the environmental reviews in all of the areas proposed in the plan and continue to move forward with a robust offshore program in a timely fashion."
The letter was spearheaded by Reps. Cedric Richmond of Louisiana and Gene Green of Texas.
The other signatories were Reps. Ruben Hinojosa, Filemon Vela, Al Green and Marc Veasey of Texas; Jim Costa of California; Bennie Thompson of Mississippi; Brad Ashford of Nebraska; Sanford Bishop of Georgia; Collin Peterson of Minnesota; and Terri Sewell of Alabama.
Those members are among a small number of Democrats who have spoken positively about the Interior Department's draft leasing plan for 2017 to 2022. The plan includes one potential lease sale in 2021 in waters stretching from Virginia to Georgia, which have been off limits for a generation (Greenwire, Jan. 27).
Some other Democrats are on board, with conditions.
Democratic Sens. Mark Warner and Tim Kaine of Virginia in a March 26 letter to Jewell said they support opening the Atlantic -- but only if the Commonwealth is guaranteed a cut of the leasing and production revenues.
Such revenue sharing would take an act of Congress but is opposed by leading Democrats, the Obama administration and taxpayer advocates. Passage this Congress may be a heavy lift.
"The offshore industry has coexisted with the military and commercial industries like fishing and tourism in other areas for many years, and we believe that oil and gas development can take place on the Outer Continental Shelf under robust safety measures that meet our shared obligations to protect our waters and shoreline," Warner and Kaine said in their letter, also obtained by E&E Daily under FOIA. "In the Mid-Atlantic as in the Gulf of Mexico, we all agree on the principle that coastal states deserve a portion of the revenue from energy production."
Many other Democrats in both chambers have fiercely opposed the Obama plan, which they view as a threat to East Coast tourism and fishing.
On March 9, more than four dozen House Democrats, including members from every East Coast state, sent a letter to Jewell opposing the Atlantic sale, warning that it poses "severe risks" to coastal economies.
That same day, a dozen East Coast liberal senators wrote to Jewell, also urging her to yank the Atlantic sale. While Interior is proposing to keep drilling 50 miles from shore, that's not far enough to stop oil from a catastrophic spill from soiling their states' beaches, they argued.
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), a signatory to that letter, earlier this month introduced legislation that would block Interior's plans to allow seismic oil and gas surveys along the Sunshine State's seaboard (E&E Daily, May 1).
Republicans and oil industry groups have embraced expanded OCS leasing, though they have said Obama's plan already takes too many waters off the table.
More than 150 Republican lawmakers from both chambers sent a letter to Jewell last month warning that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management plan "sets the stage for energy insecurity instead of domestic prosperity."
North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory (R) has argued the plan leaves out too many energy-rich waters and provides little incentive for industry and coastal communities to invest in new domestic drilling.
The administration's draft leasing plan, first unveiled in January, will likely not be finalized until late 2016. BOEM's next step is to issue a draft environmental impact statement that gauges how leasing would affect marine wildlife, ocean users and other stakeholders.
-
Alaska’s Tricky Intersection of Obama’s Energy and Climate Legacies
May 12, 2015 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport
President Obama’s move to open up vast, untouched Arctic waters to oil and gas drilling as he pursues an ambitious plan to fight climate change illustrates the inherent tensions in his environmental and energy agenda.
As the first president to seriously tackle climate change, Mr. Obama has proposed aggressive new rules to cut planet-warming carbon emissions from the nation’s power plants and is pushing for a major global warming accord. He has also overseen an extraordinary boom in domestic energy production that has made the United States the world’s leading oil producer. Continue reading the main story Related Coverage Shell’s Record Adds to the Anger of Those Opposing Arctic DrillingMAY 12, 2015 Seattle Port Votes to Delay Drilling Rigs on the Way to AlaskaMAY 12, 2015
The result, until now, has been an uneasy balance between Mr. Obama’s leadership on climate change and his efforts to ensure that the United States benefits from its newfound oil and gas wealth. But in this latest decision, some oil companies and top energy experts agree with environmentalists that drilling in the Arctic is dangerous enough to upset the balance and put Mr. Obama’s environmental legacy at risk.
The oil industry and environmentalists say that the Chukchi Sea, where Shell intends to explore for oil, is one of the most perilous places in the world to drill. Environmentalists and oil industry officials say that a drilling accident among the icy waters and 50-foot waves of the Chukchi could lead to a disaster far worse than the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion, which killed 11 and sent millions of barrels of oil spewing through the Gulf of Mexico.
“He has done a lot on global warming,” said James Thurber, the director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University and a former adviser to the Energy Department. “But if there is an accident in the Arctic, especially if it’s sooner rather than later, that becomes the history of his environmental work. If that happens, this president will not be known as an environmental president.”
In the administration’s view, the decision to drill in the waters off the Alaska coast is a calculated risk that addresses environmental concerns, continues domestic oil production and manages legal obligations. Mr. Obama, administration officials say, chose to move forward with the Arctic drilling only after pairing the approval with tough new safety regulations.
Before giving conditional permission to Shell, the Interior Department put forward three major new drilling regulations, designed to prevent disasters like the 2010 explosion, and it has granted Shell the right to drill only if it clears additional regulatory hurdles, including acquiring permits from the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement and authorizations under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
“This is an administration that truly believes in its technocratic capacity,” said Paul Bledsoe, a former Interior Department official who was a senior policy adviser on the Presidential Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. “It believes proper regulatory oversight can overcome technical challenges. After the Deepwater Horizon, they decided to set up the most stringent oil and gas regulations in the world — and that they were going to expand leasing.”
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
Throughout the six years of Mr. Obama’s presidency, the nation’s oil and gas development has surged, creating jobs and lowering electricity prices. While Mr. Obama has pushed policies designed to lower the nation’s demand for the fossil fuels that cause climate change, he has also gained politically from the economic benefit of increased supply.
“The president has been pushing hard throughout his time in office to do what he can on climate change,” said Dan Utech, a White House adviser on energy and climate change. “But at the same time, he sees the benefits of domestic fossil fuel production in terms of jobs and revenue. We’ve seen this huge boom in production, and that’s had significant benefits for our economy.”
Aides also point out that while Mr. Obama has opened some new federal waters to drilling, including off the southeastern Atlantic coast, his hand was in part forced on Arctic drilling by his predecessor. The George W. Bush administration was the first to sell federal oil drilling leases in the Chukchi Sea, and Shell, which bought its leases from the Bush administration for $2.1 billion, then applied to the Obama administration for a permit to drill.
Advisers to Mr. Obama say that legally, the administration probably had no choice but to process that permit. If he had wanted to block the drilling, Mr. Obama could have faced legal challenges from Shell and may also have had to buy the leases back from the company at a loss to taxpayers.
“If there was a cost to the government of not moving forward, then that would weigh on him,” said Carol Browner, Mr. Obama’s senior energy and climate change adviser in his first term. “He would consider that. He is very practical in that way.”
The Obama administration had initially granted Shell a permit to begin offshore Arctic drilling in 2012, but the company’s first forays were plagued with numerous safety and operational problems. In 2013, the Interior Department said the company could not resume drilling until all safety issues were addressed.
Even with new safety rules in place, opponents of the Arctic drilling worry that the area is extremely remote, with no roads connecting to major cities or deepwater ports within hundreds of miles, making it difficult for cleanup and rescue workers to reach it in case of an accident.
The closest Coast Guard station with equipment for responding to a spill is more than 1,000 miles away. The weather is extreme, with major storms, icy waters and waves up to 50 feet high. The sea is also a major migration route and feeding area for marine mammals, including bowhead whales and walruses.
Senior executives at Total, a French oil giant, and other major oil companies have publicly expressed doubts about the risks of drilling in Alaskan Arctic waters, saying that the costs of preparing for environmental disasters make such operations too costly. They note that the prospects of high oil prices in the future are in doubt and that there are plentiful shale oil prospects on land in the United States and abroad. ConocoPhillips and Statoil, a Norwegian oil company, acquired leases in the Alaskan Arctic but suspended their drilling plans after Shell had its array of logistical problems.
“The dangers of drilling in the Arctic just dwarf those of most other locations,” said David Goldston, the director of the government affairs program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group.
-
A Narrow Opening for Arctic Oil
May 12, 2015 | The New York Times
The Obama administration’s conditional grant of approval to Royal Dutch Shell to drill for oil off the coast of Alaska raises obvious concerns about the damage a major spill could cause to the fragile Arctic environment. But it is hardly a surprise. Shell acquired the lease for just over $2 billion in 2008, and, absent a very good reason, the government felt obliged to approve it.
Shell will be bound by safeguards that did not exist seven years ago. Several factors — including lawsuits and vigorous lobbying by environmental groups, widespread public dismay caused by the 2010 BP oil spill, and Shell’s ineptitude in earlier trial runs — have led the government to devise rules that are likely to make this project safer than it would have been.
Shell is seeking to drill up to six exploratory wells in the Chukchi Sea about 70 miles off the North Slope. These would be shallow wells, 140 feet or so, far less than 5,000-plus feet of BP’s Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico.
The company has invested about $6 billion into its offshore Alaskan exploration program, without completing a single well. Estimates of recoverable offshore Alaskan reserves, in the Chukchi and nearby Beaufort Sea, range as high as 30 billion barrels of oil, about four years’ worth of consumption in the United States.
The costs of a mistake could be very high. Arctic waters support large fish populations and extensive wildlife and help sustain native peoples. The environment is forbidding, with sea ice, high winds and stormy conditions that will make drilling difficult and any cleanup operation far more complicated than it was in the warm and relatively placid waters of the Gulf of Mexico.
In 2012, the Obama administration gave Shell a tentative go-ahead after insisting on various safeguards, including a fully tested well-capping system that could quickly contain a blowout. But what Shell hoped would be its first drilling season produced a string of mishaps: the Coast Guard found defects in the company’s containment barge, meant to hold oil in the event of a spill; one of Shell’s two drilling rigs nearly ran aground; air quality violations were discovered on both rigs; the dome meant to contain a blowout at the wellhead was “crushed like a beer can.” On New Year’s Eve, a second drilling rig ran aground the during a fierce storm in the Gulf of Alaska.
Shell corrected the problems, at least to the Interior Department’s satisfaction, and will be allowed to proceed as soon as it receives individual drilling permits and state and federal authorizations under laws protecting marine mammals and endangered species. When it does, it will have to follow some important new conditions imposed since 2012. One prohibits drilling after late September, when winter weather sets in; a second requires that two rigs be on the scene at all times in order to drill a relief well in the event of a blowout. The two-rig requirement makes very good sense but is a big added expense and has been fiercely opposed Shell and by the industry.
Meanwhile, inspired by the Shell project, the Interior Department in February proposed new standards that would govern future oil extraction in Arctic waters, including codifying the two-rig requirement and mandating even more rapid deployment of containment systems.
The Shell decision does not invite an industry free-for-all in Alaska. The George W. Bush administration proposed opening just about all of the Beaufort and Chukchi to exploration. The Obama administration has since taken so many Arctic areas previously open to drilling off the table — including proposing permanent wilderness protections for Arctic National Wildlife Refuge — that Senator Lisa Murkowski, the Alaska Republican who leads the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, has accused the administration of a “stunning attack” on Alaska’s “sovereignty.”
Ultimately, the price of oil may have more to do with the industry’s Arctic ambitions than strong regulation. But the new rules will make it think twice.
-
Coastal Senators Float Revenue-Sharing Proposals For Energy Bill Consideration
May 13, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Nick Juliano
The long-running effort by coastal lawmakers to increase the share of offshore drilling revenue going to their states' coffers is slated for fresh consideration as the Senate works to assemble a comprehensive, bipartisan energy bill this year.
But it remains to be seen whether revenue-sharing proposals stand any better chance of success than in recent history.
Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Mark Warner (D-Va.) and other coastal-state senators this week introduced separate revenue-sharing bills linked to offshore drilling in the Arctic, Gulf of Mexico and along the East Coast.
Coastal lawmakers from both parties have long pushed to give states a greater share of revenues from energy development along the outer continental shelf amid opposition from some inland lawmakers and environmentalists wary of providing more incentive for offshore drilling. Murkowski said the bills would be considered next week when the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which she chairs, holds a hearing on various energy supply proposals. But she has acknowledged the challenge such proposals face.
"I recognize the opposition -- it's nothing new out there -- but again, it's something that I feel very strongly about," Murkowski said during a press briefing last week. "We see the concept of federal revenue sharing on land, and the benefits there, I think, should be no different when it comes to our offshore resources."
Murkowski introduced her bill (S. 1278) yesterday, a day after the Interior Department took another step to clear the way for Shell to begin drilling this summer in the Chukchi Sea off Alaska's northwest coast.
The bill includes a two-part revenue-sharing regime. From 2016 through 2026, 77.5 percent of offshore drilling revenues would flow to the federal Treasury, 7.5 percent would go to the state of Alaska, 7.5 percent would be divided among coastal "political subdivisions" based on their proximity to drilling operations and the remainder would be divided among workforce development grants, the Bureau of Land Management's North Slope Science Initiative and Interior's activities to support development in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas.
After 10 years, the federal government would receive half the offshore drilling revenues, Alaska would receive 30 percent, coastal communities would split 7.5 percent and the remaining 12.5 percent would fund low-income heating assistance, weatherization and Arctic infrastructure programs, according to a fact sheet.
Interior would be required to conduct at least three lease sales in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas and Cook Inlet during the 2017-2022 planning period under Murkowski's bill.
"Alaska's natural resources are vital to our prosperity," Murkowski said. "With exploration proceeding in the Chukchi, and the Alaska offshore emerging as a key part of our national energy security, it is critical that we ensure revenue sharing for the state and coastal communities and invest in the workforce development, science and infrastructure necessary to bring these vast resources to market."
Warner's bill (S. 1279) would direct Interior to hold three lease sales in the South Atlantic leasing area identified in the administration's proposed 2017-2022 outer continental shelf drilling plan, an area that stretches from Virginia to Georgia. It would divide revenues equally between coastal states and the federal government, with each state taking at least 10 percent in a share proportionate to the amount of coastline on which drilling occurs.
The bill would direct states to spend 10 percent of their proceeds on conservation, beach nourishment and coastal dredging, transit or clean energy production and to use 2.5 percent of state funds for public-private partnerships that include industry, historically black colleges and universities, and other institutions to support offshore energy education programs. Warner and other East Coast senators last month wrote to Murkowski requesting the inclusion of revenue-sharing provisions in any offshore energy legislation considered this year.
Cassidy's bill (S. 1276) would expand access to the eastern Gulf of Mexico and direct at least three sales in 2018, 2019 and 2020 in the area, at least 50 miles from Florida's coastline. Leasing is currently prohibited within 125 miles of the Sunshine State until 2022.
Gulf states already enjoy a share of offshore drilling revenues under the 2006 Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, but Cassidy's bill would increase its cap from $500 million to nearly $700 million per year from 2017 to 2025 and to $1 billion from 2026 to 2055.
The bill is co-sponsored by Republican Sens. David Vitter of Louisiana, John Cornyn of Texas, and Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker of Mississippi and is backed by major oil and gas trade groups, including the American Petroleum Institute.
But similar revenue-sharing proposals have previously encountered resistance from the Obama administration, which in its 2016 budget proposed diverting roughly $3 billion in Gulf state offshore revenues to national priorities, as well as from inland lawmakers wary of reducing the amount of drilling proceeds that fund the federal government.
Such proposals also have run into trouble with budget scoring rules that view them as increasing the deficit. None of the proposals floated today has been scored by the Congressional Budget Office, but aides said offsets could be found elsewhere in a comprehensive energy bill as the legislation takes shape, if revenue sharing is part of the package. But some question whether including such proposals would sap more widespread support for a comprehensive energy bill.
"My prediction is the introduction of these bills is their high water mark for this year," said Athan Manuel, director of the lands protection program at the Sierra Club.
-
Wastewater From Pennsylvania Fracked Wells Varies in Composition, USGS Study Says
May 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas
A study of wastewater produced by 13 hydraulically fractured shale gas wells in north-central Pennsylvania reveals a wide variety of microbial and organic compounds, leading researchers to conclude that the composition of produced water should be considered in its management.
The analysis of water samples from wells in a 22-mile stretch through Tioga and Lycoming counties revealed some were “hotspots for microbial activity” while others weren't and that “organic chemistry and microbiology was highly variable,” the U.S. Geological Survey study said.
The study builds on previous research and provides a yardstick for future work on handling and disposing of produced water, lead author Denise Akob, a research microbiologist from the USGS's National Research Program in Reston, Va., said.
“It shows that fluids are not created equally,” she told Bloomberg BNA in a phone call May 11. “There is variability, and that variability needs to be accounted for when deciding how to manage these fluids.”
The study found no correlation between variations in the water and well location, depth or salinity. “There's no clear pattern,” Akob said. “Nothing is emerging that's obvious.”
The study was released April 20 in the international research journal, Applied Geochemistry.
-
Texas Railroad Agency to Require Testing Of Four Disposal Wells Following Earthquake
May 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
The Texas Railroad Commission notified four disposal well operators they would be required to conduct well and reservoir testing after a 4.0 magnitude earthquake hit North Texas May 7.
Five wells, operated by four companies, are within 100 square miles of the estimated epicenter, the commission said May 8. The operators have agreed to temporarily shut down to conduct the testing within a matter of days. The operators are Bosque Disposal Systems, EOG Resources, Metro Saltwater Disposal and Pinnergy Ltd.
In 2014, the commission adopted rules allowing the collection of data related to seismicity. Test results will provide important data and information to determine what action, if any, is necessary to address seismicity in that area.
“We take the issue of seismicity very seriously and want to move quickly to better understand if there are actions the Commission should require of operators to protect the public, up to and including shutting down well operations,” Craig Pearson, commission staff seismologist, said in a statement. “More data is always useful in making these kinds of critical decisions that impact the public and the industry.”
Following the May 7 earthquake, the commission dispatched inspectors to the area to inspect oil and gas wells and disposal wells for any damage resulting from the event. No damage to infrastructure was found or detected, the commission said.
Pinnergy President and CEO Randy Taylor said, “We at Pinnergy are doing everything we can to support the efforts of the Commission. On Friday, May 8, we volunteered to immediately shut in our well near Alvarado, [Texas]. In addition, we chose to hire an independent testing authority to conduct the recommended tests as soon as possible.”
In April, the commission directed its hearings division to initiate proceedings requiring the operators of two other disposal wells, located in the area of Azle, Texas, to show cause why their injection permits shouldn't be canceled and the wells ordered shut-in due to an alleged connection raised by new seismic research between ongoing operation of the wells and seismic activity in the vicinity.
-
Energy Department Clears Cheniere LNG Project
May 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Energy Department has authorized Cheniere Energy Inc. to export liquefied natural gas from its Corpus Christi, Texas, facility and shipping terminal to countries that don't have a free trade agreement with the U.S. The department is permitting Cheniere Energy to export up to 2.1 billion standard cubic fee per day of LNG for 20 years from its Corpus Christi LNG plant, DOE Order 3638, issued May 12, said. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission gave Cheniere Energy authority to build a second LNG export terminal at its Corpus Christi plant in December 2014. The Sierra Club petitioned FERC to reconsider its approval of the Corpus Christi LNG project, but the commission denied the environmental group's request. The Sierra Club subsequently filed a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (91 DEN A-8, 5/12/15). DOE Order 3638 is available at http://op.bna.com/der.nsf/r?Open=rken-9wftae.
-
Report: FBI Broke Internal Rules For Keystone XLProtesters
May 12, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The FBI has broken internal rules in investigating activists opposed to the Keystone XL oil pipeline, according to a report.
The Houston field office investigated Keystone protesters between 2012 and 2014, but did not get necessary approval from office attorneys, as is required by protocol for probes involving controversial political matters, the Guardian reported Tuesday.Documents obtained by the Guardian through public records requests also show details about how the FBI dealt with Keystone opponents. The files emphasize the benefits of the proposed pipeline and refer to its opponents as “environmental extremists.”
FBI agents gathered inside information about upcoming protests, recording identities of people photographing oil infrastructure and established at least one confidential informant with intimate knowledge of protesters’ plans.
They focused on Tar Sands Blockade, an activist group focused in the Houston area, where Keystone XL is planned to end, bringing oil sands from Canada through the middle of the United States.
The actions were, at least initially, in “substantial non-compliance” with rules on controversial political matters, the FBI admitted to the Guardian.
Ron Seifert, an organizer for the group, told the Guardian multiple activists had been arrested, but none were accused of violent crimes or property destruction.
The FBI defended its actions to the Guardian and said that it worked quickly to get the necessary approvals and report the non-compliance to the correct authorities.
It said it was compelled to “take the initiative to secure and protect activities and entities which may be targeted for terrorism or espionage.”
-
G-7 Ministers Foresee Global Energy Security in LNG as U.S. Kicks Off Exports
May 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Parkin and Nicholas Brautlecht
The Group of Seven industrial nations are seeking swift development of a global market for liquefied natural gas to help reduce dependency on suppliers like Russia.
G-7 energy ministers, at a meeting May 12 in Hamburg, said an integrated global LNG market would thwart “single dominant” suppliers from cornering the gas market. The Ukraine crisis has shown that gas supply can be used for political coercion, destabilizing the energy security of an entire region, they said in a communique.
The plan to ship more natural gas around the world coincides with a U.S. decision to start exporting LNG from January and become a “very significant” market player by the end of the decade, U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said at the event. “Hopefully that's going to help the entire global market in terms of security of supply and in terms of a source that's certainly far less carbon-extensive than coal,” he said.
Led by the U.S., a commitment to build LNG terminals and expand distribution in Europe may nudge Germany to drop its resistance to developing LNG back-up supply lines. Tied to long- term gas contracts with Russia and hoping for a return of better relations, Germany has tempered calls for a European Energy Union to foster alternative supplies to Russian gas.
G-7 energy ministers “agree that fully interconnected and liquid gas markets will ensure that there are no single dominant suppliers,” according to the communique.
LNG Terminals
EU states including Spain, Ireland, the U.K., Lithuania and Poland have invested in LNG terminals seeking to diversify gas supplies. German Economy and Energy Minister Sigmar Gabriel has said his government doesn't back calls to revive a plan to build an LNG terminal at Wilhelmshaven on the North Sea on cost grounds. G-7 member Japan is the world's largest importer of LNG.
The U.S. aims to challenge Qatar as the world's biggest exporter of LNG from the start of the next decade, Moniz said. The U.S. government has approved an initial export quota of 60 billion cubic meters annually that may rise to 90 billion cubic meters starting in 2020, he said.
Miguel Canete, the EU commissioner for climate action and energy, said in Hamburg May 12 that proposals may be ready by the end of the year on developing LNG infrastructure, with the International Energy Agency aiding planning.
-
Calculator Tallies Clean Power Plan Emission Savings From Building Codes
May 13, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Katherine Ling
A new calculator aims to save regulators some time and headaches in complying with U.S. EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan by adding up emissions savings if a state adopts the most recent building energy efficiency codes.
The energy analytics firm ICF International created the calculator on behalf of the Alliance to Save Energy (ASE) and the Energy Efficient Codes Coalition (EECC). It accesses "eight years of data and modeling," according to EECC.
ASE President Kateri Callahan unveiled the calculator today at the start of its Energy Efficiency Global Forum in Washington, D.C.
"Talk about your 'easy button,'" Callahan said. "Our calculator makes it simple for state air quality agencies to determine the carbon emission reductions that will be achieved by the adoption and enforcement of the most recent model energy codes, which boost the efficiency of new homes and commercial buildings to historic levels."
William Fay, EECC's executive director, added in a statement: "Because energy savings from stronger building energy codes put thousands in the wallets of home and commercial building owners, and improve building quality, comfort, and resale value, state officials should be adopting them simply to benefit their residents. But because buildings use 71 percent of America's electricity, 54 percent of our natural gas, and 42 percent of all energy, improving their efficiency has profound potential benefits to national energy policy as well."
Energy efficiency is one of four "building blocks" officials can use to reach a state-specific target of emissions cuts from power plants outlined by EPA for its proposed Clean Power Plan, which together would reduce overall U.S. carbon emissions from existing power plants by 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.
The most recent 2012 and 2015 versions of the International Energy Conservation Codes have boosted the efficiency of new home and commercial building construction by 38 percent and 28 percent, respectively, over 2006 requirements, according to EECC. The revision of building codes does create additional costs for builders and contractors, architects, engineers, manufacturers and building officials that in turn mean higher costs for consumers, which can create some pushback against the stricter codes.
The National Academy of Sciences has described building efficiency efforts as "the greatest possibility for U.S. energy savings." And maximizing energy efficiency measures could potentially cut building energy use to as low as 16 quadrillion British thermal units in 2050, or about 70 percent below business-as-usual estimates, according to efficiency advocacy group the Rocky Mountain Institute (Greenwire, Jan. 26).
Incentives and support for boosting states' building energy efficiency codes are also part of an energy efficiency bill from Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), which has broad bipartisan support.
During a keynote speech at the ASE conference, Shaheen reiterated her call for the Portman-Shaheen bill to move separate from a comprehensive energy bill Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) hopes to finish marking up this summer (E&E Daily, May 1).
"The challenge that we have is to encourage the committee to separate Portman-Shaheen and move it separate so it doesn't get bogged down by other issues," she said.
-
Regulators Offer Interstate Clean Power Guidance
May 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Utility regulators offered states a draft memorandum of understanding to guide development of multistate plans to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed Clean Power Plan. The May 12 guidance developed by the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and the Eastern Interconnection States Planning Council provides a checklist of factors state regulators should consider when developing interstate plans to comply with the proposed rule (RIN 2060-AR33), which would establish unique carbon dioxide emissions rates for the power sector in each state. Factors to be discussed during development of an interstate compliance plan include identifying needed legislation, when agreements should be periodically reviewed and updated and how the agreements will be enforced. NARUC said it plans to update the plan in June with a legislative checklist being created in partnership with the National Conference of State Legislatures. The guidance is available at http://www.naruc.org/Grants/Documents/Multistate%20111d%20Coordination.pdf.
-
Grid Experts Offer Interstate-Compliance Guide For EPA Carbon Rule
May 12, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jean Chemnick
Two organizations with expertise in grid reliability today released a set of practical recommendations for how state leaders can go about crafting an interstate compliance program for U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), which represents state utility regulators, and the Eastern Interconnection States Planning Council (EISPC) said in their new guidebook that interstate cooperation has the potential to afford some states a lower-cost compliance option for the existing power plant carbon rule. It tracks with the interstate nature of the grid, the organizations said, and might avoid some of the supply pitfalls stakeholders say they fear.
NARUC Executive Director Charles Gray said in a statement accompanying the release that states face a "complex" task in preparing implementation plans for the draft rule.
Coordination among states "may prove frustrating, and we can help reduce some of that frustration by providing a workable starting point," Gray said.
But the groups' offering comes as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) continues to warn that an obscure provision of the Clean Air Act gives Congress the last say in the creation of any interstate compliance plan for a federal air quality rule.
"I can assure you that as long as I am majority leader of the Senate, this body will not sign off on any backdoor national energy tax," he informed EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy at a recent hearing. But some Clean Air Act experts say the provision doesn't give Congress the discretion McConnell claims (Greenwire, May 7).
The toolkit was supported by a grant from the Energy Department and included a checklist for stakeholder coordination, a sample memorandum of understanding among states and a placeholder for guidance to be added later on how states can word legislative language authorizing an interstate model.
The NARUC-EISPC effort takes an informal tone. A section declaring itself a "Wedding Planner's Guide" for states looking to cooperate on the Clean Power Plan begins: "If you're reading this and you're the Governor of a state, you don't need ideas for who should take the first step: it's you."
It goes on to walk state administrations through the process of soliciting stakeholder input, identifying barriers to interstate cooperation in laws already on the books and determining what kind of cooperation would be optimal for them. States might stop short of a regional approach to compliance, it notes, opting to cooperate on some elements and not others or simply sharing ideas for ways to craft individual state plans.
EPA is set to finalize the Clean Power Plan this summer, together with rules for new and modified power plants. The proposal sets deadlines beginning next year for states to submit compliance plans to EPA.
-
Capito To Unveil Bill Today To Scuttle Clean Power Plan, New Source Rule
May 13, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Jean Chemnick
Senate foes of U.S. EPA will launch their bid today to let states opt out of utility sector carbon rules, even as they continue to urge states to use their own authority to "just say no."
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) will roll out her bill at a news conference this afternoon flanked by five senators, including one Democrat -- original co-sponsor Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.).
Her measure would give state governors the authority to choose not to implement the Clean Power Plan and provide exemptions for EPA's rule for new fossil fuels power plants -- now undergoing a final review at the White House.
In a column Monday in the Charleston Daily Mail, Capito wrote that the power plant rules are part of "a war on coal, which is not just an energy source, but a way of life for so many West Virginians."
She cited legal problems Republicans say exist with the existing power plant rule in particular and vowed that her bill would "preserve the proper balance of state and federal authority, help ensure reliable and affordable electricity, and protect jobs and our economy."
Capito's measure is the Senate's answer to Rep. Ed Whitfield's "Ratepayer Protection Act" (H.R. 2042), which cleared the House Energy and Commerce Committee last week.
But it expands on the Kentucky Republican's House measure by including pre-emptions for the new power plant rule -- which would require new coal-fired power plants to use carbon capture and storage technology to reduce emissions. And sources familiar with the Capito draft say it would give state governors even broader discretion to opt out of the Clean Power Plan for existing power plants than the House version affords. The Senate draft also included provisions requiring EPA to justify the benefits of its carbon rules in a report to Congress.
While the Capito measure faces long odds in the Senate, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and others argue that states already have the authority to opt not to comply with the rule without inviting EPA to enforce a stringent federal implementation plan. The federal agency would be limited to relatively modest heat-rate improvements onsite at power plants, they say, so states risk little by refusing to write their own plans.
EPA is currently preparing a model federal implementation plan (FIP) for its existing power plant rule, which will be proposed when it finalizes the new, modified and existing standards this summer. The agency has said it will enforce a FIP on sources in states that opt not to comply.
-
Fuel Advocates Float Bills, Seek Inclusion In Broader Energy Talks
May 13, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Manuel Quiñones
Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota this week introduced a trio of bills meant to boost coal-fired power generation.
Two Manchin bills co-sponsored by Heitkamp -- S. 1282 and S. 1283 -- would amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to establish a clean coal technology program and require the administration to research ways of improving the conversion, storage or reuse of carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels, according to the Congressional Record.
A third bill -- S. 1285, sponsored by Heitkamp and co-sponsored by Manchin -- would allow the Department of Energy to enter into contracts to "provide certain price stabilization support" for coal-fired power producers, the Congressional Record said. Heitkamp and Manchin plan to release more details later this week.
Even though DOE has a coal research program focused on technology for power plants to capture, store or sell their carbon emissions, both lawmakers have called for more action, especially since the technology remains too expensive for widespread use.
Earlier this year, Heitkamp and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) introduced S. 601, also meant to boost coal's fortunes amid climate concerns. It would provide incentives, including bonds and price supports, for companies to incorporate carbon capture (E&E Daily, Feb. 27).
The Senate and House, now both under Republican control, have been working on crafting a broad overhaul of the country's energy policies. But coal has not been a significant part of the discussions.
Manchin, who sits on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said yesterday that he expects the fuel to end up well-represented in a future energy package.
"It's extremely important, and the reason it's important is because the country depends on it," said Manchin during a brief interview. "Why shouldn't we try to produce it in a better fashion?"
Asked whether he was pressing panel Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) to include coal in her energy package, Manchin said, "I think Senator Murkowski understands" the fuel's importance.
Murkowski, for her part, pointed to an upcoming hearing to discuss energy supply legislation. "That's going to be out there," she said. "That's where you're going to see coal and every other good thing."
So far, none of the bills on the docket are directly related to coal. Similarly, while the House has for years been pushing pro-coal bills, most of the discussion drafts involve broader issues like grid reliability.
One industry source who spoke on background said he hadn't heard of much action related to carbon capture in broad energy negotiations but hoped things would change, especially because carbon capture, sequestration and utilization enjoys bipartisan support.
Coal and mining interests themselves, however, are focusing more on bills targeting the Obama administration's regulatory agenda. One by Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) against U.S. EPA's proposal to cut greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants is coming today (see related story).
-
Key Senate Aide Likely To Replace Departing Commissioner
May 13, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Nick Juliano
Philip Moeller, an outspoken Republican member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, announced yesterday that he plans to leave the agency in the coming months, creating an opening expected to be filled by a senior Senate GOP aide.
Moeller's likely replacement is Patrick McCormick, senior counsel for the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, who has deep ties in the energy world. A source familiar with the situation said McCormick would be the nominee.
The move, assuming McCormick is confirmed by the Senate, would place at FERC a top aide to Senate ENR Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) as she tries to usher through Congress the first comprehensive, bipartisan energy bill in nearly a decade.
Moeller, first nominated to the agency by President George W. Bush in 2006 and renominated by President Obama in 2010, said he plans to serve the remainder of his term through June 30 -- or until his replacement is confirmed. Moeller also said he has no future plans lined up at this point.
"It's been an honor and a privilege to serve on the Commission every single day since I joined the Commission in July 2006," Moeller said in a statement. "I send thanks to President Bush and President Obama for nominating me, as well as the members of the United States Senate who unanimously confirmed me to both terms."
In recent months, Moeller has warned that time is running out for the agency to provide suggestions to U.S. EPA on its Clean Power Plan, which is expected to be finalized in the coming months (E&ENews PM, May 4). Moeller has joined his Republican colleague on the panel, Tony Clark, in calling for the commission to have a more formal advisory role as the EPA proposal takes shape.
Moeller was born in Chicago and grew up on a ranch near Spokane, Wash. From 1997 through 2000, he served as an energy policy adviser to then-Sen. Slade Gorton (R-Wash.), working on electricity policy, electric system reliability, hydropower, energy efficiency, nuclear waste, energy and water appropriations, and other energy legislation.
Before that, Moeller served as the staff coordinator for the Washington State Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Telecommunications. He also headed the Washington, D.C., office of Alliant Energy Corp. and worked in the Washington office of Calpine Corp.
One former Republican member of FERC said McCormick would be a good fit to replace Moeller.
"It's a natural because he's counsel to the committee, he's a qualified guy," said Marc Spitzer, a former FERC commissioner and now a partner at Steptoe & Johnson, who worked with McCormick at Hunton and Williams LLP.
But Spitzer quickly noted that the nomination does have to come out of the White House. Robert Dillon, a spokesman for Murkowski, wouldn't comment last night on the rumor of McCormick replacing Moeller.
Murkowski hired McCormick, an energy market lawyer, as the panel's special counsel in 2011 (E&ENews PM, April 26, 2011). He came to the committee from the regulated markets and energy infrastructure practice at Hunton & Williams LLP, and worked as an attorney for FERC.
As a staffer on the committee, McCormick advised lawmakers on issues related to the security, adequacy, reliability and affordability of the nation's energy supply resources and delivery infrastructure. He also worked at other Washington, D.C., law firms and in the law and governmental affairs departments of Potomac Electric Power Co.
McCormick's role was of high interest when Murkwoski voted against supporting Ron Binz, a past Obama nominee to the commission who later stepped back after facing furious backlash from the fossil industry and free-market groups.
Hunton & Williams represented coal giant Peabody Energy Corp. when the company was involved in a controversial case before the Colorado Public Utilities Commission and Binz was its chairman (Greenwire, Oct. 25, 2013).
-
Murkowski Works To Gin Up Support For Minerals Overhaul
May 13, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Manuel Quiñones
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is working to generate support for her mineral policy overhaul bill ahead of a possible panel vote later this year.
Murkowski yesterday said she was hoping for a markup of S. 883, known as the "American Mineral Security Act," by the summer. It could see floor action after that or end up within a broader bill.
"I think this is the best version yet," Murkowski said of the legislation during a hearing yesterday.
She has spearheaded two other versions of the bill in previous Congresses, but despite strong bipartisan support, they failed to get much traction with the Senate under Democratic control.
Murkowski's bill stems from concerns about the supply of rare earth elements, neccessary for clean energy technology and defense needs. She also cited an "insidious reliance" on imports for a host of other minerals.
The question in recent months has been whether legislation is still necessary amid lower rare earths prices, China scrapping export controls and the administration -- including the Department of Energy -- moving forward with efforts to address potential supply constraints.
"I don't think there is any substitute for legislation," Murkowski said, adding that departments could use new authorizations and "executive agencies are not as coordinated as they need to be."
The bill would establish a system for the administration to determine which minerals should be considered critical. Murkowski's legislation would also task the U.S. Geological Survey with identifying and quantifying U.S. mineral resources.
USGS acting Director Suzette Kimball said the administration agreed with the legislation's goals but felt her agency had "adequate existing authorities" to review U.S. mineral deposits.
Kimball also said the legislation's mandates and timelines for compliance "will be a challenge under our current funding constraints."
But Ed Fogels, deputy commissioner for the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, said state officials didn't have the entire state's resources mapped out despite efforts to attract rare earths investment.
Pressed about USGS's role in identifying the nation's resources, Kimball said, "I think that we could put more effort into developing those baseline assessments."
Murkowski's bill would also help address what Freeport-McMoRan Inc. executive Harry Conger decried as "unnecessary delays and redundancies" in the mine permitting process. It would task federal agencies with reporting on actions and progress in making permitting more efficient.
Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) expressed concern about mining's environmental impacts. And panel ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), who was generally positive about the bill, said she would like to see an update to the nation's hardrock mining standards. They both echoed environmentalists who don't see a need to address permitting.
As chairwoman and with her party in the majority, Murkowski's latest bill would do more on permitting than previous iterations. It also would cut provisions that could add to its cost.
Murkowski told reporters after the hearing, "There's nothing in there that says there is a lessening of environmental safeguards."
Asked whether she was willing to tweak the bill, Murkowski reiterated her view that the current version is the best yet. "If others disagree, talk to me," she said. "That's the purpose of putting it out there and having a hearing."
In the House, Nevada Republican Rep. Mark Amodei's H.R. 1937 would be much more muscular in terms of streamlining permitting, including creating deadlines. Environmentalists have been strongly against the language.
Beyond mining, Murkowski's bill seeks to boost minerals-related workforce development, education, recycling and search for substitutes. Not only is the U.S. dependent on imports for materials, but high-tech manufacturing has gone overseas, she said.
Companies that have been struggling to develop new U.S. rare earth mines have complained about the Department of Defense and high-tech firms not being more on their side.
Retired Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff said companies were indeed less concerned about supplies. "In the main right now it's predictable," he said, and called it "logical" for companies to want to find alternatives for hard-to-find resources.
Still, Cosgriff acknowledged how quickly disruption can happen and said a mine's location could affect the cost of getting key minerals. "They're looking for predictability and affordability in supply," he said.
Pro-mining Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) wondered whether the United States would be able to meet its mineral needs if countries like China moved again to cut exports.
"We're not prepared to supply ourselves with what we need," responded Alaska's Fogels. "I believe we have the potential to turn that around."
-
Goals of Critical Minerals Bill Supported At Hearing; Funds, Environment Are Concerns
May 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Sen. Lisa Murkowski's (R-Alaska) critical minerals bill has the right goal, but federal funding realities and recycling research questions could present obstacles, an Interior Department official and a Senate Democrat said at a May 12 hearing.
The American Mineral Security Act of 2015 (S. 883), the subject of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources hearing, aims to make the U.S. less reliant on other countries for critical minerals used in technology for clean energy, defense and even mobile phones.
The bill would streamline permitting for certain mines, among other actions, but Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) expressed concern regarding the lack of environmental focus in the bill, and Suzette Kimball, acting director for the U.S. Geological Survey, said the activities authorized would be competing for department funds.
“I think it's so important that we recognize that so many of the basics that we all start out with, with our phones or whatever, we wouldn't be able to utilize them if not for the guts of them,” Murkowski, chairman of the Senate committee, said.
As of 2014, at least 50 percent of 43 minerals, 100 percent of 19 minerals and almost 60 percent of rare earth elements were imported to the U.S., Murkowski said.
This is the third consecutive Congress that Murkowski has introduced critical minerals legislation, she said. Murkowski told reporters she would like to move the bill through the committee this summer.
While Murkowski said this was her best critical minerals bill yet, Franken disagreed (59 DEN A-5, 3/27/15).
Recycling Authorization
The previous version of the critical minerals bill, which Franken co-sponsored last session, included funding for recycling and other research to limit the overall environmental impact of mineral extraction, Franken said. This version of the bill doesn't include specific authorization for these programs, he said.
“I think we should continue to lead the world in that. That's good for America,” Franken said, also noting that mining activities can be “vital for local economies.”
After the hearing, Murkowski told reporters that the authorization was taken out to “avoid scoring,” but “it doesn't mean that we're lessening the importance of recycling.”
Meanwhile, Kimbell's comments also harked back to the 113th Congress when another USGS official said he would be “thrilled and delighted” if Murkowski's bill became law. However, Kimbell echoed the previous official's caveat, too, saying that these activities would be fighting for funds alongside other Interior Department activities (19 DEN A-3, 1/29/14).
Bill Garners Support
State mining authorities, mining companies and electrical manufacturers expressed support for the bill as-is.
Harry Conger, president of Freeport-McMoRan Inc's Americas Division who spoke on behalf of the National Mining Association, said removing duplicative steps in the permitting process would improve the country's economic growth. More people would likely move to develop critical minerals “if they knew that it could bring it to fruition and produce them,” Conger said.
-
Trucks May Face Stricter EPA NOx Rules As Groups Debate Health Effects
May 12, 2015 | IndsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
Heavy-duty trucks and non-road equipment appear to be a lingering major source of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions that could potentially spur EPA to issue stricter NOx rules for the vehicles, sources say, while industry groups, health experts and others step up debate over the level of adverse health effects of the ozone-forming pollutant.
EPA recently released for public comment a draft science assessment of NOx, focused on nitrogen dioxide (NO2), which it uses as an "indicator" in its national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) to represent NOx. Industry groups in their comments are criticizing the assessment for exaggerating the health harms from humans' exposure to NO2, findings that the agency could potentially use in part to justify a tightening of its NOx air standard.
The argument over health effects of NO2 comes as evidence is hinting at a shift in the nature of NO2 and NOx pollution that may have some bearing on how these pollutants are regulated, sources say. NOx emissions overall are falling as a result of tougher regulation of power plants and vehicles, including cars and ships, and this trend is expected to continue as rules such as EPA's Tier 3 fuels and vehicle air standards take effect.
However, sources say, evidence from California and elsewhere suggests that after cars are subjected to tougher emissions regulation, much of the remaining NOx is accounted-for by NO2 from heavy-duty diesel traffic and non-road equipment, which is increasing in use with rising international trade. This suggests that regulators may in the future look to regulate NO2 from trucks and other diesel equipment more intensively, sources say.
Further complicating the issue is a tendency for vehicle NOx emissions to rise in response to Obama administration mandates for improved fuel economy, which require new engine technologies that decrease greenhouse gases but raise NOx emissions -- something that will require more-advanced NOx controls to address.
One possible counterargument to tougher NOx regulation might flow from the results of air quality monitoring under EPA's newly-established network of near-road air quality monitoring stations. EPA required states to reconfigure their NO2 monitoring to implement the 2010 NAAQS, set at 100 parts per billion (ppb) over one hour and 53 ppb annually, based on the assumption that NO2 concentrations would be highest near roads. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA should issue issue another NAAQS rule for NOx this year, but will miss that deadline.
'Safety' Margin
The NAAQS are intended to protect the public with an "adequate margin of safety," and to protect vulnerable groups such as the sick and children. Those living close to roads should therefore be the most exposed, and the standards should therefore protect these people, according to EPA's logic in the 2010 NAAQS.
Early findings from roadside monitors, however, show that while roadside NO2 and NOx levels may be elevated near roadways, they are by no means always highest next to the road, state and federal air regulators say. Various factors including wind direction, topography and atmospheric chemistry affect how the pollutants spread, regulators say.
EPA in its current draft integrated science assessment of NOx -- which it took comment on through April 30 -- has strengthened its conclusions from the last ISA conducted in 2008 with regard to NO2 causing various adverse health effects, both with respect to short-term NO2 exposure and long-term exposure.
For example, in 2008, EPA said that NO2 exposure of one month or less was "sufficient to infer a likely causal relationship" between the exposure and respiratory effects. Now, the draft ISA simply identifies a "causal relationship."
For cardiovascular and related metabolic effects, EPA said in 2008 the evidence was "inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship." Now, EPA says the evidence is "suggestive, but not sufficient," to infer a causal relationship. EPA in the second draft ISA retreated, however, from the first draft that found "likely" causal relationships between short-term NO2 exposure and cardiovascular effects and also total mortality.
On long-term exposure, EPA since 2008 has upgraded its finding from "suggestive" to "likely" for a causal relationship between NO2 and respiratory effects, from "inadequate" to "suggestive" for a causal relationship between cardiovascular effects and exposure, and from "inadequate" to "suggestive" for causal relationships between NO2 exposure and both total mortality and cancer. EPA also finds "suggestive" evidence for adverse birth outcomes as a result of NO2 exposure, while it found evidence for this "inadequate" in 2008.
Automakers' Concerns
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, in April 30 comments says the ISA "continues to overstate the consistency, coherence, and biological plausibility of NO2 health effects. The ISA also perpetuates a false impression that NO2 exposures of concern are ubiquitous in urban areas especially near roadways and arise from motor vehicles."
The Alliance's comments are especially pertinent in the light of early results from EPA's newly-established near-road NO2 monitoring network. Overall levels of NOx and NO2 are falling as existing regulation takes effect, with power plants installing controls or fuel switching to natural gas form coal.
This will leave mobile sources responsible for a larger share of the remaining emissions. In some areas, such as California, on-road emissions are already responsible for the vast majority of NOx and NO2. In the mobile source sector, Tier 3 regulations will reduce mobile source emissions further, sources agree, and this will be important not only to meet NO2 standards but also to meet a potential tougher ozone standard. EPA has proposed to strengthen the existing limit of 75 parts per billion (ppb) to a limit within a range of 65 ppb to 70 ppb, and is due to finalize the rule by Oct. 1.
The car makers say the near-road monitoring is a "waste of resources" because it is unlikely to detect near-road NO2 NAAQS violations now, "and it is even more unlikely to do so in the future as the emissions of NOx from on-road vehicles continue to decline."
One state regulator who has studied the early near-road results says that they frequently do not find the highest concentrations of NO2 closest to the road. While some near-road locations indeed do find the highest concentrations in a given attainment area, many do not, the source says.
At an April 22 meeting of EPA's Clean Air Act Advisory Committee, Chet Wayland, director of EPA's air quality assessment division, reached a similar conclusion, noting that near-road readings are the highest in some cities, but not always, and not always by that much.
At the annual conference of the Health Effects Institute (HEI) in Philadelphia May 4 and 5, speakers highlighted a shift in the composition of NOx emissions that could affect future NAAQS compliance and regulation.
Robert Harley, a professor of environmental engineering at the University of California, Berkeley, said that new studies in the state show that while overall NOx levels are falling, NO2 levels are not falling anywhere near as fast. This is because while emissions of NOx, including NO2, from cars are dropping in response to California and federal regulation, emissions form diesel vehicles are a "decade" behind in terms of introduction of controls.
Diesel vehicles contribute more NO2 than other sources, Harley said, and their use has increased with growing trade. However, cleaner diesel vehicles now being phased into the fleet should help to reduce NO2 emissions in the future, Harley said. "NO2 is a pretty good marker for traffic pollution . . . but is increasingly a marker for diesel," he told HEI, which is funded jointly by EPA and the auto industry.
Use of diesel particulate filters to capture fine particulate matter (PM2.5) from diesel vehicles has also been associated with a rise in NO2 emissions, Harley said.
David Carslaw, a professor with Kings College London, at the HEI event noted that use of PM2.5 filters in heavy-duty vehicles such as buses has been linked with a surge in NO2 emissions in London.
Sougato Chatterjee, of emissions control maker Johnson Matthey, told the conference that increasing use of diesel particulate filters to meet PM2.5 standards will demand that catalytic converters become much more complex to capture resulting NOx emissions -- "a chemical industry right in the tailpipe of the vehicle."
Also, progressively tougher fuel economy standards will drive use of engine technologies that can double a vehicles' NOx emissions, he said. As a result, "next-generation" engines will need very high NOx reduction, with a strong focus on "cold starts" when emissions controls are not yet up to operating temperature.
Chatterjee said emissions control makers are confident they will be able to create the necessary controls by combining technologies such as selective catalytic reduction and particulate filtration. The improved catalysts will add between $2000 and $5000 to the price of vehicles, he said, although this cost will likely come down quickly as new catalysts are produced and carmakers will likely find other economies elsewhere to compensate, he said.
Scientific Evidence
Meanwhile, other industry groups are pushing back on the ISA, saying that the scientific evidence has not evolved so much between 2008 and the present to justify EPA's conclusions. The American Petroleum Institute (API) in its April 30 comments says, "we conclude that the current ISA does not provide the necessary evidence that any causal determination should be strengthened from those casual determinations previously included in the 2008 ISA."
API adds, "With respect to the interpretation of study findings, in general, associations deemed to be causal (short-term NO2 exposure and respiratory effects) and likely causal (long-term NO2 exposure and respiratory effects) in the ISA were close to null and more likely the result of chance (e.g., multiple comparison), bias (e.g., exposure measurement error, outcome misclassification, publication bias), and/or confounding (e.g., by co-pollutants, smoking, socioeconomic status)." The group identifies numerous other failings in EPA's method, and says its comments concerning the first draft ISA, such as those on the need for EPA to complete emissions inventories, have not been taken into account.
In its April 30 comments, the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG), representing investor-owned utilities, says, "UARG contends that the proposed upgrades to causal relationships, relative to the 2008 ISA, overstate the strength of the evidence." The group further says that EPA's method is biased toward finding causation of health effects. In contrast, the American Lung Association in March 12 comments on EPA's first draft ISA said that EPA had, if anything, underestimated health impacts and the agency "should give greater weight to the traffic studies."
-
Judges Ask Tough Questions On Standing, Merits In CERCLA Finance Suit
May 12, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
A panel of appellate judges asked tough questions of environmentalists and EPA during May 12 oral arguments in litigation attempting to force EPA to finalize long-delayed Superfund financial assurance rules for various industries, with judges weighing whether advocates have legal standing and voicing alarm over EPA's slow progress with the rules.
The judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit asked the petitioners to show the likelihood that impending mining operations at a particular site would move forward and, if so, that financial assurance regulations would be needed there to protect against environmental harm or change a company's behavior.
And, on the merits of the case, the judges were highly critical of EPA's lack of progress in writing the rules. Congress required the agency over 30 years ago to identify classes of facilities for which to develop financial assurance requirements, although lawmakers did not establish a date-certain for promulgating rules.
"It is astounding that representations to this court" are as vague as they are 30 years later, Judge Judith W. Rogers said.
In the case, In re: Idaho Conservation League, et al., the Idaho Conservation League, Earthworks, Sierra Club and other environmental groups are asking the court to issue a writ of mandamus requiring EPA to finalize rules under section 108(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act (CERCLA). The section required EPA by 1983 to identify classes of facilities for which it will develop financial assurance requirements, and then issue rules on those requirements. Financial assurance requires that owners of facilities treating, storing or disposing of hazardous waste can prove they have sufficient funds to pay for cleanup and post-closure care of a facility; to pay for cleanup of any accidental releases; and to compensate third parties for any damage, EPA's website says.
EPA in 2009 identified hardrock mining as the first sector for which it plans to issue such rules and has identified three other sectors -- chemical manufacturing; petroleum and coal products manufacturing; and electric power generation, transmission, and distribution -- for which it is weighing such rules. But EPA has yet to propose any rules.
Standing Challenges
Petitioners' attorney Amanda Goodin argued that petitioners have standing because EPA's failure to issue the financial assurance rules causes harm to members of the environmental groups. Judge Patricia A. Millett asked Goodin a number of questions on standing, including about declarations made about a prospective mining project. She asked what showing could Goodin provide about the likelihood that the mining project would commence and that financial assurance regulations are needed to protect against harms to the environment or change the behavior of the mining company.
Goodin said the project is being pursued actively, with exploration activities already begun. She cited another project that is ongoing. Millet then asked Goodin, "Which [example] do you have that has evidence about the financial status" of either an ongoing operation or impending operation, "so that we could have an appreciation for particularizing the general congressional concern that you rely on?"
But Goodin said to show what a particular facility will do would require knowing what EPA will put in these rules. The petitioners need to know which practices EPA will attach greater financial assurance requirements to, such as riskier practices, and which practices the agency will require lower financial assurances.
But Millett responded that that argument does not help the petitioners on standing, noting it sounds like the petitioners have not even figured out if there will be injury, causation, or redressability until they know what the rule looks like.
To further her argument that the petitioners have standing, Goodin gave the example of a coal ash plant, and said if EPA issues a rule, and puts a high price on a particular activity regarding the storage of coal ash, then the plant will have a greater incentive to improve its storage of ash, which will benefit the petitioners.
Millett also asked how this case is distinguishable from the court's 1996 ruling in Florida Audubon Society v. Lloyd Bentsen, where the D.C. Circuit denied standing to environmentalists seeking to challenge the Treasury Department's decision not to prepare an environmental impact statement when it authorized a federal tax credit for the use of an alternative fuel additive.
Goodin replied it has a different fact pattern.
Further, Millett asked what evidence environmentalists have that industry will respond to a rule in a way that will increase environmental protections. Goodin said EPA and industry parties who are seeking to intervene in the case have conceded impacts. Particularly, she said industry has said the rules will have direct operational impacts, causing, for instance, the deferral of projects.
Rogers asked the petitioners that if the court get past these hurdles, what precise relief do the environmental groups want? Goodin said EPA has said it plans to publish the proposed hardrock mining financial assurance rule by next April, although EPA's attorney at the arguments gave a date of August 2016. While EPA plans a three-year time period between the proposed and final rules, environmentalists want to see that reduced to one year. And, she said while EPA has not "given us much to work with" regarding the other three rules, the groups want to see proposed rules in those sectors 16 months after the date of a court order, and then final rules one year later.
Goodin doubted EPA would meet the schedule absent court intervention.
EPA Delays
During arguments presented by the Department of Justice (DOJ) on behalf of EPA, Rogers was highly critical of EPA's long delay in writing rules, and its vagueness on a schedule for rules for the chemical, petroleum and electric power sectors.
DOJ attorney John Sullivan argued the petition should be denied because environmentalists have no standing and they fail under the TRAC factors that the timing of the agency's actions are unreasonable or egregious. The TRAC factors were established under a 1984 D.C. Circuit court case, Telecommunications Research Action Center (TRAC) v. Federal Communications Commission. These factors call for agencies to make decisions under a time line that follows a "rule of reason," weighs whether delays are reasonable, and considers what interests are prejudiced by delaying action, among other factors.
But Rogers responded to the claim, "What would be egregious if 30 years is not?"
Sullivan noted work EPA has done so far, including a just-finished rule framework for the hardrock mining regulation, which explains how various parts of the rule will function -- such as preemption issues related to states that already have bonding requirements. He said that the framework will go to various interest groups, such as states, the financial sector, industry and the petitioners for discussion.
But Rogers was skeptical of EPA's progress, contending the agency does not appear to have accomplished items outlined in a declaration given to the court by EPA waste official Barnes Johnson last November. Later, she remarked, ". . . I'm back to 'will the house even get built?'" She said she was back to Johnson's declaration, and said it gives her no confidence at all in EPA's actions.
Sullivan said the agency's schedule is to release a proposed hardrock mining rule by August 2016, and finalize it by August 2019. But when pressed, he could not give a schedule for any of the other three rules, noting the agency has not yet determined if those rules are necessary.
Sullivan also argued that financial assurance rules differ from other rules. EPA alone would administer a program under the rule, with the agency fearing it will cut back on EPA's Superfund budget and even on cleanups, he said.
Rogers then questioned Sullivan about the significance of an agency ignoring statutory requirements and in cases where courts have been unable to get responses from an agency, noting that there are serious consequences. "I don't think the court would enjoy in any sense of the word getting to that point" she said, adding that the agency "surely" has to give the court something to avoid that "type of drastic action.”
An attorney for the National Mining Association (NMA) was also given time to argue against granting the petition, with NMA attorney Michael Giannotto contending that EPA could change its mind on issuing the rule. Millett pressed Giannotto on whether industry has standing in the case. He said if petitioners prevail, there will be extra financial assurance requirements and unnecessary financial burdens on industry.
-
Industry Files Suit To Stop New Oil Train Rules
May 12, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The oil industry is suing to stop a number of provisions in a suite of oil-train transportation rules issued by the Obama administration.
The American Petroleum Institute (API) said Tuesday that it filed the lawsuit in federal court Monday in an attempt to overturn those requirements it does not believe would improve the safety of crude oil transport by rail.“Improving on a 99.997 percent safety record requires data-driven efforts to prevent derailments with enhanced inspections and maintenance, upgrade the tank car fleet and educate first responders,” API spokesman Brian Straessle said in a statement.
“Our safety goal is zero incidents, so retrofit timelines, braking systems and other actions must all be based on facts and science to maximize the safety impact of this rule,” he said.
The Department of Transportation developed the rules to try to stem the tide of high-profile crude-by-rail disasters that have accompanied the domestic oil production renaissance.
While the end result was a suite of rules that were not as strong as environmentalists and safety advocates had hoped for, the oil and freight rail industries said they still went too far.
The API’s lawsuit aims to secure longer timelines to retrofit old tank cars, overturn the mandates for enhanced braking systems and loosen the operational restrictions on certain trains.
“These provisions are, either individually or in conjunction with each other, challenges as arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, and/or in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right,” the API wrote in its complaint to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx anticipated some pushback from opponents and even potential lawsuits.
“Our history with rules is that, when challenged, the courts have historically focused on the area of challenge and not necessarily the entire rule. That remains to be seen,” Foxx said in a May 1 news conference, referring to potential challenges.
“I’m hopeful that the rail industry will accept this rule, will follow this rule and help America become a safer place as well as Canada, but we believe strongly that our rule will stand up,” he said.
-
Oil Industry Asks Court to Block Rail Transport Safety Rules
May 12, 2015 | The New York Times
By Jad Mouawad
The oil industry is challenging new federal rules intended to improve the safety of oil-by-train transportation, opening the first legal fight in a two-year effort to reduce the risks of moving hazardous materials on railroads.
The American Petroleum Institute, the industry’s main trade group, petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to block key provisions of the rules, which were unveiled this month by Anthony Foxx, the transportation secretary. The petition was filed on Monday.
The trade group, which represents companies like Exxon Mobil and Chevron, has long argued that forcing oil producers and shippers to use newer tank cars and replace older models would impose high costs on the industry and lead to a shortfall in tank car capacity. Continue reading the main story Related Coverage New Oil Train Rules Are Hit From All SidesMAY 1, 2015 Safety Regulations Issued for Trains Carrying Oil APRIL 17, 2015
The petition seeks to block a requirement that older tank cars be retrofitted with new safety features designed to prevent them from spilling oil or rupturing in a derailment. It also challenges a requirement that tank cars be equipped with new electronic braking systems or face operational restrictions.
The growing traffic of crude oil from the Bakken shale region in the northern plains has caused growing alarm after a string of explosions and spills in the last two years. This has prompted the federal government to review the safety of tank cars, particularly older models that have long been known to be unfit to carry hazardous materials.
In announcing the rules, transportation officials said the measures would improve rail safety and reduce the risks of a catastrophic event.
But the rules quickly came under criticism from many sides. Lawmakers and those who advocate for safety measures said the regulations did not go far enough in protecting the public. Railroad industry representatives said some provisions, including the new electronic brakes, would be too costly and would yield too few safety benefits.
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