Preview Newsletter
ET ACC PM 10/23/15
-
(ACC Mentioned) Resin Prices Can't Find a Bottom
Oct 23, 2015 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
North American commodity resin prices continued to search for a market bottom in September — but couldn’t seem to find one. -
Triphenyl Phosphate, Found in 'Eco-Friendly' Nail Polish, Spurs Worries
Oct 23, 2015 | Chicago Tribune
By Michael Hawthorne
Some cosmetics manufacturers and beauty salons promote "eco-friendly" nail polishes that are free of a handful of chemicals linked to cancer and reproductive problems. -
Power Sector Issues Warning on Senate Amendments
Oct 23, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
By Geof Koss
A coalition of utility and power grid interests has outlined its opposition to a number of amendments to the Senate cybersecurity bill that it says would undercut the thrust of the legislation. -
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Train Issue Nears Fiscal Cliff
Oct 23, 2015 | Daily Star Journal
Talk has not resolved the issue of the looming Positive Train Control deadline that, if missed, has dire economic concequences for America. -
Final Ozone Rule Coming in Monday's Federal Register
Oct 23, 2015 | Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
The Obama administration's final rule setting a new ozone standard will be published Monday in the Federal Register. -
EPA Ozone NAAQS Publication Will Start Clock For Suits
Oct 23, 2015 | Inside EPA
EPA plans to publish in the Oct. 26 Federal Register its final rule revising its ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) of 75 parts per billion (ppb) down to 70 ppb, starting a 60-day Clean Air Act clock for lawsuits that could come from advocates who say the rule is too weak and industry groups that say it is too strict. -
EPA Ozone Rule Set for Monday Publication
Oct 23, 2015 | Politico Pro
By Darius Dixon
The EPA's hotly debated rule for ratcheting down smog-causing ozone will be published in Monday's Federal Register, according to a pre-publication notice out today. -
New Regs for Monday: National Parks, Air Pollution, Truck Drivers
Oct 23, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Tim Devaney
Monday's edition of the Federal Register contains new rules for oil and gas operations on national parks, air pollution standards and restrictions for truck drivers with cardiovascular conditions. -
Special Session Over Natural Gas Megaproject Starts Tomorrow
Oct 23, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson
The Alaska Legislature is opening a special session tomorrow to consider proposals by Gov. Bill Walker (I) to reshape a state-industry partnership created to build a multibillion-dollar natural gas pipeline and export project. -
EPA Mine Spill Was Preventable, Points to Broader Problem
Oct 23, 2015 | The New York Times
By The Associated Press
Investigators are blaming the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for a 3 milliongallon wastewater spill from a Colorado gold mine, saying an agency cleanup crew rushed its work, failed to consider the complex engineering involved and ended up triggering the very blowout it hoped to avoid. -
Milestone Day for EPA Rule -- and Lawsuits
Oct 23, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Elizabeth Harball and Rod Kuckro
U.S. EPA is publishing the final Clean Power Plan to slash carbon emissions from power plants in the Federal Register today, a much-anticipated milestone because it clears the way for objecting states to file lawsuits aimed at killing the regulation. -
States, Industries Launch Legal Assault
Oct 23, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender and Jean Chemnick
The legal onslaught against the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan kicked off today as 25 states, industry and labor groups challenged the rule in court.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Resin Prices Can't Find a Bottom
Oct 23, 2015 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
North American commodity resin prices continued to search for a market bottom in September — but couldn’t seem to find one.
Average per-pound selling prices for polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, PET bottle resin and PVC each fell in September. It was the second straight month that all five commodity materials experienced declines in the region.
All grades of HDPE, LDPE and LLDPE slid 4 cents per pound. PP prices dipped 1 cent. PS took a dizzying 9-cent dive. PET dropped 3 cents, while PVC prices declined by a penny.
Regional PE makers had taken the rare step of pre-announcing the 4-cent move to customers earlier in September. Market watchers regarded that move as a means for producers to limit the decline.
Crude oil prices — used as a global PE price-setter — have remained less than robust. Per-barrel prices for West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude fell under $40 by late August and were still just under $50 in late trading Oct. 9.
At the Resin Technology Inc. consulting firm in Fort Worth, Texas, PE analyst Mike Burns said that regional PE prices now are expected to remain flat until oil prices approach $60 per barrel. Beyond that point, he added, regional PE makers may try to raise prices in the first part of 2016.
After the 4-cent September drop, regional PE prices now are down a net of 13 cents per pound so far in 2015. Demand for the material in the U.S. and Canada has remained solid. Through August, high and linear low density PE demand in that region each were up almost 6 percent, with low density PE sales up almost 2 percent, according to the American Chemistry Council.
For the year, regional PP prices now are down a net of 18 cents. The demand picture has been more positive, with North American sales up 5 percent through July. Domestic growth of 5.6 percent was lessened by an 11.5 percent drop in export sales during that seven-month period.
Tight supplies of both PP resin and propylene monomer feedstock have allowed North American PP makers to increase their profit margins by an estimated 10 cents per pound so far in 2015. In previous years, margin growth was flat as price drops in monomer were passed through to PP resin at the same levels.
The 9-cent PS plunge marked the second straight monthly decline for that material. Prices had slipped an average of 2 cents per pound in August, holding to a number that was pre-announced by PS makers Americas Styrenics and Styrolution.
The September PS price drop was more extreme, however, as the material followed benzene feedstock prices, which slipped 79 cents per gallon to finish September at $2.01.
October benzene prices are expected to be up slightly from that level, giving hope that regional PS prices can avoid a third straight monthly downturn. North American PS prices now are down a net of 13 cents per pound so far in 2015.
Much of the recent decline in benzene pricing is the result of increased imports, according to Phil Karig, managing director of Mathelin Bay Associates LLC, a consulting firm in St. Louis.
“As buyers around the world for benzene derivatives such as polystyrene wait to see where polymer prices will bottom, there’s a lot of short-term excess benzene that has to go somewhere,” he said. “And the U.S. market is as good a place as any, especially for exporters in countries that have seen their currencies weaken against the U.S. dollar in the last year.”
North American prices for PET bottle resin slipped an average of 3 cents per pound in September, moving that material into negative pricing territory for the year. PET prices now are down a net of 1 cent per pound so far in 2015. The September move is the second straight monthly PET price drop, following a 4-cent downturn in August.
Seasonally, PET has moved into the part of the year where cooler temperatures lead to less consumption of carbonated soft drinks and bottled water, two major PET markets. PET makers continue to struggle with lower consumption of soft drinks in general, as consumers seek healthier alternatives. That can lead to bottled water growth, but that product has been impacted in recent years by thinner bottles that use less PET per unit.
Selling prices for suspension PVC resins in the region dropped an average of 1 cent per pound in September, according to sources contacted by Plastics News.
Through August, U.S./Canadian PVC sales were down almost 1 percent vs. the same period in 2014, according to the American Chemistry Council. Domestic sales were down more than 2 percent, even as sales into export markets grew almost 3 percent.
Regional sales of PVC into most construction-related uses were flat or slightly down for the eight-month period, even as U.S. construction activity continued to improve. PVC sales into rigid pipe and tubing — which accounted for almost 45 percent of domestic sales — fell more than 1 percent.
PVC sales into extruded windows and doors also fell 1 percent, while sales into fencing and decking essentially were flat. The only construction-related segment that showed PVC sales growth for the eight months was siding and related uses, where sales grew almost 5 percent.
-
Triphenyl Phosphate, Found in 'Eco-Friendly' Nail Polish, Spurs Worries
Oct 23, 2015 | Chicago Tribune
By Michael Hawthorne
Some cosmetics manufacturers and beauty salons promote "eco-friendly" nail polishes that are free of a handful of chemicals linked to cancer and reproductive problems.
But a new study suggests a replacement for one of those toxic compounds might be just as worrisome.
Signs of triphenyl phosphate, known as TPHP or TPP, turned up in every one of the 26 women tested a few hours after they applied nail polish commonly sold at department stores and pharmacies. The chemical, used to make polish flexible and durable, also is an ingredient in a controversial flame retardant added to furniture cushions.
Scientists are increasingly concerned about triphenyl phosphate because animal studies indicate it is an endocrine disruptor, meaning it can mimic natural hormones and scramble the healthy development of cells. One study showed the chemical can trigger obesity by causing immature bone cells to transform into fat. Another linked exposure to fertility problems.
The new study's authors said popular nail polish lines — including OPI, Sally Hansen, Revlon, Maybelline and Wet N Wild — switched to triphenyl phosphate during the past decade after pressure from consumers and retailers forced them to phase out the use of another compound, dibutyl phthalate, which is banned in cosmetics in Europe and listed as a developmental toxin in California.Built for longevity, acrylic and gel nails can hinder medical care in emergency
"The emerging science seems to be moving toward TPHP being problematic for similar reasons," said Heather Stapleton, a Duke University chemist who co-wrote the exposure study, published this week in the peer-reviewed journal Environment International.
Though researchers acknowledged the small sample size in their study, they said exposure likely is widespread. Triphenyl phosphate is listed as an ingredient in half of the 3,000 nail products reviewed by the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit organization that collaborated with Stapleton on the new study and has pushed for years to overhaul regulation of cosmetics.
It is unclear what, if any, hazards the chemical poses at the levels detected in women who participated in the new study. But the discovery that levels spiked shortly after they applied nail polish shows how difficult it can be even for diligent consumers to avoid chemicals in cosmetics and household products.
Stapleton and her colleagues focused on nail polish after an earlier study found that women tend to have higher levels of TPHP in their bodies than men. In the new study, levels remained stable when the participants wore gloves fitted with synthetic nails, suggesting the chemical is absorbed through the skin rather than inhaled.
The Food and Drug Administration said in a statement that federal law doesn't require manufacturers to prove that cosmetic ingredients are safe before putting them on the market or even file product formulations with the FDA.
Echoing earlier statements about other chemicals in personal care products, the chief trade group for cosmetics manufacturers called the Stapleton-EWG study "speculative" and "misleading."
"The makers of nail polish stand behind their products and take pride in providing Americans with access to a wide variety of safe, high quality and innovative products they trust and enjoy," the Personal Care Products Council said in a statement.
In recent years several companies have started labeling nail polish as "3-free," meaning the products do not contain the toxic chemicals toluene, formaldehyde or dibutyl phthalate, the compound that triphenyl phosphate replaced in some product lines.
Several other common nail product ingredients also pose health risks to salon workers and customers. A 2007 safety brochure from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lists 17 chemicals that can trigger a burning throat or lungs, labored breathing or shortness of breath.
"For women using nail polish regularly, this represents a source of chronic exposure," said Joseph Allen, a Harvard University researcher who has documented toxic air in nail salonsbut was not involved in the new study. "Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, consumers often can't make informed decisions about the products they purchase and use due to a lack of reporting and transparency; workers in nail salons simply have no choice at all when it comes to avoiding exposure."
The EPA is concerned about triphenyl phosphate for different reasons. The chemical is an ingredient in Firemaster 550, a flame retardant the agency once touted as safe but has since determined could pose significant health risks.
A 2012 Tribune investigation revealed the EPA endorsed Firemaster 550 even though the agency's own scientists were deeply skeptical of its safety. Studies conducted by its manufacturer found that exposing rats to the flame retardant can lower birth weight, alter female genitalia and cause skeletal malformations.
Independent scientists, including Stapleton, later found that small doses of Firemaster 550 administered to rats can trigger obesity, anxiety and other problems.
Last year the EPA added triphenyl phosphate to a list of chemicals targeted for in-depth reviews based on widespread exposure and potential toxicity.
"This is another example of why we need better cosmetics regulation and chemical regulation in general," said Johanna Congleton, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group who co-wrote the new nail polish study. "We shouldn't allow industry to keep replacing one bad chemical with another."
-
Power Sector Issues Warning on Senate Amendments
Oct 23, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
By Geof Koss
A coalition of utility and power grid interests has outlined its opposition to a number of amendments to the Senate cybersecurity bill that it says would undercut the thrust of the legislation.
The Senate on Monday will resume debate on the bill, S. 754, which would grant liability protections to companies that disclose cybersecurity data with the federal government, while also changing the manner in which such intelligence flows between the private and public sectors.
While the power interests say the bill would complement existing public and private efforts to share information about cyberthreats, they urged senators this week to oppose a number of amendments "that would significantly undermine the information sharing incentives and legal protections in the bill or unnecessarily complicate information sharing efforts."
Of primary concern is an amendment by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) that would strike from the bill all references to explicit Freedom of Information Act exemptions covering information sharing on threats and defensive measures.
"Eliminating all specific references to FOIA protections from the bill would have a chilling effect on voluntary information sharing, undermining public-private security partnership efforts and thus potentially making critical infrastructure more vulnerable to cyber attacks," wrote the American Public Power Association, the Edison Electric Institute, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association and others.
Also "of particular concern" is an amendment by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) that would narrow the bill's definitions of threats and indicators "in a way that would likely result in more litigation, thus creating another legal disincentive to voluntary information sharing, contrary to the fundamental purpose of the legislation."
The groups are also raising concerns about a handful of other amendments, including a proposal by Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) that would alter the conditions under which nongovernmental entities can "scrub" personal information before sharing it with federal authorities. The coalition says Heller's plan would impose a "more subjective" standard than the underlying bill.
The groups also flag an amendment by Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) that would impose additional scrubbing of personal information by the Department of Homeland Security, which power interests say will slow information sharing.
A third amendment establishing scrubbing conditions on information sharing offered by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) would cause "legal ambiguity and [create] a disincentive to sharing information."
And an amendment by Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) that would sunset the bill's authorization after six years "creates uncertainty and will negatively impact participation," they wrote.
Congress has labored for years to legislate on cybersecurity against a background of ever-growing high-profile cyberattacks. However, legislative attempts to address the issue have stalled over industry concerns with giving the federal government new powers over infrastructure that is privately owned, privacy concerns, and the overlapping of jurisdiction among multiple committees.
The House earlier this year passed two bills addressing information sharing, but one key lawmaker -- House Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas) -- this week said the Senate's approach was unlikely to pass muster in the lower chamber.
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Train Issue Nears Fiscal Cliff
Oct 23, 2015 | Daily Star Journal
Talk has not resolved the issue of the looming Positive Train Control deadline that, if missed, has dire economic concequences for America.
Missing the deadline threatens to begin a shutdown this month that could end Jan. 1 with rail traffic across the nation stopping.
The result could devastate consumers. An American Chemistry Council study released this month states a full shutdown would reduce the nation’s work force by about 700,000 jobs and cost $30 billion in the first quarter of 2016 alone.
The train mess created at the top of The Hill, by Congress is on the verge of rolling downhill to crush everyday people, the study shows. Household incomes are estimated to fall by more than $17 billion, depressing consumer confidence and spending; car sales would be reduced by about 175,000; house construction would drop by some 28,000; and the nation would be pushed toward a new recession at a time when many people still seek to recover from the Great Recession.
With so much at stake, what prevents Congress from extending the Positive Train Control deadline?
First, no one argues that PTC is not needed. The system slows automatically trains going too fast. The May 12 speed-related Amtrak train wreck that claimed eight lives in Philadelphia might not have happened with PTC in place. The train traveled at 102 mph in a 50 mph zone. PTC is needed and the sooner the better.
Second, railroads have had decades to implement PTC, but did not get serious about doing so until Congress created a 2015 deadline, with heavy fines for failure to comply, to require getting the work done. But the work remains largely unfinished and some in Congress see no reason to give railroads a break.
“It has been more than 45 years since the National Transportation Safety Board first urged railroads to implement Positive Train Control – an unacceptable delay in implementation of this critical, life-saving technology that has allowed numerous, preventable tragedies,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, told The Hill.
Third, and perhaps the most important political consideration, is Democrats want a long-term highway bill to pass. So do many Republicans, including Sen. Roy Blunt, a major PTC supporter. The highway bill is important to states, including Missouri, that want to make long-term funding plans instead of being forced to budget from one temporary plan to the next. They see pulling PTC out of the bill, as some Republicans want, as cherry-picking.
“If they think that they are going to pull out their favorite issue – such as getting an extension for Positive Train Control on a short-term extension or as a stand-alone bill – they are wrong,” Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, said during a speech on the Senate floor.
The nation needs PTC, and railroads need an extension after having dragged their feet in the decades before Congress set a deadline. The nation needs a long-term highway bill, an issue on which congressional foot-dragging is obvious. What the nation does not need is more governing from crisis to crisis with more posturing from parties so divided, so unwilling to compromise, that they once again appear ready to take the nation to the brink of a fiscal cliff, maybe even over that cliff, but that is exactly where Congress and the PTC system seem headed.
-
Final Ozone Rule Coming in Monday's Federal Register
Oct 23, 2015 | Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
The Obama administration's final rule setting a new ozone standard will be published Monday in the Federal Register.
Congressional foes led by Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-Ind.) this week indicated they intend to challenge the standard using the Congressional Review Act, a legislative oversight law.
Publication will also open the rule to lawsuits and kick off a 60-day clock for the standard to become effective.
U.S. EPA on Oct. 1 set the national ambient air quality standard for ozone at 70 parts per billion. It's the upper end of a proposed range but represents a lower limit than the 75 ppb standard set by the George W. Bush administration in 2008.
Ground-level ozone is a component of smog that's formed when nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds react in the presence of sunlight. EPA said that, after a review of more than 1,000 studies, it determined the Bush limit didn't protect the public against negative health effects linked to ozone (Greenwire, Oct. 1).
EPA's decision comes after President Obama punted on setting a new standard in 2011 ahead of his re-election push.
According to EPA, limiting ground-level ozone concentrations to 70 ppb will save up to 660 lives, prevent 230,000 asthma attacks in children and prevent 630 asthma-related emergency visits by 2025.
Green groups, though, have opposed EPA's choice, arguing that it doesn't fulfill the Clean Air Act requirement that the standard protect the public with an adequate margin of safety. They've called for a limit to ground-level ozone of no higher than 60 ppb.
Environmentalists have threatened to file legal action challenging the 70 ppb standard (Greenwire, Sept. 29).
Industry groups, congressional Republicans and several states had urged EPA to retain the Bush standard. They've repeatedly said a lower limit would come with excessive compliance costs and have questioned the science backing EPA's decision.
EPA says the standard will cost $1.4 billion annually but achieve health care savings of up to $5.9 billion in 2025. The analysis excludes California, which is expected to take longer to come into compliance.
Joined by Republican Reps. Luke Messer, Larry Bucshon and Todd Rokita of Indiana and Rep. Glenn Grothman of Wisconsin, Walorski yesterday filed a Congressional Review Act joint resolution opposing the new standard.
In a statement, Walorski cited EPA's cost estimates and said she worried that the standard would affect job growth.
"It's time to end the EPA's assault on business," Walorski said in a statement. "We should focus on policies that grow the economy, not burying job creators under red tape and burdensome mandates."
Through the CRA, Congress can disapprove new rules once they are published under an expedited process; the president, however, would likely veto any congressional action that seeks to undo the new ozone standard.
EPA is poised to make determinations on which areas of the country are out of compliance with the new standard in 2017. States with areas in "nonattainment" will be required to develop plans to reduce ozone concentrations.
Manufacturers warn that the new standard will affect new construction projects right away by creating a permitting "limbo".
-
EPA Ozone NAAQS Publication Will Start Clock For Suits
Oct 23, 2015 | Inside EPA
EPA plans to publish in the Oct. 26 Federal Register its final rule revising its ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) of 75 parts per billion (ppb) down to 70 ppb, starting a 60-day Clean Air Act clock for lawsuits that could come from advocates who say the rule is too weak and industry groups that say it is too strict.
The publication comes just weeks after the agency's Oct. 1 announcement of the stricter NAAQS, which will place some more areas of the United States out of attainment with the standard. Nonattainment areas must craft strict pollution control plans to reduce ozone-forming emissions and come into attainment. EPA's critics say that these plans impose massive costs on industrial air pollution sources and drive investment away from such areas.
House Republicans held an Oct. 22 science panel hearing on the ozone standard to reiterate their claims that EPA lacks scientific justification for tightening the 75 ppb limit established in 2008.
Prior to the rule's release, a slew of groups representing various industries such as the power sector met with EPA and White House officials to also urge against a stricter standard. But the Edison Electric Institute said that if the agency did tighten the standard, it should not make it any more stringent than 70 ppb.
Environmentalists however faulted EPA for taking comment on setting a standard in the range of 65-70 ppb, while also seeking input on other limits outside that range. Advocates argue that only a 60 ppb limit would satisfy the air law mandate that NAAQS protect public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety.
EPA's decision to match its “primary” health-based standard with its “secondary” NAAQS designed to protect the environment is also prompting attacks from advocates.
Environmentalists have long urged the agency to set a distinct secondary NAAQS with a different form and averaging time that is aimed specifically at protecting the environment -- principally plants -- from the harmful effects of ground-level ozone. The current form of the ozone NAAQS is geared toward protecting humans from ozone exposures, not trees that are cumulatively exposed to ozone over a growing season, critics argue.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will hear any legal challenges to the ozone NAAQS, but the court has often deferred to EPA on its scientific expertise for setting the standards.
-
EPA Ozone Rule Set for Monday Publication
Oct 23, 2015 | Politico Pro
By Darius Dixon
The EPA's hotly debated rule for ratcheting down smog-causing ozone will be published in Monday's Federal Register, according to a pre-publication notice out today.
The new standard of 70 parts per billion is stricter than 75 ppb standard the George W. Bush administration set in 2008, but it’s far laxer than the 60 ppb standard environmental and public health groups consider necessary to lessen illnesses like childhood asthma.
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe has said that he plans to push for a vote to block the rule under the Congressional Review Act, a rarely used law that allows a simple majority to reject major regulations. But that effort would still face President Barack Obama's veto.
-
New Regs for Monday: National Parks, Air Pollution, Truck Drivers
Oct 23, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Tim Devaney
Monday's edition of the Federal Register contains new rules for oil and gas operations on national parks, air pollution standards and restrictions for truck drivers with cardiovascular conditions.
Here's what is happening:
Air pollution: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is moving forward with new ozone standards.
The EPA announced earlier this month it is strengthening the ozone standards, but the agency is now formally releasing the rules in the Federal Register. The agency is lowering the level of permissible air pollution to 70 parts per billion (ppb) from 75 ppb.
The rule goes into effect in 60 days.
Pool heaters: After further consideration, the Department of Energy (DOE) is electing not toregulate pool heaters.
The Energy Department's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy conducted a preliminary analysis to determine whether new energy conservation standards were needed for electric pool heaters.
"At this time, DOE is not proposing energy conservation standards for electric pool heaters," the agency wrote.
"However, it is publishing this analysis so stakeholders can review the analysis’s output and the underlining assumptions and calculations that might ultimately support a proposed standard," it added.
The public has 45 days to comment.
Truck drivers: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) will prohibit 14 would-be truck drivers with dangerous cardiovascular conditions from operating commercial motor vehicles.
These truck drivers sought an exemption from the FMCSA's cardiovascular standard but were blocked because their implantable cardioverter defibrillator was not enough to convince the agency they could operate a commercial motor vehicle safely.
The FMCSA did provide one truck driver with an exemption because the driver's medical condition improved.
Oil: The National Park Service is proposing new oil and gas regulations to protect national parks.
The new regulations will "protect park resources, values, and visitors" from oil and gas operations that occur on national parks, the agency said.
The public has 60 days to comment.
-
Special Session Over Natural Gas Megaproject Starts Tomorrow
Oct 23, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson
The Alaska Legislature is opening a special session tomorrow to consider proposals by Gov. Bill Walker (I) to reshape a state-industry partnership created to build a multibillion-dollar natural gas pipeline and export project.
Walker is asking the Republican-controlled Legislature to sign off on his proposal to buy out TransCanada Corp.'s contract in the Alaska LNG gas line project.
He's also championing a controversial reserve tax that would apply to energy companies that refuse to sell their North Slope resources to the pipeline project.
But at a news conference Wednesday, the governor said he would drop his tax bill if the companies involved in the Alaska LNG partnership -- BP Alaska, Exxon Mobil Corp. and ConocoPhillips Co. -- agree to ship their North Slope natural gas through the pipeline even if they withdraw from the megaproject.
"This has been the highest priority ... to make sure that we have project certainty," Walker said at the Anchorage briefing. "And the best way to have project certainty is to make sure that there is gas available for our project."
The governor said the North Slope energy producers asked his office to hold off on introducing any tax legislation in hopes that the state-industry partnership could reach a separate agreement on the issue.
Both of the governor's proposals face stiff resistance from Republican leaders who warn that such major shifts could jeopardize Alaska's hopes of commercializing the 34 trillion cubic feet of natural gas available on the state's North Slope.
The special session is focused on the state's 2014 partnership with Exxon, BP and ConocoPhillips to build a North Slope gas treatment plant, an 800-mile natural gas pipeline, a liquefaction plant and a liquefied natural gas export terminal.
The state also signed a side contract under which TransCanada agreed to pay Alaska's share of the construction costs for the gas treatment plant and pipeline. In return, the state transferred its 25 percent equity interest in those facilities to TransCanada.
That pact gives the state until the end of December to buy the company's share of the deal.
Ever since being elected in November, Walker has pushed to buy out TransCanada's role in the project. He argues the change would give Alaskans a larger role in the Alaska LNG pipeline project and a greater share in the potential future benefits of the project.
But most state legislators are wary of expanding Alaska's role at a time when the state faces a $3 billion budget deficit due to low oil prices.
"There is some trepidation as we go into this that the project is tough enough given global LNG markets," said Larry Persily, former head of the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects and now special assistant for Kenai Peninsula Borough.
"Hopefully, whatever the Legislature and governor work out helps the project, not hurts the project."
In the days before the special session, state lawmakers criticized Walker for not submitting specific legislative language on his proposed changes in advance of the session.
"Unfortunately, we have lost some time to prepare and work on these issues because of the delay in receiving the bills," Alaska Senate President Kevin Meyer (R) said in a statement. "But nonetheless, we are ready to tackle these issues and move a gas line project that is in the best interest of Alaskans."
At the news conference Wednesday, Walker said his office had already sent legislators 50 pages of data backing his proposal to buy out TransCanada. And he said his staff is nearly finished with drafting a bill on the issue.
-
EPA Mine Spill Was Preventable, Points to Broader Problem
Oct 23, 2015 | The New York Times
By The Associated Press
Investigators are blaming the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for a 3 milliongallon wastewater spill from a Colorado gold mine, saying an agency cleanup crew rushed its work, failed to consider the complex engineering involved and ended up triggering the very blowout it hoped to avoid. Members of Congress seized on the results of the twomonth Interior Department investigation to slam EPA's handling of a spill that fouled rivers in three states. The Aug. 5 accident has revived a longsimmering debate over the unresolved fate of hundreds of thousands of abandoned mines across the U.S, offering ammunition to both sides. Whereas Republicans, including U.S. Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado, focused their ire solely on the EPA, U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, also of Colorado and a Democrat, coupled his criticism of the agency with a call for reforms that could speed mine cleanups. The Colorado spill would have been avoided had the EPA team checked on water levels inside the inactive Gold King Mine before digging into its collapsed and leaking entrance, a team of engineers from Interior's Bureau of Reclamation concluded in a 132page report released Thursday. Abandoned hardrock underground mines are not subject to the same federal and state safety requirements other mining operations must follow, and "experience indicates that they should be," the report concluded. "A collapsed flooded mine is in effect a dam, and failure must be prevented by routine monitoring, maintenance, and in some cases remediation," the engineers wrote. "However, there appears to be a general absence of knowledge of the risks associated with these facilities." The findings have implications across the United States: Similar disasters could lurk among the many abandoned mines that have yet to be cleaned up. The total cost of containing this mining industry mess could top $50 billion, according to government estimates. The root causes of the Colorado accident trace back decades, when mining companies altered the flow of underground water through a series of interconnected tunnels in the extensively mined Upper Animas River watershed, the report said. EPA documents show its officials knew of the potential for a major blowout from Gold King, located north of Silverton, Colorado as early as June 2014. After the spill, EPA officials described the blowout as "likely inevitable" because millions of gallons of pressurized water had been bottling up inside the mine. The Interior report directly refuted that assertion. It said the cleanup team could have used a drill rig to bore into the mine tunnel from above and safely gauge the danger of a blowout. Instead, the EPA crew, with the agreement of Colorado mining officials, assumed the mine was only partially inundated. "This error resulted in development of a plan to open the mine in a manner that appeared to guard against blowout, but instead led directly to the failure," the Bureau of Reclamation engineers wrote. EPA spokeswoman Nancy Grantham said the agency did not use a drill rig to bore into the mine because of difficult conditions at the site high in the San Juan Mountains. An internal EPA review "identified technical challenges, safety, timing, and cost as factors in considering this technique," she said. EPA officials pointed out that Gold King's entrance already was leaking and could have eventually blown out anyway. The Interior report acknowledged that was possible. The blowout tainted rivers in Colorado, Utah, New Mexico — and on the Navajo Nation — with dangerous heavy metals including arsenic and lead. It temporarily shut down drinking water supplies and cropland irrigation. On Thursday, Navajo President Russell Begaye said the Obama administration had denied a request for an emergency declaration for the tribe over economic damage caused by the spill. Begaye said the Interior report exposed the EPA's "gross negligence" and repeated his call for federal assistance. The Interior report stopped short of assigning fault to any individuals, despite prior claims from EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy that it would determine fault and any negligence. U.S. Rep. Scott Tipton, a Republican whose district includes the Gold King, called the report disturbing in part because it revealed the EPA lacked the technical expertise to address the complexity of the mine. "Obviously a glaring weakness," Tipton said. With abandoned coal mines, monitoring and cleanups are funded in part by a fee companies pay. No such arrangements exist for inoperative hardrock mines, and that's a national problem, the report noted. Given industry opposition to efforts to hold mine owners accountable, the cleanup on hardrock mines such as Gold King has been left to a scattering of federal and state agencies, without common standards or even lists of the most problematic mines.
-
Milestone Day for EPA Rule -- and Lawsuits
Oct 23, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Elizabeth Harball and Rod Kuckro
U.S. EPA is publishing the final Clean Power Plan to slash carbon emissions from power plants in the Federal Register today, a much-anticipated milestone because it clears the way for objecting states to file lawsuits aimed at killing the regulation.
Also published in the Federal Register today are the final rule regulating carbon dioxide for new, modified and reconstructed power plants and the proposed federal implementation plan, which would be imposed on states that don't submit a compliance plan to EPA.
The proposed federal implementation plan will be the subject of four public hearings in November, EPA acting air chief Janet McCabe said. Its publication triggers a 90-day comment period that will end Jan. 21.
With the regulation, EPA aims to curb U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector by 32 percent by 2030.
McCabe told reporters on a conference call yesterday that "there is no substantive change between the pre-publication version of these rules posted online [in August] and the same rules that will be posted tomorrow."
Since the rule was first proposed last year, roughly half of U.S. states have indicated they may sue EPA to fight the regulation once the rule is formally published. Many states have already attempted to challenge the rule, including an effort led by West Virginia in August seeking an emergency stay, but their efforts were rebuffed by the courts.
EPA and its supporters, however, have repeatedly insisted that the final rule will withstand legal challenges.
EPA's opponents claim the rule exceeds the agency's authority over the power sector and is therefore legally vulnerable.
"My own view is that the proposed rule was so far beyond anything that was remotely reasonable that EPA's attempts in the final rule to crawl back to reasonableness don't even get close," Peter Glaser, a partner at Troutman Sanders LLP who frequently represents energy interests, said at a panel discussion on the rule's legal standing this week.
"The power plan is based on a sound legal and technical foundation," McCabe said. "We feel strongly that given our authorities and legal precedents under the Clean Air Act that our application of [Section] 111(d) here conforms with those authorities and that legal precedent."
The first legal actions could occur today. Lawsuits must be filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days of Federal Register publication.EPA offers more on Clean Energy Incentive Program
For states planning on complying with the rule, EPA this week offered more details on a carrot it is offering to entice early efforts to shrink carbon footprints before the rule takes effect in 2022.
On Wednesday, EPA released a "next steps" document on the proposed Clean Energy Incentive Program, or CEIP, intended to encourage states to build wind and solar energy generation and install energy efficiency measures in low-income communities between 2020 and 2022, before the rule takes effect. EPA will reward participating states with early action allowances or emission rate credits, which can be used against the emissions reductions that states must make between 2022 and 2030.
The new document announces a series of meetings on the program with interested parties, including states, tribes, local governments and industry. This includes two in-person training sessions between now and the end of November for tribes and communities and a meeting of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee on Nov. 18.
The CEIP is optional, and a discrete quantity of allowances or credits -- 300 million short tons of CO2 emissions -- will be offered, so EPA is asking states for a nonbinding indication that they want to participate in the program when they submit initial plans in September 2016, McCabe said. The CEIP is one part of the final Clean Power Plan that states have the most questions about, she added.
The document also outlines what aspects of the program the agency wants to hear more about from stakeholders. EPA is asking about when the agency should award allowances or emission reduction credits to states and how a "low-income community" should be defined under the energy efficiency part of the program.
Some clean energy advocates have faulted the CEIP for not allowing all energy efficiency programs to qualify for early-action credits or allowances (Greenwire, Aug. 17). Among them is Malcolm Woolf, senior vice president for policy and government affairs at Advanced Energy Economy.
Woolf said his group will be advocating for a broad definition of "low-income community" to open up more opportunities for the energy efficiency sector under CEIP. For example, EPA could define low-income communities by census tract, meaning buildings not necessarily occupied by low-income residents could qualify.
Kelly Speakes-Backman, a senior vice president at the Alliance to Save Energy who voiced similar concerns in the past, agreed with this approach, noting that businesses and hospitals in well-defined low-income areas could potentially qualify under the program.
"I think it is a great opportunity for us to get as much efficiency in as possible," Speakes-Backman said.
Woolf also raised concerns about the timing of the CEIP program, something EPA did not ask for input about in the document released this week. Woolf reported that companies are considering holding off on carbon-cutting projects until the CEIP program starts.
"Having a CEIP program that lets some states count projects in 2020 is good, but that's still more than four years away."Senate leader plans to challenge rule
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell next week is expected to unveil two Congressional Review Act challenges to the EPA rules, setting up votes that are calculated to embarrass the Obama administration just ahead of the Paris climate talks.
The Kentucky Republican will release the resolutions of disapproval scuttling the Clean Power Plan and a rule for new power plants together with Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), who earlier this year sponsored legislation that would allow states to opt out of the EPA rule.
The Capito bill would also kill the new power plant rule, which effectively requires new coal plants to use carbon capture and storage technology to cut emissions. It cleared the Environment and Public Works Committee last spring but seems unlikely to garner the 60 votes needed to clear the Senate.
Next week's McConnell-Capito effort would not have that procedural problem. It employs a rarely used administrative law that allows a resolution to clear the Senate with a simple majority of the vote. This approach would also take less floor time than a bill.
But while it may pass both chambers of Congress, a CRA resolution is still subject to presidential veto.
-
States, Industries Launch Legal Assault
Oct 23, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender and Jean Chemnick
The legal onslaught against the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan kicked off today as 25 states, industry and labor groups challenged the rule in court.
Today's formal publication of the U.S. EPA rule to curb power plants' greenhouse gas emissions triggered a 60-day deadline for challenging the rule in court. And opponents didn't waste any time; challenges began streaming in early this morning, and EPA's foes are asking judges to halt the power plant rules while the legal battle plays out. Today's court filings represent the opening salvo in a court fight that's expected to take years and may ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court.
More than two dozen states opposed to EPA's regulations promptly filed lawsuits this morning.
A coalition led by West Virginia filed a petition challenging the rule on behalf of 24 states: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
West Virginia Assistant Attorney General J. Zak Ritchie arrived at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit early this morning to be first in line to file a lawsuit. Those who file the first petition win the distinction of being named on the lawsuit, and several petitioners were lined up at court this morning to file their petitions as soon as the clerk's office opened at 9 a.m.
"Petitioners will show that the final rule is in excess of the agency's statutory authority, goes beyond the bounds set by the United States Constitution, and otherwise is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and not in accordance with law," the West Virginia petition says.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R) told reporters on a conference call this morning that states will file a motion with the court later this afternoon asking judges to freeze the rule while they consider its legality. He called the EPA rule "one of the most onerous and illegal regulations coming out of Washington, D.C., that we've seen in a long time."
Oklahoma today filed a separate lawsuit challenging EPA's power plant rules.
Additional petitions filed before press time came from the National Mining Association, Murray Energy Corp., the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity and the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers. Further challenges are expected.
The challenges to EPA's power plant rules will likely be consolidated into one lawsuit.
Opponents of the climate regulations have already previewed their arguments to the D.C. Circuit.
Early this year, the court denied an unusual request by states, energy companies and industry groups to block EPA from finalizing its proposed greenhouse gas standards for power plants. The judges refused to rule on the legality of the standards before they were finalized (Greenwire, June 9).
And in September, the appeals court denied another early effort to block the standards. Fifteen states led by West Virginia sought an emergency stay to halt the Clean Power Plan as litigation challenging the regulations played out. But the court denied that request, too, saying challengers hadn't met the "stringent standards" that apply to halt agency actions. The D.C. Circuit typically doesn't entertain challenges to air rules until they are formally published in theFederal Register (Greenwire, Sept. 9).
The coalition of states challenging EPA's final rule in court is broader than the group that waged the initial challenges. States that sued today that weren't involved in the preliminary challenges include Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, North Carolina, Texas and Utah.
"We wanted to wait until the rules were final," Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) told reporters today.
Many legal experts viewed the preliminary court challenges as long shots. But now that EPA's rule is officially ripe for court challenges, EPA's foes say they like their chances.
"There are many compelling legal reasons why this rule should be declared invalid," Morrisey said. And Paxton said state challengers are "pretty confident that we're going to get a stay."
Challengers are asking the court to issue a stay halting the rules "as fast as possible" to "avoid the harms to the states," Morrisey said. He said states are particularly concerned in light of a June decision by the Supreme Court that found an EPA mercury rule unlawful.
EPA said that plants had already invested in pollution controls and were "well on their way to making emissions reductions." That is "obviously unacceptable, and we're seeking a stay to avoid a repeat of that result and put an end to this unlawful rule now," Morrisey said today.
It's unclear when the court will decide whether to halt the rule. The judges may wait until the 60-day deadline for lawsuits and another 30-day deadline for filing court motions have passed to allow all interested parties to weigh in.EPA, allies on defense
But EPA and its defenders say the rule is on firm legal footing, the product of exhaustive stakeholder outreach and likely to stand the test of time.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy in a blog post today called the rule "fair, flexible, affordable, and designed to reflect the fast-growing trend toward cleaner American energy."
She argued that -- far from being a departure from past practice -- the existing power plan rule is "fully consistent with the Clean Air Act" and respects the "state-federal partnership" that has been the basis for air quality rules since the law was enacted in 1970.
The rule's opponents say it raises constitutional questions because EPA is preparing to implement a federal plan in states that opt not to put forward their own. The proposed federal implementation plan was also published in the Federal Register today and will be open for comment until January.
Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, said at a hearing yesterday that the rule represented an "executive branch power grab at the expense of the legislative branch and the states."
But Richard Revesz of New York University School of Law said at the same hearing that the rule posed no constitutional problems "because states are not required to do anything." If they opt not to regulate, the federal government will instead. But there is no penalty to them for making that choice.
While the total number of states suing EPA has climbed, only five governors have thus far said they will not submit an implementation plan. The vast majority of the 25 states that will go to court hoping to topple the rule are also planning to comply with it.
McCarthy and EPA acting air chief Janet McCabe have claimed this as a victory. "We're encouraged to see that many states are beginning their own planning processes because that means they're preparing to take action," McCarthy said in today's blog post.
McCabe, air office senior counsel Joe Goffman and others note that they continue to communicate with states as they pivot to implementing the rule, often participating in lengthy meetings and calls with state administrators.
"We are committed to helping everyone better understand the Clean Power Plan and have been impressed -- but certainly not surprised -- by the remarkable level of constructive engagement across the board," McCarthy said in the post. "Conversations are happening across the country."
EPA also has allies among state attorneys general, and a group of 15 states and the District of Columbia released a statement in August criticizing the states led by West Virginia for seeking to stay the rule after it was first signed.
Today, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) said he would back EPA when it came time to defend the rule in court.
"My office is prepared to join with our partners to aggressively defend EPA's Clean Power Plan -- rules that will significantly reduce climate change pollution nationally," he said in a statement this morning. "These rules give states the flexibility to choose the best measures to cut pollution, while maintaining electrical reliability and economic growth."
Eight other states joined New York in August, pledging to stand "with EPA to defend these necessary emission standards if they are challenged in court."
And administration boosters of the rule were quick to claim some Republican support. They circulated a statement in praise of the rule from two past EPA administrators who served under Republican presidents: George H.W. Bush's Administrator William Reilly and William Ruckelshaus, who served under Presidents Nixon and Reagan.
"Already, we understand that 24 states are lined up to ask that its implementation be stayed or suspended," said the two former administrators. "The country needs to reduce CO2 from existing power plants which generate 40 percent of America's [carbon dioxide]. The rule is needed, and the courts we hope will recognize that it is on the right side of history."
Earlier this week, Reilly told a gathering of state environmental regulators who will be responsible for crafting state plans that they should "move ahead with planning and assume the rule will survive" (Greenwire, Oct. 21).
While EPA's rule requires an initial submittal next year, final plans are not due until 2018 when courts are likely to have weighed in on the rule. Failure to submit a final plan at that juncture would be "a bad idea," he said, given EPA's authority to regulate power plants directly.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested