Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 1/22/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) PP Prices Continue to Surge as PET Falls
Jan 22, 2016 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
North American polypropylene resin prices surged ahead in December, as PET bottle resin prices fell and regional prices for polyethylene, polystyrene and PVC stayed right where they were in November. -
(ACC Mentioned) Circulate On Fridays: New Plastics Economy Report and Davos 2016
Jan 22, 2016 | Circulate News
By Joe Iles
The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the future of plastics was released on Tuesday. If you haven’t read it yet, here’s what it boils down to. Plastics are an incredibly important material, with a long list of properties that make them useful for many applications. The problem is that 95% of plastic packaging is used once, which is a massive waste of value and means that these plastics end up in places we don’t really want them. -
States AGs Urge Lawmakers To Limit Preemption In Final TSCA Reform Bill
Jan 22, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Attorneys general (AGs) from 12 states are urging lawmakers to ensure that pending final compromise Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform legislation limits the preemption of state chemicals programs, underscoring that preemption -- a debate that doomed earlier TSCA bills -- remains a potentially divisive issue for the bill. -
AGs Urge TSCA Negotiators to Limit State Pre-Emption
Jan 22, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
California Attorney General Kamala Harris (D) and 11 of her colleagues urged Congress to leave state chemical programs untouched as much as possible in a pending federal bill. -
The 1.10.16 Issue
Jan 22, 2016 | The New York Times Magazine
Nathaniel Rich recounted the efforts of the corporate lawyer Rob Bilott to expose the chemical company’s brazen, decades-long history of pollution. -
Niosh Consults on Toxicological Effects of Silver Nanoparticles
Jan 22, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (Niosh) is consulting on a draft document reviewing the available literature on the toxicological effects of exposure to silver nanoparticles. -
Utilities Warned Regulators About Infrastructure for Years
Jan 22, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
Utilities and industry groups issued warnings about decaying underground natural gas storage infrastructure for years before a massive methane leak from a Los Angeles well last fall, according to a Reuters investigation. -
EPA in Hot Seat After Regional Chief Resigns
Jan 22, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Tiffany Stecker
U.S. EPA is taking strong actions in response to the lead contamination crisis in Flint, Mich., starting with the resignation of the top federal environmental official in the region. -
Spill Cleanup Regulations Moving Too Slowly for Top Dem
Jan 22, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
The Department of Transportation needs to speed up its rulemaking regulating how best to respond to oil spills from trains carrying highly flammable material, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee ranking member Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) wrote in a letter to Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx yesterday. -
British Columbia Refinery has a 'Neater' Way to Transport Oil Sands
Jan 22, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Madelyn Beck
A newly proposed refinery in British Columbia is claiming it can green the oil sands production process by moving the substance in a raw, peanut butter-like state known as "neatbit." -
New Safety Technology to Operate on Some Metra Trains by End of Year
Jan 22, 2016 | Chicago Tribune
By Kate Thayer
Metra expects to begin using a new, federally-mandated system said to avoid crashes by the end of the year on its most used line, and meet a 2018 deadline imposed by Congress on the remainder of its system. -
BLM Rule to Cut Back Methane Waste Draws Quick Fire
Jan 22, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Phil Taylor
A rule unveiled today by the Bureau of Land Management clamping down on the loss of natural gas from roughly 100,000 wells on federal and tribal lands met immediate resistance from congressional Republicans and industry groups. -
Obama Administration Expands Climate Fight with Proposed Rules for Oil and Gas Drilling
Jan 22, 2016 | Washington Post
By Joby Warrick
The Obama administration took a step Friday toward plugging thousands of small methane leaks from oil and gas operations around the country, saying the escaping gas is contributing to climate change. -
EPA Argues Courts Divided On Whether NSR Violations Are Single Events
Jan 22, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is arguing that courts are far from united on whether violations of the Clean Air Act new source review (NSR) permitting program are one-time events subject to a five-year statute of limitations or ongoing offenses that the agency can prosecute at any time, rebutting industry's claims that courts largely back the one-time event claim. -
Biz Groups Seek to Block Greens' Bid to Lower Ozone Standard
Jan 22, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
A coalition of business groups led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is directly contesting a legal bid by environmental groups to further tighten U.S. EPA's recently adopted ambient ozone standard of 70 parts per billion. -
EPA Foes Threaten Supreme Court Battle to Freeze Climate Rule
Jan 22, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Emily Holden and Ellen M. Gilmer
Industry opponents of the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan vowed yesterday to go to the Supreme Court to challenge a federal appeals court's refusal to block the climate change regulations. -
Appeals Court Judges Represent 'Lucky' Draw for EPA
Jan 22, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
The Obama administration has chalked up a series of early wins in the behemoth lawsuit challenging its signature climate rule.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) PP Prices Continue to Surge as PET Falls
Jan 22, 2016 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
North American polypropylene resin prices surged ahead in December, as PET bottle resin prices fell and regional prices for polyethylene, polystyrene and PVC stayed right where they were in November.
PP prices climbed an average of 2 cents per pound for the month, as supplies of the material remained tight throughout the region. The 2-cent hike is the third consecutive monthly price hike, following a 2-cent increase in November and a 3-cent upward move in October. These increases have reversed a trend that had seen regional PP prices fall for three straight months.
Even with these three late-year increases, regional PP prices declined by a net of 11 cents per pound in 2015. Most of that drop stemmed from a 10-cent January decline, which had followed a similar 10-cent drop in December 2014 as global crude oil prices were crashing.
Some North American buyers reported seeing increases of 3 cents in both November and December, but a greater number reported seeing 2 cents both months. Recent production outages — combined with strong domestic demand — have limited the availability of PP throughout North America.
“Polypropylene is sold out,” one buyer in the Midwest told Plastics News. “Producers have complete pricing power.”
Regional PP sales were up 5.2 percent through November, according to the American Chemistry Council in Washington. Domestic growth of 6 percent was lessened by a drop of almost 20 percent in export sales during that 11-month period. Among individual end markets, regional PP sales into injection molded consumer and institutional products — including furniture and housewares — were up almost 11 percent through November.
PET bottle resin prices in the region slid down another penny per pound for the month, due in part to lower seasonal demand. Prices for the material now have fallen for five consecutive months. The 1-cent December drop followed declines totaling 9 cents combined in August through November.
PET bottle resin prices were down a net of 4 cents per pound in 2015. The market continued to struggle with resin overcapacity and with reduced demands for carbonated soft drinks, its largest end market. Demand for bottled water is up, but thinner bottles are using less PET per bottle than they did in previous years.
With a flat December, regional PE and PS prices now have been flat for three consecutive months. PVC prices in the region ended the year with two consecutive months of flat pricing.
For full-year 2015, prices for all grades of PE and of solid PS ended down a net of 13 cents per pound, while suspension PVC prices declined by a net of 3 cents per pound.
Through October, U.S./Canadian sales of high density PE were up 6.6 percent, according to ACC. Domestic sales were up only 1 percent for the period, but export sales rocketed up almost 42 percent. Sales of HDPE into household chemical bottles provided a domestic bright spot, growing 7 percent.
Regional sales of low density PE through October improved 3.3 percent, with domestic growth of almost 4 percent lessened somewhat by growth of only 1.2 percent in export markets. Sales of LDPE into non-food packaging film soared more than 11 percent in that 10-month period.
For linear low density PE, 10-month sales grew 6.3 percent. Domestic sales growth of almost 6 percent was amplified by a 9 percent rise in export sales. Sales of LLDPE into all types of film — packaging and non-packaging — climbed almost 8 percent in that period.
North American PS sales dipped 0.8 percent through November, even as sales in its leading food packaging/food service segment ticked up 0.7 percent. That category accounted for more than 60 percent of regional PS sales in the first ten months of the year.
The North American PVC field had an odd year, as the construction market — PVC’s biggest consumption sector — didn’t rebound as expected. As a result, U.S./Canadian PVC sales are on track to be down more than 2 percent in 2015.
Sales of PVC into the domestic market fell almost 3 percent in the first 11 months of 2015, according to ACC, but export sales fell less than 2 percent, lowering the overall sales loss. Eleven month sales into PVC’s dominant rigid pipe and tubing sector — which accounted for almost 45 percent of domestic sales — fell more than 1 percent in that period.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Circulate On Fridays: New Plastics Economy Report and Davos 2016
Jan 22, 2016 | Circulate News
By Joe Iles
The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the future of plastics was released on Tuesday. If you haven’t read it yet, here’s what it boils down to. Plastics are an incredibly important material, with a long list of properties that make them useful for many applications. The problem is that 95% of plastic packaging is used once, which is a massive waste of value and means that these plastics end up in places we don’t really want them. You probably knew that, but the significance of this new report is that it’s the first effort to create a blueprint for a vision of a global economy in which plastics never become waste, and outlines concrete steps towards achieving the systemic shift needed – based on the principles of a circular economy.
For more detail, the obvious place to look is the report itself. But if you’re a bit pressed for time, why not read this World Economic Forum blog post from Ellen MacArthur and Dominic Waughray. It’s an excellent summary of the state of plastics today, what the ‘new plastics economy’ could look like, and how we can get there. Or if you fancy some Friday night viewing, we strongly recommend the video briefing on Re-thinking Plastics, with Ellen MacArthur, Dominic Waughray, Oliver Cann and Jean-Louis Chaussade.
What did others make of the new study? Here on Circulate, we shared an early reaction from Zero Waste Scotland, an organisation that has been leading the circular economy drive at a regional level for some time. Louise McGregor, Head of Circular Economy at ZWS was pleased to see plastics re-use feature so heavily in the report, as it reflects growing efforts in Scotland around deposit-return schemes and refillable packaging. Louise said that the report would put large-scale, global resource flows ‘back on the map’ with regards to circular economy efforts, as opposed to just looking at products.
Jo Confino spoke to Dominic Waughray for his report on Huffington Post, highlighting how progress could lie the creation of an “independent co-ordinating group to act as a facilitator for all the players in the plastics system, including businesses involved in collection, sorting and reprocessing, cities, policymakers and NGOs”. Over 40 organisations were involved in the creation of the report itself, and similar collaboration will be needed to shift the way we make and use plastics. Make sure to watch the five-minute video, in which Dominic mentions a few innovative packaging ideas that could encourage re-use.
BBC Business Live included a short analysis of the report in their Davos coverage (clip starts at 22:50). Mike Amey of PIMCO commented how there isn’t one unifying entity that can drive the initiative to improve global plastics flows and address this $120bn lost value, but it was hoped that the momentum around the new research could “bring together the interest parties and genuinely make some progress”.
One piece of research from the report really captured widespread interest:
Given projected growth in consumption, in a business-as-usual scenario, by 2050 oceans are expected to contain more plastics than fish (by weight)
This shocking prediction had widespread interest and reached number of different groups. Food magazine Munchies took note, concerned that PET will be on the menu if we’re unable to re-design the plastics system: “if we want to be able to consume plastic-free fish, we’ll need some of that much-touted “human ingenuity” to bail us out”.
Tech mag Gizmodo also reported on this aspect of the report, connecting the New Plastics Economy with another study this week on marine fishery catch rates. Fortune highlighted three key recommendations from the report that could help increase circularity for plastics: “creating an effective after-use plastics economy by improving global recycling efforts, reducing the leakage of plastic waste into the environment, and decoupling plastic from the fossil fuels used to create it.”
The American Chemistry Council released a statement in response to the report, reaffirming their commitment to improving plastics reprocessing and inviting “additional opportunities to partner with others in the shared effort to recycle and recover more plastics and to keep plastics out of the marine environment”.
More from Davos
Of course It’s not just plastics on the agenda at the World Economic Forum Meeting in Davos, Switzerland. Discussion around the circular economy has been on the increase over the past few years, and 2016 is no exception.
Much of the activity is taking place at the Innovation for the Circular Economy pavilion, or ICEHouse. The building was designed and built by William McDonough and his firms, William McDonough + Partners and WonderFrame LLC. William described the project with his trademark eloquence: “ICEhouse is a structure designed for disassembly and reconstruction…in a poetic sense, like ice, it is ephemeral: It is here for a week, in the Alps. Next week it will melt away… destined to reappear elsewhere.”
One event taking place at the ICEHouse earlier this week was the awards ceremony for The Circulars, which recognises pioneers leading the shift towards a more circular economy. Judges were split on a couple of the top categories, and understandably so – the finalists making outstanding contributions to the circular economy efforts worldwide. So Feike Sijbesma of Royal DSM and Professor Dajian Zhu of Tongji University split the Fortune Award for Circular Economy Leadership, and Royal Philips and Veolia both took to the stage for the Accenture Award for Circular Economy Multinational. Head to Fortune for a rundown of the winners of the eight categories.
Some recurring themes have been coming up around the circular economy throughout the week. Aside from plastics, which has been the cause of much of the buzz, the role of technology has been another talking point. The theme for this year’s Annual Meeting in Davos is ‘Mastering the Fourth Industrial Revolution’, and the intersection of tech and the circular economy has been a under discussion.
According to our reports from this week’s circular economy workshop, the sense was that with today’s capabilities, technological limitations are not what’s holding back the shift to a more circular economy – it’s what we choose to do with that technology. Finally, throughout Davos there seemed to be a greater appreciation for the importance of systems thinking. As with the plastics issue, many of today’s challenge cannot be addressed by isolated tweaks; a collaborative, systemic approach is required.
One participant perhaps put their finger on why the circular economy is gaining momentum at this meeting of world leaders. Stating during a circular economy workshop: “Crisis – Eurocrisis, refugee crisis, it’s crisis all the time – this is a time for a positive story and narrative, and turn some of our biggest challenges into opportunities”.
-
States AGs Urge Lawmakers To Limit Preemption In Final TSCA Reform Bill
Jan 22, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Attorneys general (AGs) from 12 states are urging lawmakers to ensure that pending final compromise Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform legislation limits the preemption of state chemicals programs, underscoring that preemption -- a debate that doomed earlier TSCA bills -- remains a potentially divisive issue for the bill.
The AGs' call for limiting the scope of any preemption provisions is one of seven “principles” on the state-federal relationship that they saylawmakers should consider as they seek to reconcile TSCA reform legislation approved by the House in June and a broader TSCA bill that senators approved in December. The AGs say that enacting a final conference version of the bill is vital to “remove obstacles” that have prevented stronger EPA regulation of toxic chemicals.
The principles are detailed in a Jan. 19 letter sent to the chairmen and ranking members of the House Energy & Commerce Committee and Senate Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW), and signed by the AGs from California, Maine, Iowa, Maryland, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Rode Island, Oregon, Vermont and Washington.
In March, several of those AGs wrote to senators including EPW Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK) and ranking member Barbara Boxer (D-CA) raising concerns about preemption in an initial version of the Senate's TSCA bill, S. 697. For example, Matthew Rodriquez, secretary of California's Environmental Protection Agency, sent Boxer a letter providing his agency's analysis of S. 697, which he said “contains a series of preemption rules, exceptions to those rules, and exceptions to the exceptions, which contradict each other and potentially imperil state protections for clean air and water. . . . These conflicts would support the argument that state action is forbidden, even though certain sections clearly allow such action, causing confusion in states over what is allowed.”
Democratic senators worked with their GOP colleagues on revising the preemption language in S. 697, and the changes were seen as paring back preemption to a level where the Democrats signed on to support the bill. But Boxer has indicated that she still has concerns the bill could be too limiting on state programs.
The 12 AGs in their new letter endorse the preemption provisions in the current TSCA enacted in 1976, which limits preempting state laws or regulations to when they would conflict with federal regulation. The AGs say that to the extent that a reform bill includes new preemption provisions, “such preemption should be as limited as possible” and consistent with principles regarding the important role states play in overseeing TSCA.
Those principles include preemption that would not be triggered until EPA finalizes action on a chemical; limited in scope to the scope of EPA's action; allow states to continue to establish requirements for chemicals pursuant to longstanding state laws; allow states to enforce existing requirements and those set by EPA; and avoid preemption for laws related to air quality, water quality, or waste treatment or disposal. Moreover, the state AGs say that conditions for which states may seek a waiver for preemption should be limited to whether the requirements do not unduly burden interstate commerce and do not make it impossible to comply with both state and federal law.
TSCA Reform
Both the House and Senate TSCA reform bills would overhaul the 1976 TSCA in order to give EPA new authority to address risks from existing chemicals in the marketplace.
The measures would also eliminate legal hurdles in current law that have hindered the agency's ability to restrict dangerous chemicals, such as its 1991 failure to ban asbestos.
But lawmakers have acknowledged that preemption will be a clear area for discussion on how to reconcile differences between the Senate bill, S. 697, and the much narrower House bill, H.R. 2576.
The House bill would "grandfather," or preserve existing state chemical safety laws that took effect before Aug. 1 and preserve state toxic tort claims, after EPA takes final action on regulating a chemical, unless they "actually conflict" with new federal mandates. New state chemical laws, however, would be preempted once EPA finishes a restriction of a substance under TSCA.
The Senate bill also contains grandfathering provisions to preserve existing laws, but preemption for new chemical rules and laws would occur when EPA defines and publishes the scope of a safety assessment and safety determination under TSCA section 6 reviews for existing chemicals.
The Senate bill also clarifies the process under which a state could seek a waiver from preemption by specifying that there must be a “compelling condition;” that the rule would not unduly burden interstate commerce; would not conflict with EPA regulations; and is consistent with the “best available science” and based on the weight of scientific evidence. Additionally states would be able to continue to “co-enforce” federal regulations under the Senate bill.
Although some AGs have faulted the preemption provisions in the TSCA bills, other AGs have downplayed concerns about preemption and urged approval of the legislation.
For example, a handful of state attorneys general, led by Arkansas and Michigan officials, sent a May 29 letter, 2014, letter to then-EPW Chairman Boxer and then-EPW ranking member Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) saying that a previous TSCA reform bill, S. 1009, did not inappropriately preempt states' powers to regulate chemicals as the other state officials charge and also provided a series of enhancements over current law.
“There has been a great deal of discussion about the [bill's] provisions that give precedence to some EPA decisions over state regulations, but in truth, the [bill] builds on the preemption provisions already in TSCA, and only applies to narrow circumstances,” the letter says. “The preemption provisions in [S. 1009] only impact State chemical regulations that regulate specific chemicals and that directly relate to chemical manufacturing, processing, or use,” the letter adds.
The letter was signed by AGs Dustin McDaniel (D-AR), Bill Schuette (R-MI), Luther Strange (R-AL), Mike Geraghty (R-AK), Thomas Horne (R-AZ), Sam Olens (R-GA), Wayne Stenehjem (R-ND), Mike DeWine (R-OH), Alan Wilson (R-SC) and Sean Reyes (R-UT).
-
AGs Urge TSCA Negotiators to Limit State Pre-Emption
Jan 22, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
California Attorney General Kamala Harris (D) and 11 of her colleagues urged Congress to leave state chemical programs untouched as much as possible in a pending federal bill.
In the letter sent yesterday to Sens. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the chairman and ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, respectively, and Reps. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), the chairman and ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, respectively, the state officials warned that "preemption of state actions beyond that of existing TSCA is counterproductive."
While acknowledging U.S. EPA needs legal obstacles removed so it can more actively regulate the marketplace, the attorneys general wrote that a role for states "is consistent with the traditional allocation of responsibilities and powers in our federal system of government," and is a key tool to protect residents.
The officials wrote that they had seen their influence reflected in changes from an earlier version of the Senate bill, S. 697, or the "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act," to narrow instances in which states are pre-empted.
The officials laid out seven principles that would be crucial if they are to support the final legislation. Among those are that states should be free to take action if EPA has not reached a final decision. The Senate bill now provides a process by which states would be automatically given a waiver to implement their own rules provided their action did not violate certain constitutional principles.
While the attorneys general noted the Senate bill now allows these waivers, they warned that a requirement that EPA find the state has shown "compelling conditions" in a way "consistent with the best available science" by "using supporting studies conducted in accordance with sound and objective scientific practices" and "based on the weight of the available evidence" would open the door to litigate each scientific basis for an action.
California's Department of Justice, which Harris leads, has taken a lead role for years in trying to maintain legal authority for strong state programs as Congress mulls broad changes to the federal Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (E&E Daily, Sept. 24, 2015).
House and Senate lawmakers are in the early stages of reconciling S. 697 with a House-passed bill, H.R. 2576, the "TSCA Modernization Act."
Joining Harris on the letter were attorneys general Doug Chin of Hawaii, Tom Miller of Iowa, Janet Mills of Maine, Brian Frosh of Maryland, Joseph Foster of New Hampshire, Maura Healey of Massachusetts, Eric Schneiderman of New York, Ellen Rosenblum of Oregon, Peter Kilmartin of Rhode Island, William Sorrell of Vermont and Bob Ferguson of Washington.
-
Jan 22, 2016 | The New York Times Magazine
Nathaniel Rich recounted the efforts of the corporate lawyer Rob Bilott to expose the chemical company’s brazen, decades-long history of pollution.
When I was a self-conscious preteen, the doctors at what is now Nemours/Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children in Wilmington, Del., granted me the opportunity to wear a groundbreaking back brace for the treatment of my scoliosis. It was successful, and the brace was inconspicuously hidden beneath my clothing. Those duPont doctors were my heroes.
Decades later, as a homeowner, I watched sadly as huge, stately evergreens on our property browned and died as a result of our lawn service using DuPont Imprelis (we were later compensated for the loss of the trees by DuPont). Now, the horrifying and heart-wrenching story of Rob Bilott’s battle against DuPont and PFOA leaves me even more conflicted about the company associated with the ‘‘heroes’’ of my youth. How can a corporation do so much good and so much bad? Sara Sevec, Bloomfield Hills, Mich.
As a chemist and a native Delawarean, I am inspired by the discoveries of the DuPont Experimental Station — birthplace of nylon, neoprene, Kevlar and Tyvek, all a 15-minute walk from my high school.
Chemistry has revolutionized our lives through drugs to cure our illnesses, batteries to power our smartphones, fertilizers to grow our food and plastics to be formed by our imaginations. Yet with discovery can come unforeseen consequences: thalidomide, algal blooms, DDT, endocrine disruption and ozone depletion.
Timely safety testing, proper handling and transparency must accompany chemical innovation. Only then can we live up to DuPont’s old slogan: ‘‘Better things for better living through chemistry.’’ Andrew L. Chang, Palo Alto, Calif.
We believe this plaintiff-attorney profile is an unbalanced portrayal of DuPont’s responsible handling and usage of PFOA. DuPont was proactive in looking into PFOA’s properties and taking precautions to guard against any harm.
Before the studies mandated by the class-action settlement were complete, DuPont set exposure guidelines to guard against harm. DuPont, along with others, also agreed to participate in a global stewardship program to reduce emissions and phase out PFOA. DuPont completed phasing out PFOA in 2013 and has worked closely with regulatory agencies to develop replacement materials.
Chemical practices have evolved over time and so should federal regulatory oversight. DuPont supports the reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act to establish a science-based federal chemical regulatory system that protects public health and the environment and allows the continued significant and valued contributions of the industry to the American and global economies. Stacy Fox, DuPont senior vice president and general counsel, Wilmington, Del.
-
Niosh Consults on Toxicological Effects of Silver Nanoparticles
Jan 22, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (Niosh) is consulting on a draft document reviewing the available literature on the toxicological effects of exposure to silver nanoparticles.
One area of focus is the evaluation of the scientific evidence on the role of particle size on the toxicological effects of silver. This includes the evidence basis used to evaluate the adequacy of the institute's current recommended exposure limit (REL) for silver (metal dust and soluble compounds.)
The document looks at the effects of exposure in experimental animal and cellular systems and on occupational exposure to silver dust and fume and associated health effects. It suggests ways for safe handling of silver nanoparticles. The document also proposes research needed to fill data gaps in the current scientific literature on the potential adverse health effects of occupational exposure.
The deadline for comments is 21 March. The institute will then hold a public meeting on 23 March in Cincinnati, Ohio.
-
Utilities Warned Regulators About Infrastructure for Years
Jan 22, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
Utilities and industry groups issued warnings about decaying underground natural gas storage infrastructure for years before a massive methane leak from a Los Angeles well last fall, according to a Reuters investigation.
Well owner Southern California Gas Co. had warned state regulators in 2014 that "major failures" were likely without a rate raise to fund inspections of its wells and that 26 of its wells were too "high risk" to operate despite meeting regulations.
"Up and down, the general consensus is that the regulations that exist in California are wholly insufficient," said Tim O'Connor, director of California oil and gas issues for the Environmental Defense Fund.
National industry groups have urged federal oversight of the roughly 400 underground natural gas storage facilities across 30 U.S. states. Regulation currently falls to the states.
-
EPA in Hot Seat After Regional Chief Resigns
Jan 22, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Tiffany Stecker
U.S. EPA is taking strong actions in response to the lead contamination crisis in Flint, Mich., starting with the resignation of the top federal environmental official in the region.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy announced in a memo yesterday that Susan Hedman, administrator of the Chicago-based EPA Region 5, would step down effective Feb. 1.
The agency is also implementing an emergency order requiring the city of Flint to initiate a rigorous new round of water quality testing and publish the data online.
The order also requires the city, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and state leaders to respond within 10 days to a suite of EPA task force recommendations.
EPA said today it would make revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule, a 25-year-old measure to require monitoring of the metals in drinking water, in a proposed rulemaking expected next year.
These include collecting information on homes with lead service lines and scrutinizing areas where residents have elevated lead blood levels.
"This new, more urgent approach shows different thinking from the top, reflects an awareness that the situation in Flint is just unacceptable, and it points the agency in the right direction," said Henry Henderson, Midwest director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, in a statement.
"However," he said, "we remain very concerned that the people of Flint cannot simply rely on agencies that have to date utterly failed them."
NRDC, along with the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, Concerned Pastors for Social Action and Flint resident Melissa Mays, filed a notice of intent to sue state and city officials in November.
"Flint faces another looming effort to secure a safe drinking water source this summer and we think the courts are going to have to step in to ensure that the right decisions are made to both ensure the success of their new water source and that Flint's poisoned pipes are fixed and replaced," Henderson added.
The city of 100,000 has been struggling with lead contamination and other pollutants in the municipal drinking water system for the last year, since city and state officials decided to switch its water source from Lake Huron -- water it bought from Detroit -- to the Flint River while a direct pipeline to the lake was under construction.
The state failed to implement controls at the water treatment plant to prevent the river's corrosive waters from eating away at the city's lead service lines. There are an estimated 15,000 lines with lead in Flint that connect the municipal water system to homes.
"It's going to take some time to build up that protection of pipes, just like it's true of most cities around the country," said Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) during an interview on MSNBC this morning.
Snyder cited "major failures" and pointed the finger at regulators "being much too technical, not having the culture of asking the common sense questions, and then the tone of how things were done."
'False sense of security'
Hedman quits her post after nearly six years as regional administrator. In her role, she heads the Great Lakes Regional Working Group, a partnership among 16 federal agencies to implement the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.
Hedman was previously in the Illinois attorney general's office as environmental counsel. She has also worked in the U.N. tribunal that handled claims of environmental damage from Persian Gulf oil fires during the 1990s Gulf War.
Hedman told The Detroit News earlier this week that she had been aware of the potential lead contamination early on but failed to alert the public.
According to an internal EPA memo leaked last July, the Region 5 regulations manager for drinking water expressed concerns to his superior about the lack of corrosion controls in Flint's infrastructure.
The manager, Miguel del Toral, also criticized Flint's practice of asking residents to "pre-flush" their taps with water before testing.
Though this practice didn't technically break any EPA rules, it distorted the results of the lead testing and could give Flint residents a "false sense of security," he said.
Hedman's resignation marks a shift in attention from the GOP-controlled state -- whose practice of embedding "emergency managers" in Michigan's cash-strapped cities to put finances in order has been blamed for the crisis -- to the federal government.
House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) lambasted EPA following news of Hedman's resignation.
"EPA is rife with incompetence and Region 5 is no exception. Mismanagement has plagued the region for far too long and Ms. Hedman's resignation is way overdue," he wrote in a statement.
Congressional Republicans have mostly refrained from making statements on Flint. House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) spoke publicly on the issue yesterday.
"The people of Flint, Mich., deserve answers," he said after a closed meeting with EPA officials (E&ENews PM, Jan. 21).
EPA hands clean?
The agency announced in November it would audit the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality's water program. Hedman's resignation came three days after McCarthy indicated that the agency's actions did not precipitate the crisis.
"EPA did its job, but clearly the outcome was not what anyone would have wanted," McCarthy told reporters Monday. "So we're going to work with the state, we're going to work with Flint, we're going to take care of the problem."
The morning of Hedman's resignation, McCarthy seemed less sure that EPA's hands were clean. "We're really taking a hard look at what EPA might have done differently so that we can prevent a situation like this from ever happening again," she said at the Conference of Mayors annual winter meeting in Washington, D.C.
Michigan Democrats Sen. Gary Peters and Rep. Dan Kildee, who represents Flint, praised President Obama's call to set aside $80 million for Michigan's drinking water state revolving fund.
"Our community should get a significant share of these new federal resources to begin repairing the damage done by this terrible man-made crisis," Kildee said.
Asked when the people of Flint could drink their water, Snyder said, "Short term, we are making sure they have bottled water and/or filters."
But he said it would take time for people to trust what comes out of their taps. "I can understand why the citizens of Flint would have high skepticism of government," the governor said.
Asked whether regulators would have acted differently if Flint were less poor and more white in its demographic composition, Snyder said, "Absolutely not."
-
Spill Cleanup Regulations Moving Too Slowly for Top Dem
Jan 22, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
The Department of Transportation needs to speed up its rulemaking regulating how best to respond to oil spills from trains carrying highly flammable material, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee ranking member Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) wrote in a letter to Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx yesterday.
"I strongly urge you to re-assess your timeline and make finalizing this rulemaking a priority," he wrote.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration first proposed a rule for oil spill response plans for high-hazard flammable trains in April 2014. But the proposal was not an official one, and the agency has yet to issue a formal notice of proposed rulemaking, let alone an actual rule.
The recently enacted Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, which reauthorized transportation programs, attempted to speed the process along by requiring Foxx to submit updates on the rulemaking process to Congress. The spending plan that Congress and President Obama enacted late last year also required PHMSA to issue a final rule no later than Dec. 18, 2016.
But in his first update to Congress earlier this month, Foxx wrote the committee that a final rule would likely not be published until June 2017.
That's not good enough for DeFazio, who wrote to Foxx yesterday, "I am growing increasingly frustrated that [PHMSA] has thus far failed to issue a final rule on the matter.
"Your letter continues to inform that a final rule will not be published until June 2017, long after you have left office and a new administration that may or may not finalize this rulemaking is in place," he wrote. "Furthermore, even that date, according to your letter, may be adjusted as PHMSA moves forward with the rulemaking process, a clear signal that this is not a priority for the Department of Transportation. Meanwhile, crude-by-rail accidents continue to occur."
DeFazio wrote that hazardous material spills can be complicated for first responders, who may not know that a spill is flammable or harmful before they are on the scene of an accident. A rule from PHMSA could help educate fire and emergency medical services personnel about how to assess and respond to such an accident, he argued.
"While the railroads are providing some information to responders, it is not nearly enough to adequately prepare them for a potential spill," DeFazio said.
-
British Columbia Refinery has a 'Neater' Way to Transport Oil Sands
Jan 22, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Madelyn Beck
A newly proposed refinery in British Columbia is claiming it can green the oil sands production process by moving the substance in a raw, peanut butter-like state known as "neatbit."
Pacific Future Energy Corp.'s refinery proposal, sent to the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office and Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency last week, looks to transport primarily gasoline, jet fuel and diesel from Canada by 2021. Pacific hopes that by keeping the refinery in British Columbia between Terrace and Kitimat, they'll keep dangerous bitumen local and solid to get it out of pipelines and off ships.
"The purpose of our projects was we wanted to remove having dilbit or bitumen on the water," said Jacques Benoit, Pacific Future Energy's chief operating officer who has also worked to advocate for marine environments.
The company's head officers want it to be the greenest refinery worldwide, creating zero carbon emissions. The refinery plans to run off renewable energy, remove the carbon-emitting "coking" or heating/pressurizing process, and increase efficiency, all before the switch from "dilbit" -- diluted oil sands -- to neatbit.
Last year, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine found that pipeline dilbit leaks pose unique hazards to wildlife and the environment by sinking in bodies of water and becoming "sticky." A 2010 dilbit spill in Michigan's Kalamazoo River caused two years of cleanup efforts and cost Enbridge Inc. about $1.21 billion.
Neatbit, on the other hand, is so thick it's described as having the consistency of peanut butter, unable to flow under 81 degrees Celsius and is hardly flammable except under extreme temperatures. It's safe enough to earn exemption from Transport Canada's Transportation of Dangerous Goods regulations.
However, much of the available crude still needs to be diluted just to get to terminals where it can be put on trains linked with the new refinery. In order to take the additive out, Pacific Future suggests a "diluent recovery unit," which could be used to get the product back to mostly raw bitumen before it's loaded onto insulated, steam-coil heated train cars and brought to the refinery.
Others have also used "railbit," which uses about 15 percent diluent, compared to dilbit's 30 percent and neatbit's less than 2 percent. However, according to the U.S. Department of State's 2014 Keystone XL pipeline market analysis, railbit would be the least cost effective among the three forms because of transportation and diluent costs. It should be noted, though, that the price of oil has fallen significantly since the analysis.
Richard Kloster, senior vice president for consultant company AllTranstek LLC, said raw bitumen is a pain to move, but if someone could optimize their tanker loads to 100 percent bitumen, "It's kind of holy grail of crude by rail."
Cost matters
Canadian oil sands producers are struggling under low crude prices in one of the most cost-intensive extraction areas in the world. The companies need to get crude out of the area for refining in places that are outfitted to handle the thick crude, mostly in the United States.
But producers aren't seeing much relief in the United States because it's becoming increasingly difficult for pipelines to get approval for construction or expansion (see: Keystone XL).
Pacific Future says using the rails within Canada could help.
"Ninety-eight percent of our oil in Canada is being sent to the U.S. for refining," Benoit said. "[That's] 20 billion a year in revenue."
Pacific Future CEO Robert Delamar said the company discussed moving the neatbit with railway companies, and that there would be enough room on the rails to carry their increased neatbit loads.
Canadian National Railway Co., the area's main rail supplier, said in a statement it "has not engaged in any commercial discussions with Pacific Future Energy and has no comment about any matter related to its refinery proposal."
In a 2014 report, industry-backed Oil Change International estimated rail traffic, even under planned expansions, could only carry about 5.7 percent of Keystone XL's planned capacity to the Gulf Coast, where much of Canada's crude refining is done.
However, by cutting out diluent and only shipping to British Columbia, railways could see greater efficiencies than internationally and would keep revenues in Canada.
Not many outside of the rail industry know about neatbit or its large-scale possibilities, and little research has been done on its transportation. Currently, Benoit estimates 15,000 barrels of neatbit are shipped from Saskatchewan to Western refineries daily, mostly by trucks.
Upon approval
If approved, Pacific Future says its proposal would reduce carbon emissions by 97 percent from the average refinery, saving them from potential carbon taxes but helping to gain approval in British Columbia.
Beyond that, the new refinery could offer a way for the Liberal-run national government to start exporting the fuel they've long depended on for public funding, without seeming like they're supporting increased emissions.
Pacific Future's proposed refinery would be the first major upstream refinery in North America in 32 years and would incorporate work from its largest investor, SNC-Lavalin Group Inc., which has worked on carbon-capture technology and clean refining in Venezuela and the Middle East.
"They're all proven technologies," said Joydip Sanyal, SNC's engineering lead, adding that they are harnessing pieces from around the world to complete this cumulative project.
While SNC officials noted that the refinery is capital-intensive, they said this is the best time to build one. With oil costs this low, a more efficient refinery could mean buying up the nation's glut and selling products like gasoline for the same or even less price and making hefty returns. Even if oil prices rise, Sanyal said, "If a refinery is built, it will survive."
CEO Delamar said that once it's established, even under higher oil prices, dirtier refineries couldn't compete.
"The reality is, a lot of refineries are not going to be needed in coming years as more people start driving Elon Musk's mystery machines, right?" he asked, adding that once refineries start transitioning to keep up, "you're reducing your overall emissions over the nation ... and we get a cleaner, better future."
SNC officials said it would build their resume and reputation to prove they can create a zero-emission facility as they look to expand in both Canadian and Asian markets.
Delamar said they've already got four interested parties from Asia looking at their proposal, but to start construction by 2018 and start exporting by 2021, a lot has to come together, including the funding and technologies themselves.
Delamar is from Canada, but went to California for school, where he said he saw the automotive industry transformed by Tesla and realized the potential to change fossil-fuel industries in other ways. After looking around, he found the technology was already there, ready to be brought together.
"Guys like Elon Musk are my heroes, and there is a cleaner better way of doing things," he said. "The reality is, why hasn't anybody done this before?"
-
New Safety Technology to Operate on Some Metra Trains by End of Year
Jan 22, 2016 | Chicago Tribune
By Kate Thayer
Metra expects to begin using a new, federally-mandated system said to avoid crashes by the end of the year on its most used line, and meet a 2018 deadline imposed by Congress on the remainder of its system.
The technology, known as positive train control, uses GPS, radios, computers and antennas to slow or stop speeding trains, prevent collisions and override human errors. Congress ordered PTC be implemented on the nation's railroads after the 2008 collision of a Los Angeles-area commuter train and a freight train. Twenty-five people were killed.
In the wake of another fatal collision, an Amtrak executive urged Congress to mandate the PTC system, calling it the "single greatest contribution my generation of railroaders can make."
Although Congress originally implemented a 2015 deadline, that was extended to 2018 after railroads lobbied and threatened to shut down because they could not meet the earlier date.
Metra will begin equipping its Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific lines before the rest of the system because the freight lines that share those tracks are responsible for some of the work and ahead of Metra in implementation, said spokesman Michael Gillis.
Metra's share of the work on the BNSF line — the busiest — is expected to be complete this spring, but it must go through a testing period. If tests go well, PTC will be operational by the end of the year on the BNSF, Gillis said.
The three Union Pacific lines will go through that testing process later this year, and PTC is expected to begin running on those lines sometime next year, Gillis said. The seven remaining Metra lines will follow, but Metra is committed to meet deadlines imposed in federal legislation, he said.
Although a small amount of federal funding is provided specifically for PTC, Gillis said Metra's share will cost $350 million to $400 million to install the equipment, and $15 million to $20 million every year to maintain.
Metra plans to use capital funds to pay for the work and last year implemented a 10-year plan for fare increases in part to pay for PTC operating costs.
The first rate increase went into effect last year, and another is scheduled for Feb. 1. The upcoming rate hike will raise $6.5 million in new revenue for the PTC project and other work.
Monthly tickets will increase by a flat $2.50 per month, an increase of 0.9 percent to 2.7 percent, depending on the distance to Chicago. Ten-ride ticket customers will see an increase of $1.75 per month, an increase of 1.9 to 6 percent, depending on the distance of the trip.
And, one-way tickets will cost 25 cents more, an increase of 2.4 percent to 7.7 percent, depending on distance.
Reduced fares for special users — senior citizens, customers with disabilities and those on Medicare — were increased $1.25 on monthly fares and 75 cents on 10-ride tickets. There's no increase for special users for one-way fares.
-
BLM Rule to Cut Back Methane Waste Draws Quick Fire
Jan 22, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Phil Taylor
A rule unveiled today by the Bureau of Land Management clamping down on the loss of natural gas from roughly 100,000 wells on federal and tribal lands met immediate resistance from congressional Republicans and industry groups.
The measure forms a major plank in the Obama administration's effort to maximize domestic production and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The agency today is also updating regulations to give it more flexibility to raise the existing 12.5 percent royalty rate for onshore production, set in 1920. But no royalty hike is currently planned.
The rule aims to reduce the flaring, venting and leaking of methane from federally managed oil and gas wells. Methane, the main constituent in natural gas, is more than 25 times as potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
It would save society up to $188 million annually by allowing more natural gas to be sold and preventing the escape of methane and other pollutants, BLM said.
"I think most people would agree that we should be using our nation's natural gas to power our economy -- not wasting it by venting and flaring it into the atmosphere," Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said in a statement.
The rule drew swift attacks this morning from industry and Republican leaders who said the administration is using it as a roundabout way to keep federally owned oil and gas in the ground, as called for by climate change activists.
"Last week, it was an attack on coal on federal lands. This week, it's an attack on oil and natural gas on federal land," said House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). "This president has shown a real hostility toward creating much-needed energy infrastructure, yet his administration is forcing new regulations to capture methane emissions in regions where there is no infrastructure to do so."
The rule, more than five years in the making, would require operators to use off-the-shelf technologies to reduce flaring, which happens when operators burn off excess gas. According to BLM, flaring doubled from 2009 to 2013, driven in large part by oil wells in the Dakotas and New Mexico where there is not yet adequate pipelines to capture associated gas.
It would set gradually reducing caps on the amount of gas that may be flared from wells, beginning with a limit of 7,200 thousand cubic feet per well per month for the first year. That limit would be halved in the second year and halved again in the third year. Operators could comply by installing gas-capture infrastructure such as gathering lines, compressing the gas or stripping out the natural gas liquids and trucking it offsite, or by temporarily slowing production until capture infrastructure can be installed.
Caps on "routine" flaring would affect an estimated 16 percent of existing wells, which are responsible for about 87 percent of the amount of gas that's currently flared, BLM said. But the rule would also provide an exemption if operators can show that flaring limits would force them to abandon production and leave significant recoverable oil in the ground.
The rule would also require companies to prepare a "waste minimization plan" that evaluates opportunities for gas capture before being approved to drill a well. The plan would need to be shared with midstream gas capture companies to promote timely pipeline development, though the minimization plan would not be legally binding.
The rule would also require companies to perform periodic inspections for methane leaks using infrared cameras or portable analyzers assisted by audio, visual and olfactory inspection. Inspections initially would be required twice a year. If few leaks are discovered, inspections could be reduced to once a year. But the discovery of significant leaks would require quarterly inspections, BLM said.
The rule would seek to eliminate venting, which is the direct release of methane into the atmosphere. (Flaring eliminates most of methane's global warming potential.)
Venting would be allowed in narrow circumstances such as emergencies and from certain equipment subject to proposed limits, BLM said. In most cases, all "high bleed" pneumatic controllers would need to be replaced with "low bleed" controllers within a year. Certain pneumatic pumps would also need to be replaced with solar pumps or routed to a flare.
For the small number of storage tanks that vent more than 6 tons of volatile organic compounds annually, operators would have six months to begin capturing or flaring gas.
Operators would also have to capture, flare, use or reinject gas released during completions of conventional wells.
The new regulations would also clarify when companies owe the government royalties for flared gas. Current regulations allow companies to burn "unavoidably lost gas," which in BLM's estimation cannot be economically captured and therefore is not subject to royalties.
The proposed rule says royalties will apply only to gas flared from wells already connected to gas capture infrastructure. "This reduces [the] burden on operators to submit applications for approval to flare royalty-free," BLM said. As a result, BLM could then redirect administrative resources to process drilling permits and right-of-way applications, and to conduct inspections, it said.
Mixed reactions
Industry officials and congressional Republicans blasted the rulemaking, noting that it comes on top of BLM's rule to more tightly regulate hydraulic fracturing and EPA's efforts to control methane from the oil and gas sector.
BLM has also significantly slowed the pace of oil and gas leasing.
A burdensome rule could force industry to forgo drilling on public lands altogether, reducing royalties to the U.S. Treasury and limiting supplies of natural gas that can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by replacing coal in power plants.
"Another duplicative rule at a time when methane emissions are falling and on top of an onslaught of other new BLM and EPA regulations could drive more energy production off federal lands," said Erik Milito, director of upstream and industry operations at the American Petroleum Institute. "That means less federal revenue, fewer jobs, higher costs for consumers and less energy security."
Kathleen Sgamma of the Western Energy Alliance said flaring rates have been driven up in large part due to permitting delays in obtaining the rights of way to install gas capture pipelines.
"Rather than a long, drawn-out rulemaking, BLM could reduce venting and flaring rates tomorrow simply by approving permits for gas capture lines after years of delay," she said.
Moreover, by making it more difficult to operate on federal lands, BLM risks stifling production and will lose much more royalties than what the rule hopes to gain, she said.
BLM said the annual cost for industry to implement the rule will range from $125 million to $161 million.
Conservationists say the rule is long overdue.
"There is absolutely no reason that oil and gas companies should be able to freely waste hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer-owned resources without paying a dime," said Matt Lee-Ashley, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress who is a former Interior Department official under the Obama administration. "Requiring companies to plug leaks and set reasonable limits on the venting and flaring of natural gas are simple and effective first steps toward cutting waste and reducing the impacts of methane pollution on public health and the climate."
Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune said today's rule is a "positive step" toward ending all fossil fuel extraction on public lands.
Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp said "BLM is taking an important step to ensure the responsible development of our nation's natural resources."
It's unclear whether the rule will make a significant dent in the nation's greenhouse gas emissions.
According to U.S. EPA, oil and gas methane emissions on federal and tribal lands are about 4 percent of total domestic methane emissions.
Because methane accounts for about a tenth of overall domestic greenhouse gas emissions, direct emissions on federal and tribal lands would be responsible for about 0.4 percent of the nation's greenhouse gas portfolio.
In total, BLM's rule could avoid up to an estimated 169,000 tons of methane emissions per year, which is roughly equivalent to the greenhouse gas emissions from 875,000 vehicles, BLM said.
It could capture between 41 billion and 56 billion cubic feet of gas a year, which is enough to supply up to about 760,000 households each year, BLM said.
Data suggest the potential revenue gains from royalties on captured gas could be modest.
One study last summer by ICF International found that operators on federal lands vented, flared or leaked 62 billion cubic feet of gas in 2013, which amounts to $31 million in lost royalties. That's a small amount compared with the roughly $1.3 billion in royalties companies paid on gas and $1.5 billion paid on oil on those lands in 2013, according to Interior Department data.
BLM estimates its rule will result in the payment of an additional $9 million to $16 million in royalties annually.
-
Obama Administration Expands Climate Fight with Proposed Rules for Oil and Gas Drilling
Jan 22, 2016 | Washington Post
By Joby Warrick
The Obama administration took a step Friday toward plugging thousands of small methane leaks from oil and gas operations around the country, saying the escaping gas is contributing to climate change.
The Interior Department announced proposed regulations that would require energy companies to reduce methane leaks in order to drill anywhere on land owned by the government or Native American tribes. The proposals would affect more than 100,000 oil wells that supply about 10 percent of the nation’s natural gas.
A combination of accidental leaks and deliberate venting or flaring of methane gas from public and Native American lands released about 375 billion cubic feet of methane into the atmosphere between 2009 and 2014, according to government estimates. The leaks waste a valuable resource — the lost methane could have supplied energy for 5.1 million U.S. homes for a year — while also putting more heat-trapping greenhouse gases in to the atmosphere, U.S. officials say.
“I think most people would agree that we should be using our nation’s natural gas to power our economy – not wasting it by venting and flaring it into the atmosphere,” Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said in announcing the proposal. “We need to modernize decades-old standards to reflect existing technologies so that we can cut down on harmful methane emissions.”
The proposed regulations — which are opposed by the oil and gas industry — are the latest in a series of initiatives aimed at lowering U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases, which scientists say are contributing to a dangerous warming of the planet. The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to announce similar curbs for other oil and gas operations as part of an administration-wide effort to reduce U.S. emissions of methane gas by at least 40 percent by the year 2025, compared to 2012 levels.
Methane, the main component in natural gas, is about 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide in trapping the sun’s heat in the lower atmosphere, according to EPA estimates. But methane also dissipates relatively quickly —in a few decades, compared to centuries for carbon dioxide. Scientists say rapidly cutting methane pollution can buy the world’s nations more time to tackle the bigger challenge of reducing carbon emissions.
The Interior Department rules, if finalized, would impose new limits on venting and flaring — or burning off — of excess natural gas, a common practice in the oil and gas industry that prevents the buildup of pressure on wellheads. The proposals also sets standards for equipment by used energy companies and requires more frequent inspections to check for leaks, in the first significant update of the Interior Department’s regulations on methane in three decades.
Administration officials estimate that the regulations would prevent the loss about at least $115 million worth of methane a year, more than offsetting the equipment costs.
“The gas saved would be enough to supply every household in the cities of Dallas and Denver combined, every year,” said Neil Kornze, director of the Bureau of Land Management, the agency that oversees the bulk of government-owned lands in Western states.
Industry officials criticized the proposals as burdensome and unnecessary, saying energy companies already are adopting voluntary measures to prevent the loss of valuable methane.
“Another duplicative rule at a time when methane emissions are already falling — and on top of an onslaught of other new BLM and EPA regulations — could drive more energy production off federal lands,” said Erik Milito, director of upstream and industry operations for the American Petroleum Institute, the largest trade association for oil and gas companies. “That means less federal revenue, fewer jobs, higher costs for consumers, and less energy security.”
But environmentalists and watchdog groups praised the proposal as a boon for taxpayers and the environment.
“For too long, oil and gas companies have been allowed to waste billions of cubic feet in natural gas and avoid paying hundreds of millions in royalties,” said Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a fiscal watchdog group.
Josh Mantell, carbon management campaign manager for The Wilderness Society, applauded the proposed rule as a significant step in controlling greenhouse gas emissions. “These guidelines would have the added benefit of reducing pollution that causes disease and emissions that contribute to climate change,” Mantell said.
-
EPA Argues Courts Divided On Whether NSR Violations Are Single Events
Jan 22, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is arguing that courts are far from united on whether violations of the Clean Air Act new source review (NSR) permitting program are one-time events subject to a five-year statute of limitations or ongoing offenses that the agency can prosecute at any time, rebutting industry's claims that courts largely back the one-time event claim.
The agency's argument suggests that it disagrees with its opponents that recent federal appellate and district court rulings have restricted its ability to enforce the NSR program. Observers have suggested that the rulings have created additional hurdles for NSR enforcement by setting strict time limits on when the agency can pursue such cases, but EPA is countering in a new legal filing that case law on the one-time event claim remains unresolved.
The Department of Justice details EPA's position in a Jan. 21 brief filed on behalf of the agency with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Dallas, in a case where DOJ is seeking quick appeal of a loss on several NSR claims against a power company in a lawsuit where the court is yet to rule on various other claims.
The pending appeal is seen as teeing up an important U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruling on the time limits for enforcement of NSR and the related prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permitting program. NSR and PSD can require new or modified sources to install stringent air pollution controls. EPA has long prioritized enforcement of the NSR/PSD program against utilities for evading the permitting mandates.
Should EPA prevail in the 5th Circuit, however, that would create a circuit split and possible Supreme Court test of the NSR rules -- which might bolster or severely impede EPA's enforcement policy, depending on the outcome.
In the Texas district court case, EPA claims that Texas utility Luminant made modifications that increased pollution at its Martin Lake and Big Brown coal-fired power plants over several years, evading NSR. But the district court in an Aug. 21 ruling dismissed most of EPA's arguments, including most of the NSR claims, saying the NSR violations are not “ongoing,” as EPA claims, but rather are one-time events under the five-year statute of limitations.
DOJ has asked the court to take the procedural step of entering a final judgment on the dismissed NSR claims, so that EPA might appeal those claims to the 5th Circuit without waiting for a resolution of the remaining issues in the district court case. Luminant opposes the move, saying it would not be an efficient way to litigate the case. The company counters that the district court should resolve all pending claims before EPA can appeal.
In the Jan. 21 brief filed in United States of America and Sierra Club v. Luminant Generation Company, LLC, and Big Brown Power Company, LLC, DOJ rejects Luminant's claims and says that it would be less efficient to wait for a district court ruling on all claims, and that the legal question on the NSR claims is unresolved.
“It is far from settled that PSD violations are one-day violations,” DOJ says.
NSR Litigation
The suit targets NSR and other claims against Luminant, some of which date back more than than five years. EPA says that Luminant made modifications to power plants it either operates or owns, without going through the required NSR permit review that can trigger expensive pollution control requirements. Luminant in the suit says that NSR violations are one-time events, and those claims older than five years are therefore foreclosed by the statute of limitations, citing legal precedent from four circuit courts of appeals. EPA disputes this interpretation.
However, the district court in an Aug. 21 memorandum opinion and order dismissed all but one of EPA's six counts alleging NSR violations, citing the one-time nature of NSR/PSD violations and the statute of limitations.
In its new brief, DOJ says, “Defendants claim that courts of appeals have unanimously found that violation of Clean Air Act preconstruction requirements are not ongoing,” but faults the cases on which Luminant bases that claim. Those cases -- a 3rd Circuit decision from 2013 in United States v. EME Homer City Generation, and a 7th Circuit decision from the same year in United States v. Midwest Generation, LLC “do not squarely support Defendants' position that there is no relief available” for the older NSR claims, DOJ says in the new brief.
“In fact, Homer City, the court actually confirmed that injunctive relief cannot be barred by the statute of limitations in circumstances like those present here,” DOJ says. EPA is seeking injunctive relief that would require Luminant to remedy the NSR violations by obtaining the correct permits and possibly installing new pollution controls.
For example, the Homer City court held that, “If the EPA does not object within five years of the completion of a facility's modification, then it loses the right to seek civil penalties under the statute of limitations, but can still obtain an injunction requiring the owner or operator to comply with the PSD requirements.”
DOJ also rejects industry arguments that EPA would not be harmed by denial of its motion for partial final judgment, and hence does not meet the high bar for what Luminant says would be an unusual step. The government “will suffer injustice and hardship if the motion is denied,” DOJ says, warning of “inefficient serial litigation” of the claims and an inevitable EPA appeal of the district court's decisions against the agency.
Waiting to resolve the merits of all the district court claims before an appeal can proceed “will delay the injunctive relief to reduce air pollution that the United States may obtain if it is successful in this litigation,” DOJ writes.
The pollutants at issue in the government's claims of Clean Air Act violations -- sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides -- are known to form “secondary” fine particulate matter, DOJ says. “Secondary particulate matter decreases lung function, increases the prevalence of respiratory symptoms, worsens respiratory infections, causes heart attacks, and increases the risk of early deaths,” DOJ says. “Delaying injunctive relief to reduce air pollution imposes a hardship on the people that the United States brought this action to protect,” the brief says.
At least one legal source has said that while EPA is unlikely to persuade courts to agree with its argument that penalties for NSR violations should apply even after the statute of limitations has run, the agency's calls for injunctive relief years after the fact may fare better. The source calls the case “tough to handicap.”
-
Biz Groups Seek to Block Greens' Bid to Lower Ozone Standard
Jan 22, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
A coalition of business groups led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is directly contesting a legal bid by environmental groups to further tighten U.S. EPA's recently adopted ambient ozone standard of 70 parts per billion.
Lowering that benchmark further "would have even more devastating impacts" on the overall economy, according to a motion to intervene filed today by the U.S. Chamber, the National Association of Manufacturers and a dozen other trade organizations to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
EPA adopted the 70 ppb standard, which was at the upper range of options the agency considered, in October. The U.S. Chamber and many of the same groups that signed on to today's motion are already battling the new standard in a lawsuit filed last month. In today's motion, they are also challenging a separate appeal from the Sierra Club and other environmental and public health groups who argue that EPA should have adopted a 60 ppb benchmark to fully meet its legal obligation to protect public health (Greenwire, Dec. 23, 2015). On the other side, Murray Energy Corp., the Ohio-based coal giant, and eight states are also opposing the 70 ppb standard. All the suits have been consolidated.
"As the courts debate the legality of this new regulation, manufacturers are already feeling the impacts of this overly burdensome and unworkable rule," Linda Kelly, vice president and general counsel for the National Association of Manufacturers, said in a news release today. "This could be one of the most expensive regulations in history, creating significant barriers to manufacturers' ability to open new plants and expand existing operations."
Among the other business groups joining in the motion filed today are the American Petroleum Institute, the American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and the American Wood Council.
-
EPA Foes Threaten Supreme Court Battle to Freeze Climate Rule
Jan 22, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Emily Holden and Ellen M. Gilmer
Industry opponents of the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan vowed yesterday to go to the Supreme Court to challenge a federal appeals court's refusal to block the climate change regulations.
The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied requests by 27 states and numerous trade groups for a stay that would have barred U.S. EPA from implementing the carbon regulations for the electricity sector.
It was the latest in a series of setbacks to opponents seeking to stop the rule in its tracks.
"We are pleased that the court has rejected petitioners' attempts to block the Clean Power Plan from moving forward while litigation proceeds. ... We look forward to continuing to work with states and other stakeholders taking steps to implement the Clean Power Plan," the White House said in a statement last night.
But industry leaders insisted that yesterday's setback is just one chapter in a legal saga that could play out over many years.
The decision is "the first of many legal steps that will take place in the coming weeks and months as we seek to overturn Obama's costly power plan," the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity noted.
Coal company Murray Energy Corp., a key challenger of the rule, said it would appeal the stay decision to the Supreme Court. And West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R) said the coalition of states against the rule is also considering appealing the stay denial. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) said opponents will continue challenging the rule "wherever the case takes us."
In their suit against EPA, industry groups are arguing that the agency doesn't have authority to shift the electricity industry away from greenhouse gas-producing fossil fuels. They petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to stay the regulation, arguing that states and companies are already undertaking great efforts to plan ahead for standards that begin in 2022.
Judges denied that petition but will speed the process for considering the lawsuits and will hear oral arguments June 2. That's just months before states must submit to EPA their initial carbon-cutting plans.
EPA officials said they were pleased with the court's decision, but Natural Resources Defense Council attorney David Doniger cautioned that not issuing a stay is a small win for rule supporters in the litigation's broader context. It signals only that states and industry didn't meet the high bar for preliminary injunction, he said.
"The court simply said that they didn't meet the very stringent test," he said. But, Doniger added, the decision does reinforce supporters' confidence that the court will ultimately uphold the rule.
"It's a preliminary ruling, but it's a very good ruling," he said. "This deals a blow to political opponents to the Clean Power Plan, as well as legal opponents, because part of their political claim is that this is grossly illegal and so on and a great harm is happening. You can make those kind of claims in public, but when you can't convince the court; it takes the wind out of their sails."
Industry eyes 'horrific scenario'
Critics of the rule argue that although EPA won't require states to start cutting greenhouse gas emissions from power plants until 2022, the electricity industry is already beginning to make decisions to prepare for that shift. Most opposing states are exploring compliance options while awaiting final court decisions that could play out over years.
Clean Power Plan opponents raised concerns yesterday about the building momentum behind the greenhouse gas regulation taking place in the states.
"Failing to stay the rule puts pressure on states to develop compliance plans for a regulation that may very well turn out to be illegal," said R Street President Eli Lehrer. "During the ensuing confusion, we expect states to struggle to comply with the rule, energy providers to overhaul infrastructure and customers to bear higher costs and less reliable energy, when the rule ultimately may be found on shaky legal ground."
The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) said "charging ahead with implementation of the Clean Power Plan will cause immediate and irreparable harm" to co-ops and other companies that are taking "immediate costly and irreversible steps" to achieve EPA's goals.
But Kirk Johnson, senior vice president of government relations at NRECA, said in an interview that he was encouraged by the court's decision to expedite consideration.
Johnson said his members will continue to operate on a "two-track approach," planning for compliance while challenging the rule, because it would be irresponsible not to prepare. If the lawsuits fail, "we won't lose any sleep over the investment of time in the state planning process," he added.
Coal interests warned that the electricity industry might needlessly comply with the Clean Power Plan only to see it overturned later.
Murray Energy said in a statement that not pausing the rule sets up the "same horrific scenario" under which EPA's maximum achievable control technology standards for coal plants were allowed to proceed until the Supreme Court struck them down. He called companies' victory on that case "moot" because the rule had already forced the closure of 411 coal-fired plants.
Uncharted territory for the Supreme Court
Electric Reliability Coordinating Council Director Scott Segal said the Supreme Court may be receptive to Murray Energy's arguments.
"In the area of emergency stays, there is precedent for the Supreme Court to take action," he said.
If industry and states appeal to the Supreme Court, the justices could choose to take immediate action instituting a stay. Such emergency actions are relatively well-documented in criminal law and some other areas but are considered uncharted territory in Clean Air Act litigation.
Rule supporters assailed the approach, arguing that the Supreme Court would be unlikely to get involved.
"It would be extraordinarily unlikely that the Supreme Court would have any interest in getting involved at this point," said Richard Revesz, director of the American Law Institute at the New York University School of Law. "It's not going to happen."
Doniger agreed, noting that he couldn't think of a Clean Air Act rule where a failed stay request was reviewed by the Supreme Court.
Groups coordinating compliance planning urged state officials not to slow down their work to write carbon-cutting blueprints in anticipation of the ruling.
The court order sets an expedited briefing schedule for the case that will culminate in oral arguments on June 2. ClearView Energy Partners LLC analyst Christi Tezak said the schedule could represent an attempt by the court to issue a decision before key advances in the rule's implementation.
"We think it is possible that the D.C. Circuit intends to issue a ruling before the rule's September 6 deadline for states to file their initial State Implementation Plans (SIPs)," she wrote in a memo yesterday.Will states move forward?
Others said a decision might not come until early 2017.
Politicians in several states, including Alabama and Texas, have signaled that they were waiting for the stay decision before determining whether to write an initial plan and request a two-year extension from EPA in September. They criticized the ruling yesterday but did not offer further details into whether they would attempt to comply while awaiting court decisions.
"Regardless of the court's ruling today, the Obama administration's power plan not only remains bad policy but is also still unlawful," Texas' Paxton said. "This ill-advised example of federal overreach will kill jobs, result in higher electric bills and create a significantly less reliable electric grid for all consumers."
At least two Southeastern states have taken unique strategies while the rule hangs in the balance of the court.
Confident that the court would freeze the landmark rule, Alabama's air division chief said the state was going to wait before taking any steps toward writing a compliance plan. The Alabama Department of Environmental Management has formed a stakeholder group with electric and natural gas companies only and said it likely won't meet until late spring, or at least until after the court rules.
North Carolina is working on two plans after Gov. Pat McCrory (R) challenged two parts of EPA's compliance strategy, arguing that the agency's legal authority is limited to directly regulating generator emissions. The first plan covers compliance limited to efficiency improvements by the state's existing coal- and natural gas-fired power plants.
Experts expect EPA would reject that version, so North Carolina is working on a backup blueprint to avoid EPA assigning the state a federal compliance plan.
Gabriel Pacyniak, climate change mitigation program manager at the Georgetown Climate Center, said "even if states oppose the Clean Power Plan, developing a state plan may be in the best interest of their residents and stakeholders."
"I think certainly the fact that the court denied the motion for a stay means there is no reason for states to slow down" their planning processes, Pacyniak added.
-
Appeals Court Judges Represent 'Lucky' Draw for EPA
Jan 22, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
The Obama administration has chalked up a series of early wins in the behemoth lawsuit challenging its signature climate rule.
The latest: scoring a panel of judges that's widely seen as favorable to the government.
"They did get lucky," said James Rubin, a partner at Dorsey & Whitney LLP and former Justice Department attorney. "It could have been a lot worse."
On top of shooting down a request to halt the administration's Clean Power Plan yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit announced which three judges would decide whether the contentious regulation violated the law. They are: Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson, a Republican appointee, and Democratic appointees Judith Rogers and Sri Srinivasan.
"That's a pretty good panel for the government," said Jonathan Adler, a professor at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law who previously clerked on the D.C. Circuit.
The three-judge panel ordered an expedited time frame for the high-stakes case, scheduling oral arguments for June 2.
The lawsuit involves nearly 150 groups -- including 27 states -- suing the Obama administration over its rule to curb greenhouse gases from power plants. The final regulation is expected to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. State and industry groups contend that the rule is illegal and will have devastating economic impacts, while U.S. EPA and its backers insist it's an important step toward staving off the impacts of climate change.
An opinion from the D.C. Circuit's three-judge panel -- which could be issued in late summer or early fall -- is certain to be challenged regardless of the outcome, and the case is widely expected to wind up in the Supreme Court. Still, every court battle along the way will be important, and legal observers say it would be a bad sign if EPA doesn't get a favorable ruling when these judges dig into the merits.
Challengers of the rule tried -- and failed -- to keep the same panel of three conservative judges that rejected an earlier attempt to block EPA from even finalizing the rule. Those Republican-appointed judges -- Henderson, Brett Kavanaugh and Thomas Griffith -- rejected the early challenge on procedural grounds but didn't delve into the merits of the case.
State challengers of the rule told the court that "considerations of judicial efficiency" warranted keeping the same judges on the case. But the court denied that request, paving the way for the new panel that's seen as more likely to side with the administration.
That panel "would have been very bad for EPA," Rubin said. "If they lose in this panel, though, then they've got a problem."
Srinivasan as 'the swing'?
Lawyers following the case insist that it's impossible to predict how any particular judge will rule in a case, but their track records can give some indications about how they'll approach the issues. The droves of lawyers involved in the case are now hustling to study the judges on the panel to determine what arguments might sway them.
Here's a look at the three judges who will decide the case on its merits:
Judith Rogers: Rogers was appointed in 1994 by President Clinton after serving on the D.C. Court of Appeals, where she was chief judge. She previously worked in the Justice Department's criminal division and deputy attorney general's office.
Rogers has a reputation as an EPA defender. In a 2012 decision to throw out the Obama administration's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, Rogers dissented from her colleagues in the 2-1 ruling, saying that the decision was "trampling" on the court's precedent on Clean Air Act issues (Greenwire, Aug. 21, 2012). The Supreme Court later upheld EPA's program.
"Judge Rogers tends to give federal agencies a fair amount of leeway," Adler said.
Rubin added that "if they can't get Rogers now, they're going to have a hard time convincing the other judges on the court." Regardless of what the panel decides, one party is likely to seek en banc review by the full court.
Karen LeCraft Henderson: Henderson, a veteran of the D.C. Circuit, was appointed in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush. She had been a U.S. district court judge in South Carolina since 1986, when she was appointed to that job by President Reagan.
She's best known in the environmental world for sitting on the panel that heard the challenge to EPA's draft rule. In that case, Henderson joined her colleagues in refusing to block EPA from finalizing its then-draft rule. But while her colleagues said they do not have authority to review proposed agency rules, Henderson called that a "cramped view" of their authority. "We have jurisdiction here to issue a writ of prohibition," she wrote. "Nevertheless, simply because we have jurisdiction to grant a writ of prohibition does not mean that it is always appropriate to do so."
"More likely than not, she'll be a conservative vote against," Rubin said. But in the previous challenge, he added, "she didn't really show her cards on the merits."
Sri Srinivasan: The newest arrival on the judicial panel is Srinivasan, a President Obama appointee who joined the court in 2013. He was principal deputy solicitor general during the Obama administration and previously worked for the law firm O'Melveny & Myers LLP. He was also a law clerk for former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Srinivasan, 48, was dubbed "The Supreme Court Nominee-in-Waiting" by New Yorker writer Jeffrey Toobin in 2013. He's seen as smart but difficult to predict because he hasn't been on the court very long.
"He's the judge that we don't know as much about in terms of how he'll approach some of the larger questions that will play here," Adler said. "I think he would be inclined to give the EPA more leeway than, say, some of the more conservative judges on the court. He will likely be the swing on that panel."
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested