Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 4/8/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) Shale Gas-Linked Chemical Industry Investment Tops $164 Billion: ACC
Apr 8, 2016 | Kallanish Energy
U.S. chemical industry investment linked to natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from shale plays has reached $164 billion for 264 projects – up 128.7% in just three years — the American Chemistry Council (ACC) reports. -
(ACC Mentioned) Californian Hazard Warning Website Criticised
Apr 8, 2016 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has launched a new website to provide the public with information about the chemicals, products, and places associated with the state’s Proposition 65 law... -
Toxic Contamination Begins in the Womb
Apr 8, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Alex Formuzis
National media outlets, public health officials and Congress have all focused recently on lead contamination in drinking water, as they should be. -
California Proposes Maximum Dose Level for Ethylene Glycol
Apr 8, 2016 | Chemical Watch
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has proposed a maximum allowable dose level (MADL) of 8,700 micrograms per day for oral exposure to ethylene glycol. -
'How Fractivism 2.0' Could Change New York's Primary
Apr 8, 2016 | Newsweek
By Ari Philips
On April 19, when New Yorkers get their turn to vote on the country’s next leader, the future of natural gas—specifically gas that comes from hydraulic fracturing—will be on many people’s minds. -
Toxic Biocides May Not Be Needed Routinely at Fracking Sites, Study Shows
Apr 7, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Elizabeth K. Wilson
When oil and gas companies extract fuel from the earth via fracking, they routinely add biocides such as glutaraldehyde to the high-pressure water they use to fracture rock formations deep underground. -
Truth or Consequences in Energy Policy, Part III
Apr 8, 2016 | The Hill - Contributors' Blog
By Charles McConnell
This is the third and final part in this "Truth or Consequences" series. The first column focused on clean coal technology and the necessity for investment, and the second focused on the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean... -
EPA Urged to Delay Oil & Gas GHG Reporting Revisions Until After NSPS
Apr 8, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Oil and gas industry groups are urging EPA to delay its planned revisions to greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting rules for the sector that will address emissions leaks until after the agency finalizes its pending new... -
It's Time to Make Offshore Drilling Safer
Apr 8, 2016 | The Hill - Contributors' Blog
By Jackie Savitz
Six years ago, on April 20, the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded and sank in the Gulf of Mexico. The explosion killed 11 workers and set off an underwater spill that would ultimately spew roughly 210 million gallons of crude oil... -
Oil, Rail Interests Walked DOT Corridors in Runup to Crude-by-Rail Rule
Apr 8, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
At least two dozen energy and rail industry lobbyists visited the Department of Transportation last year as regulators wrapped up work on a sweeping crude-by-rail safety rule, according to federal records. -
Enviros Urge Court to Ditch Keystone XL Revival Effort
Apr 8, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Environmentalists who led the charge to kill the Keystone XL pipeline are lining up in court to make sure it stays dead. -
Battle over Obama's Rules Hits the Home Stretch
Apr 8, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Christa Marshall
Before President Obama took office, the Air Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) had two people on staff focusing on efficiency standards. Now it has four. -
EPA Retains Contested Compliance Deadline in Federal Sewage Air Plan
Apr 8, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA has issued a final federal plan to implement its sewage sludge incinerator (SSI) air toxics rule in several states that retains a contested compliance deadline for the underlying emissions standards... -
EPA, Greens Blast Efforts to Block Texas Haze Rule
Apr 8, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA and two environmental groups are strongly contesting bids by the state of Texas and several power companies for a court-ordered stay of regional haze regulations.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Shale Gas-Linked Chemical Industry Investment Tops $164 Billion: ACC
Apr 8, 2016 | Kallanish Energy
U.S. chemical industry investment linked to natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from shale plays has reached $164 billion for 264 projects – up 128.7% in just three years — the American Chemistry Council (ACC) reports.
Forty percent of the investment for the 264 projects – new facilities, expansions and factory re-starts – is completed or underway, while 55% is in the planning phase, Kallanish Energy understands.
“U.S. chemical manufacturers rely on natural gas for heat and power, and it contains ethane, an NGL that serves as our main feedstock,” Owen Kean, ACC senior director of Energy Policy, said. “Dramatic supply growth has had an equally dramatic impact on U.S. natural gas prices. It’s a stunning reversal of fortune from just a few years ago, when the chemical industry was losing market share – and jobs – to competitors abroad.”
Kean added America enjoys a “robust supply outlook, expected to last for decades, and a price environment that’s the envy of the world. Our country has become the most attractive place in the world to make chemicals, and a historic wave of expansion and investment is underway.”
ACC analysis shows that $164 billion in capital spending could lead to $105 billion annually in new chemical industry output, and support 738,000 permanent new jobs across the U.S. by 2023.
The jobs breakout includes 69,000 new chemical industry jobs, 357,000 jobs in supplier industries and 312,000 jobs in communities where workers spend their wages. Much of the new investment is geared toward export markets, which can help improve the U.S. trade balance, ACC believes.
“We need the right regulatory and policy approaches in order to fully realize the potential of shale gas as an engine of manufacturing growth,” Kean said. “Policymakers must avoid unreasonable restrictions on oil and gas production on public lands; keep oversight of production on private lands in the hands of the states; and expedite the construction and permitting of infrastructure, such as pipelines, needed to move natural gas and NGLs to market.”
The data released this week by ACC updates the ACC report, “Shale Gas, Competitiveness, and New U.S. Chemical Industry Investment — An Analysis of Announced Projects.”
Published three years ago, it examined nearly 100 chemical and plastics projects totaling $71.7 billion in potential investment announced as of March 2013. The figures are growing as new projects are announced.
https://www.kallanishenergy.com/2016/04/08/shale-gas-linked-chemical-industry-investment-tops-164-billion-acc/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Californian Hazard Warning Website Criticised
Apr 8, 2016 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has launched a new website to provide the public with information about the chemicals, products, and places associated with the state’s Proposition 65 law, which requires warning labels on products sold in California if they contain chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.
The development is being criticised by the American Chemistry Council (ACC). The trade group claims the site contains ‘inaccurate information and offers no simple mechanism for correction’.
‘Chemical makers invest significant resources to study and test the products of chemistry and to thoroughly understand a variety of factors including to what degree individuals are exposed to chemicals, as the mere presence of a chemical is not an indication that there is cause for health concerns,’ the ACC said in a statement.
When the site was first proposed, the ACC suggested that it would duplicate the various resources that already provide similar information for consumers. However, OEHHA spokesman Sam Delson says his office created the site because chemical companies objected to providing this kind of information. ‘We get literally thousands of calls every year from people who see Prop 65 warnings and want to know more about the chemicals and the hazards,’ he tells Chemistry World. ‘It is the companies’ responsibility to provide that information, but often they send them back to us.’
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2016/04/californian-hazard-warning-website-criticised-oehha
-
Toxic Contamination Begins in the Womb
Apr 8, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Alex Formuzis
National media outlets, public health officials and Congress have all focused recently on lead contamination in drinking water, as they should be. The tainted water in Flint, Mich., Newark, N.J. and many other communities around the country poses a serious, potentially lifelong public health threat to millions.
But industrial pollution in people happens long before they take their first sip of water. Most of us encounter chemicals that can cause brain damage, cancer and other serious health problems in a place critical to human development – the mother’s womb.
In 2009, EWG conducted a pioneering study testing the umbilical cord blood of 10 babies for toxic chemicals. In all, the tests found more than 230 industrial pollutants across the 10 samples. Among those that were in the cord blood of every one of the 10 newborns were lead, mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Here’s why they’re so dangerous:
Lead
Unsafe at any level, lead is a highly neurotoxic metal that is strongly linked to permanent brain and nervous system damage as well as behavior and learning difficulties, hyperactivity, slowed growth, hearing and reproductive problems and nerve disorders, according the Environmental Protection Agency.
“Three decades of research have shown clearly that lead damages the human brain,” EWG’s 2009 report said. “Advances in cognitive and behavioral testing have allowed researchers to discern harm at lower and lower exposures. There is no known safe threshold for exposure.”
How does lead get into cord blood? Most often it happens when mothers drink tap water contaminated with lead leaching from old water pipes or when they ingest or breathe dust from chipped lead paint in older homes.
Although the levels of lead in Flint’s drinking water are far too high to be eliminated by in-home water filters, filters can often significantly reduce, if not completely remove, lead. There are a number of affordable options. Find a water filter that is right for you and your family with EWG’s Water Filter Buying Guide.
Mercury
Like lead, mercury is a naturally occurring element and a notorious neurotoxin that impedes development of the brain and nervous system. The primary sources of mercury contamination today are coal-fired power plants, which have tainted the oceans and fresh waterways around the globe. Mercury is also used in some commercial products, including fluorescent light bulbs and older thermometers. It converts readily into methylmercury, the most toxic form, which builds up in the food chain, most notably in seafood.
How does it get into cord blood? Eating methylmercury-tainted seafood is a common source of contamination and almost certainly the primary route of exposure for babies in the womb.
EWG recently issued an analysis critical of the federal government’s new dietary advice, which encourages pregnant women to eat seafood for its beneficial omega-3 fatty acids and other nutrients but underemphasizes the risks of eating species that are high in mercury.
The amount of mercury in seafood varies widely. Some species, such as tuna, can have especially high levels, and pregnant women should limit or avoid it. Other species with high levels of mercury that should be avoided by women who are or plan to get pregnant include shark, swordfish and marlin. EWG’s Consumer Guide to Seafood identifies which seafoods are high and low in mercury as well as healthful omega-3s.
“To protect your baby from toxic mercury and ensure his or her healthy development, you should not only watch how much fish you eat, but what kind of fish,” wrote EWG’s Sonya Lunder, chief author of the report.
PCBs
PCBs are a family of toxic chemicals that were produced by Monsanto from the 1930s until 1976, when the federal government banned them amid mounting evidence that they were harmful to human health. The EPA considers them probable human carcinogens, and they also pose risks to the neurological, reproductive and immune systems. PCBs are so persistent in the environment that 40 years after they were banned, they still show up in people (including in cord blood) and in animals that live thousands of miles from places where PCBs were produced and used, including polar bears, whales and dolphins.
Products that were once made with PCBs include electrical equipment, motor oil, cable insulation, pesticides, packaging, packing tape and other adhesives, oil-based paint, caulking, paper, plastics and floor finishes.
How do PCB's get into cord blood? It’s primarily through food. PCBs enter the food chain in various ways, including migrating from packaging and through contaminated animal feed.
Avoiding exposure to PCBs is difficult because these ubiquitous chemicals have reached even the most remote corners of the globe. It helps to avoid eating too much red meat and to trim fat from both red meat and fish before cooking, because PCBs build up in fatty tissues. When possible, choose fresh or canned wild-caught Alaskan salmon, because farmed salmon are often raised on feed that contains PCBs.
Find out more about PCBs in farmed versus wild salmon in this EWG report.http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2016/04/toxic-contamination-begins-womb
-
California Proposes Maximum Dose Level for Ethylene Glycol
Apr 8, 2016 | Chemical Watch
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has proposed a maximum allowable dose level (MADL) of 8,700 micrograms per day for oral exposure to ethylene glycol.
Ethylene glycol was listed as a reproductive toxicant under Proposition 65 effective 19 June 2015. Once finalised, the MADL will represent the safe harbour exposure limit. Below this a Prop 65 warning is not required.
The substance is used in the synthesis of polyester compounds and is present in a variety of consumer products, including:
· ballpoint pens;
· automotive anti-freeze;
· paints; and
· plastics.
The proposed MADL is based on the monograph for ethylene glycol published by the National Toxicology Program, Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (NTP-CERHR), plus additional studies since completed.
Comments on the proposal will be accepted until 23 May. A public hearing may be scheduled, on request.
https://chemicalwatch.com/46391/california-proposes-maximum-dose-level-for-ethylene-glycol
-
'How Fractivism 2.0' Could Change New York's Primary
Apr 8, 2016 | Newsweek
By Ari Philips
On April 19, when New Yorkers get their turn to vote on the country’s next leader, the future of natural gas—specifically gas that comes from hydraulic fracturing—will be on many people’s minds.
Clean energy and climate activists are hoping to build on the attention a highly public skirmish between Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders about the role of fossil fuel money in campaigns has already brought to the New York race. At the same time, illustrating the success of the multi-year, multi-pronged anti-fracking movement in the state, which has now evolved into ‘fractivism 2.0’—a broader endeavor pushing for change across the energy and climate platforms—could give a boost of momentum to these issues at the national level.
In one example of this on Tuesday, April 5, several hundred activists rallied in Albany, the state’s capital, to ask the Democratic candidates (as well as Republicans Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and John Kasich if they can be bothered) to take a stand against natural gas pipelines that are slated to crisscross the state. One of these pipelines, the Constitution Pipeline, or the “unConstitution Pipeline” as it’s referred to by the Stop the Pipeline organization, is in the final stages of the approval process. Activists are hoping New York Governor Andrew Cuomo will use the state’s authority under the Clean Water Act to deny the pipeline a necessary water quality permit.
While Cuomo is yet to take a stance on pipelines and other natural gas infrastructure that processes fuel from places like the gas-rich Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania, his administration banned hydraulic fracturing in the state in 2014 in response to concerns about health risks. New York remains the only state in the nation with proven gas reserves to have such a ban in place.
Alex Beauchamp, the Northeast Region Director at Food & Water Watch, told me he thinks the next logical step for the movement after the statewide fracking ban was to try and stop reliance on fracked gas from other states—gas that enters the state though “a maze of pipelines, storage facilities, and compression stations.”
Beauchamp said that even though New York has outlawed fracking, the state is using even more natural gas that it was just a few years ago due to imports from out-of-state supplies. He also said many of the people involved in the push to eliminate fracking and natural gas expansions are pushing for a “real plan” to get the state on track to get 100 percent of its energy from renewable sources.
“We need enforceable benchmarks along the way,” he said. “There is no real actual plan to get us there.”
In a testament to this, the 100 percent Renewable NY campaign and the Fossil Free state divestment campaign are organizing a Climate Change Lobby Day on Monday, April 11, at the state capitol. Bills promoting 100 percent clean energy by 2030, divestment from fossil fuels, and other climate- and clean energy-friendly policies, such as offshore wind production, will be discussed.
With a high-profile New York primary fast approaching, Hillary Clinton—a two-term senator for New York—is meeting face-to-face with her home state’s anti-fracking movement; a movement that is gathering force around Bernie Sanders, who recently said in a debate that he does not support fracking.
Clinton’s answer to the question in the March 6 debate was less straightforward. She told moderator Anderson Cooper that she supports fracking only in very specific circumstances: when local governments approve, when companies are forthcoming about the chemicals they’re using, and when they can prove they aren’t polluting nearby water or land.
“By the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue,” Clinton said.
Expect at least one fossil fuel-related question to come up at the Democratic debate in Brooklyn on April 14.
As Ben Adler at Grist recently pointed out, Clinton and climate activists appear to butt heads on several key issues, including fossil fuel production on public lands and the value of natural gas as a “bridge fuel” to smooth the transition to renewables.
“Clinton’s platform on fossil fuels has been moving steadily leftward since she entered the race, as she has come out against Arctic and Atlantic offshore drilling, called for stricter fracking regulation, and endorsed leasing reform,” wrote Adler. “But climate activists won’t be satisfied until she fully embraces the principle that the government shouldn’t help produce fossil fuels at all—not even natural gas as a supposed lesser evil than coal.”
Clinton’s history of supporting natural gas during her stint as United States Secretary of State from 2009-2013 is also worrisome to some, even though at the time it was really just part of the Obama administration’s overall support of the industry.
The administration has changed its tune somewhat in recent years, and the EPA recently said that tackling methane emissions is one of its top issues in 2016. Methane is a very potent greenhouse gas and leaks from natural gas infrastructure—such as the devastating leak from a dated well outside of Los Angeles earlier this year—are major contributors to the problem. The Obama administration recently set a goal of slashing methane emissions by up to 45 percent from 2012 levels over the next decade.
Beauchamp said he still considers there to be a lack of leadership on natural gas production and fracking at a national level, saying “there’s really a lag from what we’re seeing at a state level.”
Even so, compared to eight years ago when fracking really wasn’t even an issue in the presidential election, the overall shift in discussion is dramatic. Beauchamp thinks it could even play a role in fracking-friendly Pennsylvania, which holds its primary on April 26.
“I there there’s a shift in Pennsylvania as well,” he said. “The myth is that where’s there’s fracking they love it and where there isn’t they oppose it. What we see in polling is that as people become more familiar with what it is, they tend to dislike it more.”
A recent Gallup poll found that since last March there has been an 11-percentage point increase in those opposing the practice. Perhaps most surprisingly, the percentage of Republicans in support of fracking declined 11 percentage points. This polling coincides with polls showing that more than two-thirds of Americans are now “worried” about global warming—an eight-year high.
Deborah Goldberg, the managing attorney of Earthjustice’s Northeast regional office, told me that many of the upstate New Yorkers who helped lead the charge against fracking in the state were not “traditional left-leaning, tree-hugging types of people,” but they were still galvanized by the destruction that oil and gas development was wreaking on other places. She said she thinks the the success of the New York movement gave “people hope that where they are able to really organize and educate each other, they can make a difference.”
Since the Cuomo administration made the determination to prohibit fracking, Goldberg said people who were engaged in that fight have become involved in a “wide array of efforts to address infrastructure that facilitates the transportation and storage or processing of natural gas and oil” such as the Constitution Pipeline, which is “emblematic of what they’re fighting for.” She said this is a much more diffuse movement because it can’t be fought with just one rule or regulatory process, but requires lots of different angles.
She also said a lot of people are working on the positive side to try and develop clean energy at the state, county, and local levels. She said they refer to all these efforts together as “fractivism 2.0.”
“They’re trying to prevent the country and the planet from digging their own graves by committing ourselves to another 50 or 100 years of burning fossil fuels,” she said.
http://europe.newsweek.com/how-fractivism-could-change-new-yorks-primary-445265?rm=eu
-
Toxic Biocides May Not Be Needed Routinely at Fracking Sites, Study Shows
Apr 7, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Elizabeth K. Wilson
When oil and gas companies extract fuel from the earth via fracking, they routinely add biocides such as glutaraldehyde to the high-pressure water they use to fracture rock formations deep underground. These compounds are a preemptive strike against microbes that produce hydrogen sulfide, which can corrode pipelines.
New research, however, calls into question the across-the-board addition of toxic biocides to water used in fracking. Jason Gaspar and Pedro Alvarez at Rice University and colleagues, including scientists at energy firm Statoil, performed numerous tests at fracking sites in the Bakken Shale Formation in the north-central U.S. and in Canada. There, they found that H2S might be formed in fracking wells by geochemical reactions, rather than microbes (Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett.2016, DOI:10.1021/acs.estlett.6b00075).
At the Bakken sites, the team found, temperatures at the depths that the biocide-laden water is injected run about 120 °C, too hot for sulfogenic microbes to survive. In addition, DNA tests of injected water samples showed no evidence of microbes, and sulfur isotope analysis indicated that H2S recovered from the samples was produced abiotically.
The researchers suggest that the H2S might instead have been produced via the reaction of underground calcium sulfate anhydrite with methane.
H2S problems at other, cooler sites, such as the Marcellus shale formation in the eastern U.S., may still be caused by bacteria.
But, Gaspar says, a well-by-well approach to applying biocides might be more cost-effective. For example, companies could take core samples at each site and share their results in an open-source database.
Thomas Borch of Colorado State University says the discovery that H2S may be produced abiotically is “definitely eye-opening.” However, he’s concerned that the abiotic H2S treatment could involve increased use of corrosion inhibitors.
Radisav Vidic, at the University of Pittsburgh, says the study adds to growing evidence that the blanket use of biocides is unwarranted.
Kyle James Bibby, also at the University of Pittsburgh, agrees. “This work is an important reminder that biocide isn’t the solution to all problems,” he says.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i15/Toxic-biocides-needed-routinely-fracking.html
-
Truth or Consequences in Energy Policy, Part III
Apr 8, 2016 | The Hill - Contributors' Blog
By Charles McConnell
This is the third and final part in this "Truth or Consequences" series. The first column focused on clean coal technology and the necessity for investment, and the second focused on the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan and what it has been advertised as — and what it fails to do. So how do we pursue clean accessible energy in the most effective and impactful way?
Very recently, Microsoft co-founder and philanthropist Bill Gates penned his annual letter, which was laser-focused on one topic: clean, accessible energy. The truth, as he described it, is that "time is not on our side" regarding carbon dioxide emissions, and to stop irreparable harm, we must eliminate the 36 billion tons of carbon dioxide we emit every year. He stated that it will take an "energy miracle" to accomplish the task. He also stated how critical it is to provide electricity to the 1.3 billion people today who don't have energy and are in need of our help. The consequences are enormous if we do not, as we can make the argument that providing energy is a matter of globally security in terms of political stability and people's welfare.
Gates also called for the government to play a "big role" in funding energy initiatives. What he did not call for was the elimination of fossil fuels. He recognized that inexpensive hydrocarbons will present huge challenges and opportunities to our society to curb emissions and provide electricity — and that science has "lots of miracles that it has provided," as he noted in an interview soon after releasing the annual letter.
The consequences of not pursuing the investment necessary to create scientific miracles is our challenge. But what steps are we taking, and are they relevant and impactful? Are we pursuing miracles or are we declaring victory by singling out the elimination of coal by passing legislation such the Clean Power Plan, while the rest of the world increases coal consumption 20 percent per year? Are we providing miracles by having the administration provide tax and investment credits of $14.5 billion and $9.3 billion, respectively, to existing wind and solar technologies in the most recent budget discussion — all to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by 500 million tons per year?
Sounds like a lot, right? But it isn't. Five-hundred million tons per year is 7 percent of U.S. emissions, which is approximately 10 percent of global emissions. So, it's less than 1 percent globally! This is a miracle? For $25 billion of our tax dollars? Are we pursuing scientific advancement or simply subsidizing existing wind and solar and making our energy more expensive at home and less competitive globally? It's the latter, and it’s no miracle.
The Clean Power Plan is no miracle either, with even less impact to the environment at the expense of affordable energy. And let's just say it was impactful for the climate — we are not accepting societal responsibility by simply placing 40 percent of the plan's implementation on the backs of seven states that export a great deal of that energy to the other 43 states (the takers). And did I already say it wasn't meaningful climate legislation anyway? So why are we arguing about implementation?
So how does one envision what can be an energy miracle? Our Energy and Environment Initiative at Rice University demands that we pursue energy sustainability by passing three tests in a simultaneous framework. First, energy must be available, reliable and secure — everything that defines "accessibility." Second, it must be cost-competitive and economically advantaged — it must be affordable. And finally, the energy must be explored, developed, transformed, delivered and consumed in a way that people and the communities in which we live can coexist – it must be environmentally responsible. We don't "love" coal or oil and gas, wind or solar, or any particular fuel or technology. What we love is the pursuit of energy sustainability and the technology that can provide it. There is no one answer, and the global landscape of resources and energy production is vastly different. Countries are growing and trying to step out of poverty. They need energy, not a morality lesson from the U.S. They need technology, not to be forced to adopt what people in the U.S. think is good for them.
Energy sustainability can only be accomplished through transformative technology and the miracle of science. Not bad policies, not subsidies to give something an advantage versus something else, not choosing one of the three tests in the framework above at the expense of the other two. We must pursue a miracle through science and technology.
Environmental responsibility goes beyond a singular focus on carbon dioxide emissions, as well. It is far too easy to make the environmental story one-dimensional. It's easier; it's a sound bite. But it's insufficient! We have other challenges as well as carbon dioxide:
1. Treating water in fracking at the site and eliminating wastewater disposal and the resulting seismic impacts. Developing advanced science and nanotechnology to solve the problem, not banning the development of "clean burning" natural gas. It's too easy and too naive to oppose fracking while applauding available and affordable natural gas.
2. Developing transformative technology for oil and gas exploration in unconventional and offshore exploration and production, computational mathematics, advanced materials of construction, and systems to ensure fail-safe operations. Don't ban oil and gas exploration and production; make it excellent and pass all three of the sustainability tests so we have public confidence in environmental responsibility. And at the same time, improve oil and gas productivity at a time when advanced technology is so critically important to sound economics.
3. Capturing carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants (and natural gas, as well) and using the carbon dioxide for enhanced oil recovery to improve productivity and the footprint of oil and gas exploration. And then storing that carbon dioxide in a geological formation safely and permanently to eliminate the emissions. Don't ban fossil-fueled energy and low-cost supply. Make it carbon dioxide emissions neutral by capturing the carbon dioxide. Our next barrel of oil can come from this existing, environmentally responsible enhanced oil production, not another new field.
The miracles will come from investing in everything: renewables, nuclear and fossil fuels. None of these energy sources is a clear winner for energy sustainability (the three tests), and if there were one, we would all rush to embrace it. But there is no silver bullet. Let's pursue the real energy miracle and invest in all that is necessary, relevant and impactful.
Let's ask and answer the tough questions, do the math, pursue real solutions and test them for relevance and impact and stop pounding our chests about our fuel of choice and "belief." Let's use our minds and wisdom and require our government and agencies to fully explore all aspects of energy sustainability. We deserve answers on cost and reliability, not to simply be fed just what we "need to hear" to promote an agenda.
Technology enables this pursuit of real energy sustainability and the clean, accessible energy Bill Gates calls for. Accessible, affordable and environmentally responsible. That's the energy miracle!
McConnell is executive director of the Energy and Environment Initiative at Rice University and a former assistant secretary of energy at the Department of Energy from 2011 to 2013.
This is the third installment in a three-part series. Part I is available here and part II is available here.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/275644-truth-or-consequences-in-energy-policy-part-iii
-
EPA Urged to Delay Oil & Gas GHG Reporting Revisions Until After NSPS
Apr 8, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Oil and gas industry groups are urging EPA to delay its planned revisions to greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting rules for the sector that will address emissions leaks until after the agency finalizes its pending new source performance standards (NSPS) to set first-time limits on the sector's emissions of the potent GHG methane.
"By proceeding with this rulemaking before addressing the numerous concerns about" the NSPS rules, "EPA could be putting a program in place that is likely to be problematic for the oil and natural gas industry," the groups Western Energy Alliance, Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) and American Exploration & Production Council (AXPC) say in joint comments filed March 15. The groups "strongly urge EPA to suspend its update" to the reporting rules until the NSPS is finalized.
Similarly, the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA), which represents the transmission and storage sector of the industry, says in March 15 comments that the GHG reporting rule update is "premature" because it incorporates provisions from the pending final NSPS, which is undergoing White House review.
The NSPS, which EPA sent for pre-publication review April 4 and is projected for issuance in June, would impose first-time methane limits on the oil and gas sector but would not affect existing oil and gas operations.
It would also set controls for volatile organic compounds and methane for some sources not regulated under an earlier 2012 NSPS, such as hydraulically fractured oil wells and downstream compressors and other equipment. Those controls include first-time leak detection and repair (LDAR) requirements for the industry, which industry has criticized as too strict and environmentalists have urged the agency to strengthen further, expand them to a wider range of sources and increase the frequency with which industry would have to conduct inspections for leaks.
Separately, EPA Jan. 29 issued its proposed revisions and confidentiality determinations for the petroleum and natural gas systems source category of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP), floating new monitoring methods for detecting leaks from oil and gas equipment and add emission factors for leaking equipment to be used in conjunction with these monitoring methods to calculate GHG releases from leaks. The proposal would impose new reporting mandates and confidentiality determinations for nine new or revised data elements.
Reporting Proposal
Oil and gas groups in their comments on the GHG reporting proposal are citing the overlap between the two rules as reason for delaying any final action on the reporting plan until EPA issues the final NSPS. They argue that even if the agency does not delay finalizing the revised requirements, the proposal does not accurately take into account the leak criteria in the proposed NSPS and includes flawed methodology.
For example, the proposed reporting revisions include different methodologies used to determine if equipment or components at a facility are leaking, what defines a leak, leak survey frequencies and reporting requirements based on the proposed NSPS rule, but EPA may change some of the NSPS controls in the final rule, INGAA says in its comments.
"In that case, the regulated community and the public would not have had an opportunity to review the full extent of the changes" to the reporting program, the group argues.
The American Gas Association, which represents local energy distribution companies, says in March 15 comments that EPA's plan to revise the GHG reporting requirements to be "consistent with the leak detection methods found in the proposed NSPS is premature, procedurally flawed, and ignores the significant criticism of the leak detection requirements proposed in the NSPS."
The separate comments filed by IPAA, Western Energy Alliance, and AXPC, say that they previously expressed concern that the LDAR approach in the proposed rule would stifle innovation of new leak detection methodologies. "Despite our substantive concerns, EPA appears to double down on this problematic approach to LDAR technology by incorporating it directly in the proposed GHGRP changes," the comments say.
The groups also raise concerns regarding the proposed leak calculation methodology that may lead to unreasonably high emissions estimates, saying that EPA's determination of the number of hours a component has been leaking is problematic when an operator uses the exact counts of leaks and leak emission factors.
Environmentalists' Comments
Environmentalists, meanwhile, are urging EPA to strengthen the GHG reporting proposal. Their comments include calls for expanding the proposed revisions to require operators to identify leaks using actual detection methods such as optical gas imaging -- which industry opposes -- and for establishing a near-term date for applying the requirements to all leak sources, not just those subject to the pending NSPS rules.
In comments filed March 18 by Environmental Defense Fund, the group urges EPA to revise the proposal to ensure that leak survey requirements apply to all fugitive emission components, including those that are potentially significant sources of emissions like controlled storage tanks and gas-liquid separators; enable direct quantification of emissions; ensure facilities that do not directly quantify their emissions use emissions factors that accurately reflect so-called "super emitters;" and craft a pilot plan to help accelerate deployment of other advanced monitoring methods that could improve the reporting data.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-urged-delay-oil-gas-ghg-reporting-revisions-until-after-nsps
-
It's Time to Make Offshore Drilling Safer
Apr 8, 2016 | The Hill - Contributors' Blog
By Jackie Savitz
Six years ago, on April 20, the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded and sank in the Gulf of Mexico. The explosion killed 11 workers and set off an underwater spill that would ultimately spew roughly 210 million gallons of crude oil into the ocean before finally being stopped 87 days later. The government has not done enough in the subsequent years to ensure this will not happen again. New rules are being proposed, however, and should be passed as soon as possible.
This disaster had wide-ranging impacts on the marine ecosystem, human health and the economy. For instance, many dolphins were killed and many of those that lived were unable to reproduce. Others suffered from lung damage. About 800,000 birds died. Harvests of oysters and fish plummeted. Workers involved in spill cleanup were exposed to chemicals that damaged their lungs. These workers also suffered from increased depression and anxiety. The Gulf's fishing communities were devastated, with the spill's impact on commercial and recreational fisheries estimated to cause a loss of $8.7 billion and 22,000 jobs over a seven-year period. The tourism economy also suffered.
In the years since the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the Obama administration has taken some important steps to protect oceans and coastal communities from oil spills. The Minerals Management Service (MMS) — the agency in charge of regulating offshore energy development — was reorganized into three separate bureaus. One of them, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), was assigned to promote safety and protect the environment. In October 2010, BSEE issued the Drilling Safety Rule, setting in place stronger safety standards for the design of offshore (oil and gas) wells.
While the administration just last month heeded the voices of small businesses, fishermen and more than 100 coastal communities by removing the Atlantic Ocean from the draft plan for offshore oil and gas leasing for the next several years, there is still important work to be done.
Since the spill, Congress has not passed a single new law that would reduce the risk of another disastrous spill. In the past decade or more, the oil and gas industry has moved to deeper waters and harder-to-access frontier areas in which operations are even more dangerous and safety measures have simply not kept pace. So it should not be surprising that there has been no significant decline in losses of well control or other incidents, including spills on the Outer Continental Shelf, since the disaster in 2010. Despite industry claims to the contrary, offshore drilling remains about as dirty and dangerous as it was before the Deepwater Horizon began spewing oil into the Gulf.
The tragedy exposed several shortcomings in spill prevention and well control practices from which we should be learning. For instance, the equipment designed to seal the well in the event of a blowout malfunctioned. Current rules do not improve the design or construction of this equipment, nor do they require the industry to implement adequate inspection and maintenance. The same flawed blowout preventer that failed the Deepwater Horizon now sits at the bottom of the ocean below many offshore drilling rigs in the Gulf. Whether or not they will function in the event of a blowout is anyone's guess. But offshore drilling is too risky and our oceans too important for this to be left to guesswork.
In April 2015, the BSEE proposed a new rule that would improve current inspection and safety measures by calling for more stringent third-party inspections and requiring the use of more advanced blowout prevention equipment. While there are shortcomings to this rule, it would serve as a good first step and should be finalized immediately.
Preferably, the final rule would not give the industry long grace periods (up to seven years in the current proposal) to install crucial safety requirements. These grace periods are much too long and would leave coastal waters vulnerable to another uncontainable spill. The industry already has had almost six years since the Deepwater Horizon disaster to prepare for stronger safety requirements. And the rule should ensure adequate redundancy for blowout preventers so we don't have a repeat of BP's disastrous performance.
As written, the rule is a valuable step forward and should be finalized and implemented with all possible speed. Of course, in the long run, the United States must move away from offshore drilling toward clean, cost-effective and renewable energy sources like offshore wind. Until we complete that shift, the drilling that does take place should be pursued in the safest way possible — and that is simply not happening now. With so much at stake in offshore drilling, Americans who rely on the oceans and coasts for their livelihoods deserve nothing less than the highest standards of safety and accountability.
Savitz is vice president for U.S. oceans at Oceana.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/275581-its-time-to-make-offshore-drilling-safer
-
Oil, Rail Interests Walked DOT Corridors in Runup to Crude-by-Rail Rule
Apr 8, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
At least two dozen energy and rail industry lobbyists visited the Department of Transportation last year as regulators wrapped up work on a sweeping crude-by-rail safety rule, according to federal records.
Many were familiar faces, having stopped by DOT's headquarters the previous year while the oil tank car rule was still in flux.
EnergyWire searched two years of DOT visitor logs for the names of 24 employees at the American Petroleum Institute, Exxon Mobil Corp., top crude-by-rail carrier BNSF Railway Co., Bakken Shale driller Continental Resources Inc. and tank car supplier Greenbrier Cos., among other organizations with close ties to the crude-by-rail industry.
The lobbyists logged a combined 52 visits to the Department of Transportation in 2014, compared with 37 trips in 2015, according to documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
The records don't include the purpose of each meeting, and the cases analyzed byEnergyWire represent a small fraction of thousands of visits often unrelated to lobbying. However, when paired with attendance sheets from closed meetings leading up to publication of a "comprehensive" hazardous materials transportation rule last May, the visitor logs show a concerted effort to influence the regulations (EnergyWire, May 11, 2015).
Public Citizen energy program director Tyson Slocum, who has argued for tougher federal rail safety rules in the wake of several oil train crashes and fires, said those in the crude-by-rail business have a "lot of self-interest" in persuading DOT to issue regulations that align with existing plans. "The [crude-by-rail] industry has been saying, 'Listen, we are undertaking -- in response to all these series of rail accidents -- voluntary best practices and industry standards,'" Slocum said. "From the public interest perspective, of course, we need a federal rule."
That rule arrived May 1, 2015, after years of wrangling among DOT, industry, environmentalists and lawmakers. "Regulations aren't done in a vacuum," Slocum noted.
On some points, there was widespread agreement. Next to no one favored keeping flimsy, older DOT-111 tank cars in hazardous liquids service after a 2013 oil train derailment and explosion killed 47 people in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec.
But how quickly would the DOT-111s be retired, and how many safety upgrades would their replacements need to have?
Two influential industry groups in Washington, D.C. -- the Association of American Railroads and the American Petroleum Institute -- came together a year and a half ago to advocate a unified set of tank car standards. Their respective CEOs, Ed Hamberger and Jack Gerard, paid 17 total visits to DOT in 2014 and 2015, according to records.
Once the tank car rule prescribed a detailed schedule for scrapping or overhauling DOT-111s, Hamberger came by DOT for a meeting last October to update the agency on the industry's progress, according to a spokesman for the organization. He also visited to kick off conversations with the new leaders of two key DOT agencies, the Federal Railroad Administration and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
American Petroleum Institute spokesman Reid Porter said the group's various meetings with DOT officials reflect "a strong record of offering industry expertise to government agencies throughout our nearly 100-year history of being a global leader for setting industry standards and working for ever safer operations."
Both organizations said their goal was to work with the federal government to improve safety.
The Federal Railroad Administration schedules periodic meetings with the safety chiefs of the nation's largest freight railroads, according to spokesman Matt Lehner. One such session on Nov. 17 included Hamberger from AAR and FRA Administrator Sarah Feinberg. "This is one of three to four regular meetings a year FRA holds to discuss a variety of FRA's safety priorities and issues," Lehner said.
Since transportation regulators posted the tank car safety rule in May, the United States has not seen a significant oil train derailment and fire along the lines of previous crashes in Mount Carbon, W.Va., or Lynchburg, Va. The volume of crude oil moving along the nation's railways has also dropped precipitously, with petroleum shipments down more than 20 percent compared with 2015 levels, based on AAR data (EnergyWire, Feb. 8).
"We're seeing a lull right now in the number of accidents, and that's purely a function of significantly reduced traffic," said Slocum of Public Citizen. "As soon as oil goes back up, which it will, it's just a matter of when -- not if -- you're going to see more accidents unless we have strong rules."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/04/08/stories/1060035293
-
Enviros Urge Court to Ditch Keystone XL Revival Effort
Apr 8, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Environmentalists who led the charge to kill the Keystone XL pipeline are lining up in court to make sure it stays dead.
A coalition of national and local groups last night took its arguments to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, where TransCanada Corp. is pushing to revive the scuttled project.
The Natural Resources Defense Council, the Center for Biological Diversity and other groups say the Obama administration made the right call in nixing the pipeline last year as "contrary to the national interest."
"The State Department's decision was consistent with the law, and was compelled by the irrefutable scientific evidence that we must take immediate action to combat climate change now, before it is too late," the groups wrote in their friend-of-the-court brief.
TransCanada challenged the administration's decision in January, arguing that the president cannot use executive authority over cross-border projects and that he improperly relied on intangible diplomacy considerations in rejecting the project (EnergyWire, Jan. 8).
Indeed, President Obama pointed to international climate negotiations as a reason to ditch the planned oil pipeline, arguing that approval would undermine the United States' position abroad.
The environmental coalition -- which also includes Friends of the Earth, Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services and the Port Arthur, Texas-based Community In-power & Development Association -- defended the rationale.
"TransCanada denigrates the basis for denial as merely being about the 'international community's perception,' but the decision had nothing to do with perception and everything to do with reality," it wrote. "The United States cannot demand reductions from other countries while simultaneously permitting construction of one of the largest oil pipelines in the world, especially one that would transport the world's dirtiest oil."
Earlier this week, lawyers representing the government took TransCanada to task for arguing that the president lacks authority to reject the project, noting that the company has made the opposite argument in earlier litigation (EnergyWire, April 4).
While the case moves forward in the district court, TransCanada is pursuing a separate challenge under the North American Free Trade Agreement to recover lost investments.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/04/08/stories/1060035306
-
Battle over Obama's Rules Hits the Home Stretch
Apr 8, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Christa Marshall
Before President Obama took office, the Air Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) had two people on staff focusing on efficiency standards. Now it has four.
The staff expansion was needed to keep up with a flood of federal efficiency rules on appliances ranging from rooftop air conditioners to walk-in freezers. The Obama administration has finalized 40 such rules establishing a minimum baseline for all new appliances, more than the George W. Bush and Clinton administrations combined.
"Efficiency standards started being about saving energy, and they have come to be about saving the environment," said Francis Dietz, vice president of public affairs at AHRI, which has sued the administration twice in the past three years over standards. In the rush to get standards out the door, the administration sometimes isn't following its own rules, he said.
It's all part of a broader push on climate change. In 2013, Obama pledged to finalize efficiency standards on appliances, buildings and equipment in his two terms that would cut CO2 emissions 3 billion metric tons by 2030. Final rules have affected everything from beverage machines to dishwashers.
With the administration only about three-fourths of the way to that goal -- and several contentious rules outstanding -- advocates are making a renewed push to ensure that officials hear their views on how high pending standards should go, what they mean for national energy savings and whether some of the proposals should be strengthened or scrapped altogether.
The administration "gets an 'A,' but the final exams are coming up," said Andrew deLaski, executive director of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project, a group supportive of the standards. "It's not going to be easy," considering there are several major rules to be finalized this year, including ones on home furnaces and central air conditioners.
DeLaski's organization released new data this week finding that a "quiet revolution" under Obama has resulted in appliance standards ranking second in the nation when it comes to their overall impact on energy savings (Greenwire, April 6).
Minimum efficiency standards are a "very successful strategy with a proven track record," said Shannon Baker-Branstetter, energy and environment policy counsel at Consumers Union, on a conference call about the report.
However, some industry groups say that the standards push is creating hardships for businesses. In the rush to meet the 3-billion-metric-ton target, the administration sometimes isn't transparent about how it sets efficiency levels or is coming up with numbers that don't make sense, they say.
In some cases, the administration is "hurrying to get things done ... they want a certain legacy," said Dietz. "Sometimes we can find [the administration] reasonable; sometimes we don't find them reasonable at all."
One rule where AHRI has not found the administration reasonable is a proposal for commercial boilers released this month.
AHRI sent a letter to the Department of Energy this week calling for a suspension of the proposed rule, as DOE did not complete test procedures beforehand as required.
"If stakeholders, and DOE, do not know the exact procedure for testing equipment to determine compliance with the standard, how can they adequately comment on and evaluate the impact of the efficiency standard?" it said.
The test procedures were not completed because the administration was afraid that doing so "wouldn't give them enough time to get the rule out before they leave," Dietz said.
AHRI has distributed materials on Capitol Hill saying regulations have contributed to a 30 percent decline in overall employment in the heating, ventilation, air conditioning and refrigeration (HVACR) and water heating industries since 2001. The documents note that DOE has acknowledged in recent years that some of its rules will lead to job losses. "It is possible that the small manufacturers will choose to leave the industry," DOE said in 2014 rule text for commercial air conditioners, for example.
Others say the administration is setting efficiency levels too high without clarity on where it's getting its numbers. A proposed rule that would ramp up the efficiency requirement on home furnaces spawned a wave of criticism from groups like the American Gas Association (Greenwire, July 14, 2015).
According to Dietz, if efficiency levels are set too high, it actually can lead to less energy savings, as products become expensive. There is a law of diminishing returns where consumers start replacing existing equipment rather than buying new appliances that they consider too pricey.
Similarly, the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers said this week that the administration is already updating standards for products like dishwashers that have only been in effect for two years or less. "We see a serial rulemaking process for some products," the statement says.Administrative action and congressional guidelines
President Reagan signed the first national appliance standards into law in 1987. The Clinton administration finalized eight efficiency standards, compared to the George W. Bush administration's 27. The Obama administration has already finalized 40, and is expected to issue 14 in total this year, according to DOE.
What's important to remember, according to deLaski, is that previous administrations were lagging behind congressional deadlines, and that some standards had not been updated in decades.
"They've not gone too fast," he said of Obama. "This is the first administration ... that actually has done a good job abiding by the legislative deadline established by Congress." By and large, federal rulemakers have also done a good job at setting efficiency levels, he said.
The Obama administration was able to hit the ground running in part because the Natural Resources Defense Council and several states sued DOE in 2004 for failure to meet statutory deadlines, according to deLaski. That led to a 2006 consent decree requiring DOE to catch up on all missed deadlines by mid-2011. Because of that decree, work "ramped up" in the last two years of the George W. Bush administration, laying the groundwork for Obama.
Federal laws in 2005 and 2007 also added a large number of new products and set deadlines for updating standards, many of which also came due in the past few years.
"Part of the reason Obama has succeeded ... is the leadership from the very highest level of the administration insisting on the agency doing a good job," he said. Obama issued anexecutive order in his first term, for example, requiring DOE to finalize efficiency standards "as expeditiously as possible and consistent with all applicable judicial and statutory deadlines."
The administration should get credit for being the first to set standards for products that are authorized -- but not explicitly required -- by Congress, deLaski said. It did so for commercial and industrial pumps, among other products.
There also was a push to update test procedures. While a seemingly insignificant development, it allowed for stricter standards, analysts say.
Take dryers.
Before Obama, dryers were stopped during tests by a technician, who would periodically test the dryness of clothes. The problem with this testing process was that it did not reflect actual dryers, which typically allow consumers to set a desired dryness level while the machine turns off automatically, deLaski explained.
"It turns out that some dryers [in the tests] were significantly over-drying clothes. These dryers wasted a lot of energy, but that waste was not captured in the DOE test, because, under the test method, the technician turned the dryer off," he said.
Because of a recent update, testers considered automatic controls, allowing them to see a 30 percent efficiency difference between the best and worst dryers. "With the improved test, DOE could set a more rigorous standard," deLaski said.
Additionally, many say the administration's use of the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee improved the rulemaking process by allowing consensus to be reached before official DOE action (Greenwire, June 18, 2015).
"One innovation of this administration is that of negotiated rulemakings -- where industry and other stakeholders are at the same table with DOE, discussing cost and technical issues and working toward a consensus," said Kathleen Hogan, deputy assistant secretary for energy efficiency in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Joseph Eaves, director of government relations at the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, said DOE has done a good job at moving rules forward but in some ways is handicapped by the "rules of the road." Rapid technology changes play into that. The pace of rulemaking in the past eight years has highlighted the challenge, he said.
He cited the case of DOE classifying LED lighting drivers as "external power supplies" under a rule originally designed for the clunky power cords attached to equipment like laptops. Under the law, the agency had little choice to regulate LEDs (E&E Daily, Jan. 13). Because it is such a new technology, LED lighting can't be tested in the way called for in the rule. There should be a more informal way to fix technical glitches in rules without having to go back to Congress, Eaves said.
Of course, November elections could change the prospects for any such fixes, as well as change the current rulemaking trajectory. The courts have made it clear, though, that a new president can't undo the Obama administration's existing rules, deLaski said. President George W. Bush withdrew a final standard for central air conditioners issued by the Clinton administration and issued a weaker standard, but courts ruled against that.
"Congress, of course, can reverse any administrative action," he said. "This is hard to do, but not impossible."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/04/08/stories/1060035325
-
EPA Retains Contested Compliance Deadline in Federal Sewage Air Plan
Apr 8, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA has issued a final federal plan to implement its sewage sludge incinerator (SSI) air toxics rule in several states that retains a contested compliance deadline for the underlying emissions standards, while clarifying other aspects of its rules for the sector even as it rejects other changes to the regulation sought by states and industry.
In a final rule signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy Feb. 22, but not yet published in the Federal Register, EPA confirms a compliance deadline of March 21, 2016, for states to achieve final compliance with the 2011 new source performance standards and emission guidelines (EG) set under Clean Air Act section 129.
The standards set limits for nine pollutants for SSIs, which are located at municipal wastewater treatment facilities, including: cadmium, carbon monoxide, hydrogen chloride, lead, mercury, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans, and sulfur dioxide.
EPA allowed states to develop their own plans to implement the emissions standards, and must issue a federal plan to adopt the rule in those states that fail to craft such plans.
However, implementation has been complicated by delays stemming from litigation in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) v. EPA. In the case, wastewater utilities questioned the legal basis for the rule, claiming EPA should instead set standards under the less-stringent air law section 112 instead. Environmentalists in the case challenged EPA's methodology in setting minimum emissions limits.
The court in its 2013 ruling rejected industry's challenge, leaving the rule in place but remanding the emissions limits calculations to EPA for further explanation.
Although EPA in various air toxics rules has sought to clarify its use of the Upper Prediction Limit (UPL), a statistical tool, in calculating "average" emissions floors, the agency confirms in the final federal plan rule that it has not yet responded formally to the NACWA remand and will do so in a future rulemaking.
The new SSI federal plan, which follows a proposed version EPA issued in April last year, sets requirements for states including: identification of legal authority and mechanisms for implementation; inventory of SSI units; emissions inventory; compliance schedules; emissions limits and operating limits; operator training and qualification; testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting; public hearing; and progress reporting.
Federal Plan
States with areas expected to fall under the federal plan include Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. Georgia and Rhode Island have submitted draft or final implementation plans to EPA that are awaiting approval, EPA says.
EPA in the final rule says it will retain March 16, 2016, as the final compliance date despite criticism from industry commenters that this does not allow sufficient time for compliance. As a result, the rule signed Feb. 22 means that the compliance date was just under one month later -- even though the rule is yet to appear in theRegister.
However, the agency does remove language from the proposed rule that would have allowed compliance "pathways" that appeared to suggest states would have longer than until March 16 to comply.
"The EPA agrees with commenters that clarification of the compliance date and compliance pathways is necessary, but disagrees that a later compliance date is needed and notes that a later compliance date is not authorized by [air law] section 129. In addition, comments regarding the appropriate compliance date are outside the scope of this action, and EPA did not propose any revisions to the compliance date," the agency says.
EPA says that various groups offered comments beyond the scope of the FIP rulemaking. For example, "Commenters raised numerous comments on the federal plan's monitoring and testing provisions, most of which the EPA did not propose to revise or otherwise solicit comment on in the proposed federal plan."
Future Rulemaking
EPA says that it will in a future rulemaking, however, revisit a requirement that SSIs be run at a minimum 85 percent of permitted capacity during emissions testing, which some industry commenters said was unrealistic because SSIs often operate at lower capacity. "The EPA is not revising the minimum threshold provision in the federal plan, but will consider whether to do so in a future rulemaking action," the agency says.
The agency is making regulatory clarifications in response to some concerns, for example over SSI operator training. EPA clarifies the mechanism by which states can substitute their own training procedures for EPA's.
"The EPA recognizes that different states may have their own requirements for professional trainers in their states even if they do not have a state implementation plan in place. SSI unit owners and operators are encouraged to contact their state to find out if their state has its own requirements for trainers. Once a state plan is approved by the EPA, upon the effective date of a state plan, the federal plan would no longer apply to SSIs in that state," EPA says.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-retains-contested-compliance-deadline-federal-sewage-air-plan
-
EPA, Greens Blast Efforts to Block Texas Haze Rule
Apr 8, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA and two environmental groups are strongly contesting bids by the state of Texas and several power companies for a court-ordered stay of regional haze regulations.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals should not even consider the stay requests because it lacks jurisdiction, EPA lawyers said in a filing yesterday.
If the judges on the New Orleans-based appellate court do decide to take up the requests, they should reject them on the grounds that Texas and the other plaintiffs are unlikely to win their lawsuits challenging the haze regulations published in January, the filing continued.
The new standards are intended to improve visibility at two national parks in Texas and a national wildlife refuge in Oklahoma by cutting power plant pollution.
In a separate response, the Sierra Club and National Parks Conservation Association argued that a stay would result in "substantial harms to public health and welfare."
Even if the court takes into account rule compliance costs during litigation, the two groups said those costs are insignificant "when put in context of the multi-billion dollar corporations at issue."
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R), along with the Southwestern Public Service Co. and several other power producers, had all filed suit against the haze regulations last month.
They are seeking to freeze implementation while the litigation plays out, arguing that the $2 billion long-term projected price tag will force some plants to close and imperil the reliability of the state's electric grid.
EPA said, however, that the plaintiffs have shown no credible evidence that the haze plan would directly force the shutdown of any of the electric generating units that have to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions by 230,000 tons annually.
They also cited a declaration by Robert Fagan, a Massachusetts energy consultant, disputing arguments by a Texas utility regulator who said the new standards would degrade grid reliability and harm the state's ratepayers.
The regulator, Brian Lloyd, executive director of the Public Utility Commission of Texas, has offered no information to support his contention that significant upgrades to the transmission system would be needed because of the haze rules, Fagan wrote.
Nor did Lloyd address the role that new generating plants could play in partially offsetting the impact of facilities that close, Fagan added.
Under the Clean Air Act, states are supposed to put haze plans in place to restore major natural parks and wildlife refuges to natural visibility conditions by 2064.
The Sierra Club and parks conservation association say that EPA regulators acted to partly impose their own plan after Texas turned in a draft that would have failed to meet that standard for the Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains national parks until well into the next century.
Paxton, however, has accused the Obama administration of "misusing federal agencies" to force through a radical environmental agenda.
Entangled with the standoff is the question of which appellate court should hear the lawsuits, all of which have been consolidated (Greenwire, March 23).
In yesterday's filing, EPA attorneys again argued in favor of sending the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the usual venue for challenges to regulations with a nationwide impact. Paxton has taken a contrary view, saying that the 5th Circuit, which covers Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, should handle the litigation.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/04/08/stories/1060035330
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested