Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 4/12/16
-
US EPA Receives 37 Pre-Manufacturing Notices in February
Apr 12, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA received 37 pre-manufacturing notices (PMNs) in February. Of these, 28 have their manufacturer or importer protected as confidential business information. -
JRC Publishes Report on Harmonized Terminology for EHS Assessment of Nanomaterials
Apr 12, 2016 | National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
The European Commission (EC) Joint Research Center (JRC) recently published a report entitled NANoREG harmonised terminology for environmental health and safety assessment of nanomaterials, developed within the NANoREG project: “A common European approach to the regulatory testing of nanomaterials.” -
(ACC Mentioned) Surge in US Industry Investment Linked to Shale Gas
Apr 12, 2016 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
Expansion and construction projects linked to shale gas continue to drive investment in the US chemical industry. The American Chemistry Council (ACC) has identified 264 projects that have been officially announced, of which around 40% have completed or begun construction works. -
Advocates, Refiners Clash Over EPA Refinery Air Rule Deadline Extension
Apr 12, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Environmentalists and oil refiners are clashing over EPA's proposed extension of deadlines for compliance with startup, shutdown and standby provisions in its air toxics regulation for refineries, with oil industry groups applauding the move while advocates warn that allowing more time to comply with the rule would be unlawful. -
Jordan Cove LNG Export Backers Seek FERC Rehearing, Cite Terminal, Pipe Deals
Apr 12, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
With initial signed agreements for half of its proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) export project's capacity, Veresen Inc. said Monday it has filed with FERC for rehearing of a rejection of the Jordan Cove terminal and supply pipeline in Oregon. -
The Future Of American Shale: Political & Energy Realities
Apr 12, 2016 | Real Clear Energy
By Mark Mills
The battle lines around energy policy in this Presidential election cycle have been drawn early and starkly. It distills simply to shale versus solar. -
More Rail, Fewer Roads Could be Cheaper and Greener -- Study
Apr 12, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Camille von Kaenel
Building a transportation infrastructure that will keep global warming to 2 degrees Celsius might be cheaper than continuing as normal, according to an analysis by the World Resources Institute. -
EPA Under Increasing Pressure To Act On PFOA Drinking Water Advisory
Apr 12, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
EPA and other federal and state agencies are under escalating pressure to apply stricter drinking water treatment levels to water supplies contaminated with the non-stick chemical perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) amid conflicting health advisory levels EPA and states are currently using, and as more communities have become aware of the chemical’s presence in their drinking water. -
EPA Unveils Draft of Its Most Common Construction Permit
Apr 12, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Tiffany Stecker
U.S. EPA yesterday issued a draft of its stormwater general permit for construction, the Clean Water Act permit covering the majority of developments in the country. -
Environmental Protection at ‘Crossroads': EPA Science Chief
Apr 12, 2016 | Bloomberg BNA
By Anthony Adragna
The U.S. has reached a “crossroads” in environmental protection that will challenge state and federal regulators to change their decision-making process to respond more quickly to evolving threats, the Environmental Protection Agency’s top science adviser said April 11. -
Carbon Capture Tax Credit Expected to be Included in FAA Bill
Apr 12, 2016 | Politico Pro - Whiteboards
By Esther Whieldon
A five-year extension of a tax credit to support carbon capture, use and sequestration technologies is expected to be included in a tax extenders package added to the FAA reauthorization bill, according to Senate aides and lobbyists tracking the process. -
LEED Pilot for Wood to Reduce Need for Government Regulation
Apr 12, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Brendan Owens
Building “green” is no longer just a trend. It is a booming economic engine that is considered essential by leading developers, planners and construction companies. The LEED certification system (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) has become a universally accepted symbol of durable and efficient building.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
-
US EPA Receives 37 Pre-Manufacturing Notices in February
Apr 12, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA received 37 pre-manufacturing notices (PMNs) in February. Of these, 28 have their manufacturer or importer protected as confidential business information.
These include:
several coating components;
industrial adhesives;
a fragrance ingredient, being mixed with others to make fragrance oils; and
a radiation-curing coating resin.
During the same period, the agency received 25 notices of commencement (NOCs) to manufacture new chemicals.
https://chemicalwatch.com/46462/us-epa-receives-37-pre-manufacturing-notices-in-february
-
JRC Publishes Report on Harmonized Terminology for EHS Assessment of Nanomaterials
Apr 12, 2016 | National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
The European Commission (EC) Joint Research Center (JRC) recently published a report entitled NANoREG harmonised terminology for environmental health and safety assessment of nanomaterials, developed within the NANoREG project: “A common European approach to the regulatory testing of nanomaterials.” The report states that it represents the project’s attempt at bringing common understanding and consistency in the use of key terms in the environmental health and safety (EHS) assessment of nanomaterials. The objective of the report is to publish the harmonized terminology that has been developed and used within NANoREG. According to the report, all project partners have agreed upon and adopted the terminology in their activities and related documents. The report specifically includes: (1) the methodology used to select key terms that form the harmonized terminology and to develop harmonized definitions; (2) the existing literature definitions that have been used as a starting point to develop for each key term a harmonized definition; and (3) the reason(s) behind the choices that have been made in drafting a definition.
The discussion on the key terms to be considered for the harmonized terminology led to the selection of 43 key terms. The list includes terms with international regulatory relevance, such as those defined at the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) level, as well as terms that have a specific meaning and use under the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulation. According to the report, it has “already proven very useful” in the context of OECD work, as a support document to the April 13-14, 2016, OECD Expert Meeting on “Grouping and read-across for the hazard assessment of manufactured nanomaterials,” and in a regulatory context, as a support document to the work recently released by the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), and JRC on using (eco)toxicological data for bridging data gaps between nanoforms of the same substance.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/jrc-publishes-report-harmonized-terminology-ehs-assessment-nanomaterials#sthash.sH64iFex.dpuf
-
(ACC Mentioned) Surge in US Industry Investment Linked to Shale Gas
Apr 12, 2016 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
Expansion and construction projects linked to shale gas continue to drive investment in the US chemical industry. The American Chemistry Council (ACC) has identified 264 projects that have been officially announced, of which around 40% have completed or begun construction works.
The projects include new facilities, expansions and factory re-starts. If they all go ahead, they represent a combined investment of $164 billion (£115 billion) in the sector. Most of the developments that are not yet committed are in the planning phase, but 5% of the total are ‘delayed or uncertain,’ the ACC said.
The number of projects being undertaken has grown considerably since 2013, when the ACC identified 100 announced projects representing a potential $72 billion in investment.
More than 60% of these projects are being undertaken by foreign-owned firms looking to take advantage of the cheap energy and feedstock that shale provides.
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2016/04/surge-us-industry-investment-shale-gas
-
Advocates, Refiners Clash Over EPA Refinery Air Rule Deadline Extension
Apr 12, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Environmentalists and oil refiners are clashing over EPA's proposed extension of deadlines for compliance with startup, shutdown and standby provisions in its air toxics regulation for refineries, with oil industry groups applauding the move while advocates warn that allowing more time to comply with the rule would be unlawful.
In its Feb. 9 proposal, EPA says it intends to extend from Feb. 1, 2016, to Aug. 1, 2017, the deadline for refiners to comply with the startup, shutdown and standby provisions of EPA's Dec. 1 air toxics rule setting maximum achievable control technology (MACT) and new source performance standards (NSPS) for the sector.
Among the rule's many provisions are measures to ensure the MACT emission standards apply at all times, ending exemptions from those limits during periods of refinery startup, shutdown and maintenance.
However, in response to industry complaints that applying the new measures by Feb. 1 was not achievable, EPA proposes to extend the compliance deadlines.
In March 25 joint comments on the proposal, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) say, "API and AFPM strongly support the three proposed compliance time extensions," and also the agency's proposal to set deadlines inadvertently omitted for certain provisions.
"These amendments are necessary to assure safe and compliant implementation of the new requirements for maintenance vents and catalytic reformer pre-regeneration venting, the fluid catalytic cracker and sulfur plant alternative standards and the revised fluid catalytic cracker opacity standard," the groups say.
For other changes introduced in the MACT rules, EPA in its proposal has sought to clarify which ones are subject to a three-year phase-in and which are not, but EPA's explanations "still leave many compliance dates unclear," the refinery groups say, urging further clarifications.
Individual refining companies in their comments go further, asking EPA for compliance deadline extensions for provisions not addressed by API or AFPM.
For example, Coffeyville Resources Refining & Marketing, LLC, in its March 25 comments says, "The changes to the other rule provisions, e.g., NSPS Subpart J and Ja, are less complicated and the first compliance date for any new or revised NSPS standards should be December 31, 2016." The cited NSPS changes relate to the efficient operation of flares used to dispose of excess gas.
Meanwhile, Earthjustice on behalf of nine environmental groups in March 25 comments says, "EPA's new compliance dates are unlawful, arbitrary, and capricious because they provide an extended period of time when non-compliance is allowed; and because EPA has not provided a reasoned explanation based on facts in the record that the new 18-month compliance date meets the requirements of the Clean Air Act."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2008 held startup, shutdown and malfunction exemptions exemptions to be unlawful, and EPA is unjustifiably perpetuating such unlawful exemptions under the refinery MACT and NSPS rule, the environmental groups say, urging EPA not to finalize the proposed deadline extensions.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/advocates-refiners-clash-over-epa-refinery-air-rule-deadline-extension
-
Jordan Cove LNG Export Backers Seek FERC Rehearing, Cite Terminal, Pipe Deals
Apr 12, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
With initial signed agreements for half of its proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) export project's capacity, Veresen Inc. said Monday it has filed with FERC for rehearing of a rejection of the Jordan Cove terminal and supply pipeline in Oregon.
Citing new terminal and pipeline agreements, Calgary-based Veresen said Jordan Cove Energy Project, LP and Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, LP have asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to reconsider its order last month denying the companies' applications for authorization to construct and operate the LNG terminal and connecting 232-mile, 36-inch diameter gas pipeline (see Daily GPI, March 14).
On March 11, FERC rejected the proposed $7.5 billion Jordan Cove LNG export project, citing problems with the Pacific Connector pipeline link to tap western Canada and U.S. Rockies supplies, along with the project's lack of contracts from buyers. At the time, Veresen vowed to file for a rehearing of the decision, and subsequently has lined up to preliminary market deals.
On Friday, Veresen struck a preliminary agreement for more capacity at the proposed Jordan Cove terminal at Coos Bay, OR, as ITOCHU Corp. tentatively agreed to purchase 1.5 million tonnes per annum (mtpa) of liquefaction capacity for a 20-year term (see Daily GPI, April 8). That followed an agreement last month between Veresen and JERA Co. Inc. (see Daily GPI, March 22). Veresen said 3 mtpa of liquefaction capacity of the project, or half, is spoken for.
In addition, Pacific Connector recently executed natural gas transportation service precedent agreements (TSPA) with Macquarie Energy LLC, Avista Corporation and JCEP, which in aggregate represent more than 75% of the rated capacity of the pipeline, a Veresen spokesperson said. Avista is a local distribution company which serves communities along the pipeline. The other two TSPAs are intended to facilitate the transportation of natural gas to the Jordan Cove LNG terminal.
In the request for rehearing, Jordan Cove and Pacific Connector asked that FERC consider the agreements with customers of the LNG terminal and shippers on Pacific Connector as evidence of market support for the projects, and said that the public benefits of the projects outweigh the acknowledged potential adverse impacts on landowners.
"[These related projects] will bring significant and lasting benefits to Coos County [OR] as well as communities all along the pipeline route," said Veresen CEO Don Althoff. "We continue to see an outpouring of support from project proponents at each of the local, state and national levels."
FERC has 30 days to grant or deny the request for rehearing. FERC may grant rehearing, deny rehearing or grant rehearing solely for purposes of extending the 30-day deadline, followed by an order on the merits at a later date, Althoff said.
The Jordan Cove LNG project is expected to have an initial design liquefaction capacity of approximately 6 mtpa, or about 1 Bcf/d.
Jordan Cove is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Veresen. Pacific Connector is owned equally by a subsidiary of Veresen and a subsidiary of Williams Partners LP.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/106022-jordan-cove-lng-export-backers-seek-ferc-rehearing-cite-terminal-pipe-deals
-
The Future Of American Shale: Political & Energy Realities
Apr 12, 2016 | Real Clear Energy
By Mark Mills
The battle lines around energy policy in this Presidential election cycle have been drawn early and starkly. It distills simply to shale versus solar. (Wind turbines can be included in the solar category since they capture the effect of the sun’s heat on the atmosphere.)
What a shame. America and the world will need a lot more of both. And America has a big role, and stake, in both.
Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders have been nothing if not clear that they want to see an end to fracking -- the use of smart drilling and hydraulic fracturing to unleash oil & gas from shale rock – and instead vigorously expand solar and wind. Senator Cruz, Governor Kasich and Donald Trump are all full-throated supporters of the benefits of shale oil & gas while also supporting solar energy in various ways, if sometimes tepidly.
New York State is, for the anti-fracking forces, the archetype of how the nation should progress. Not only has that state banned shale production within its boundaries, but activists have moved on to target shale infrastructure, specifically opposing pipelines to ensure that natural gas from neighboring Pennsylvania and other states does not flow into New York State. The “fractivists” goal is a 100 percent “Renewable NY” campaign.
For its part, the Obama Administration, in its lame-duck year, is slated to issue a bevy of new regulations to hobble the oil & gas industry and target, for the first time, the small intrastate pipelines that have historically been unregulated and that are a vital part of the system that gathers natural gas (and oil) from all the scattered shale wells.
The essence of the political debate isn’t about whether the shale industry has brought economic benefits to the nations. There has been extensive coverage of the indisputable facts regarding the scale of the shale contribution to U.S. energy supply (doubling total American oil & gas output), and the consequent triggering of a global collapse in oil prices. The rapid and unsubsidized growth in shale hydrocarbon production during the Obama Administrationcontributed a total of more than $1 trillion to the U.S. GDP and some one million jobs. The thousands of small and mid-sized shale companies thus played a disproportionate role in keeping America from sliding back into negative GDP growth during the long recovery from the Great Recession. In fact, President Obama touted shale’s benefits during the 2012 campaign.
Nor is the debate about whether more shale production is possible. Shale pioneer Harold Hamm recently summarized the technical prospects in a simple sentence: “We can do it again.” Rather, the political divide now is over whether shale production should be encouraged at all, or indeed if it should reigned in or even eliminated.
The anti-shale proposition is, in essence, that we just don’t need it given the prospect for an imminent revolution in alternative energy – stimulated with a few more dollars in subsidies and incentives.
You know there is a problem for the shale industry when an often reasonable and knowledgeable pundit like David Ignatius, the foreign affairs and political columnist for the Washington Post, appears to have bought into thesis of an imminent hydrocarbon-free revolution. In his recent column, “Quiet Energy Revolution,” Ignatius is clearly agog at the prospects for alternative energy after touring a DOE-sponsored alternative energy ‘fair’. His column provides a well-articulated summary of the widely believed propositions about America’s energy future.
Thus, let’s briefly explore Ignatius’ observations in light of his belief that “America’s future is at stake” in this presidential election cycle.
1.“… the Obama administration has made startling progress that could be reversed if either of the GOP front-runners becomes president.”
David Ignatius, Quiet Energy Revolution
When President Obama was sworn into office, America obtained slightly more than 2% of all energy from the combined total of biofuels, solar, and wind sources. That share has grown to just over 4% now. Over that period, alternative energy technologies received a startling $150 billion in cumulative federal subsidies.
Meanwhile, over the same period shale oil & gas added 800% more to U.S. energy supply than the combined total growth from solar, wind and biofuels. That might properly be termed “startling progress” on an energy front that was unexpected and unsubsidized.
2. “Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, arguably President Obama’s best Cabinet appointment, has been leading a quiet revolution in clean-energy technology.”
“Quiet”? A Google search of “President Obama clean energy” yields over one million hits. There have been countless speeches from the President and Secretary Moniz touting clean energy, and innumerable high-profile media stories and high-volume public and political debate around the proposals.
As for “revolution” – one can certainly imagine that an energy revolution is yet possible in theory, but none other than Bill Gates and Google have recently observed that the technologies don’t yet exist to effect an energy revolution of the scale required to significantly displace hydrocarbons.
3. “…the [Department of Energy] Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, or ARPA-E. As the name implies, it tries to do for energy what DARPA has done for defense science.”
There is a basic flaw with the idea of modeling wide-scale commercial technology development on military programs – the idea of a ‘Manhattan Project’ for energy. Fueling all of civilization is not like building a few aircraft carriers or dozens of fighter jets, or new kinds of bombs. And when the military needs to perform the types of tasks commonly needed in civilian life – say moving tens of thousands of people and thousands of tons far distances – commanders emulate or use civilian technologies, from merchant ships to commercial airliners (literally commandeered in time of war).
If one wants an example of a revolutionary energy technology pioneered by the military, look no further than nuclear power – and consider how remarkably effective it has been in submarines and aircraft carriers, but how devilishly challenging to build commercial power plants at scale. After five decades and hundreds of billions of dollars spent, less than 10 percent of America’s total energy comes from fission.
4. “…the cost of producing large-scale solar energy has fallen 60 percent over that period; prices for wind energy and efficient batteries have declined by more than 40 percent.”
Solar and battery costs have dropped mainly from rising production (along with subsidized capital) in China and other Asian nations – and not from either new technology or spending from DOE programs: 90% of global batteries and 70% of all solar photovoltaic modules are fabricated in Asia (with China dominant). Meanwhile, essentially all of the DOE-subsidized U.S. battery companies, as well as many of the subsidized solar companies, have failed.
As for wind: subsidies from preferred rates to mandated utility programs have indeed stimulated the demand for and the associated development of far bigger wind turbines. (Set aside that about 50% of turbines in America are foreign built, along with 60% of those on order.) The attendant economies of scale are evolutionary and not revolutionary: the average new turbine has grown some 3-fold in size over the past two decades, thereby yielding lower per-kilowatt-hour costs. But those gains from scaling up are leveling off: now that turbines are as tall as the Washington monument, they will not be growing another 3-fold bigger.
Meanwhile, energy technology gets better across the board not just with alternatives. The average cost to operate a shale rig was 40% lower and productivity (output per rig) was 50% higher in the past year alone. Over the last half-dozen years, EIA data shows that shale-rig productivity has improved more than 400% -- without subsidies or mandated purchasing. And gains in shale technology have just begun.
5. “Wind energy production has tripled; production of solar energy has increased nearly 20-fold. And scientists say we’re still fairly early in the cycle of innovation and cost reduction.”
Big growth rates are an arithmetical artifact of starting from a very small number. Put simplistically, analogized to investing; compare a 20-fold gain on $1 versus a 2-fold gain on $10,000. Thus, while oil & gas production grew ‘only’ 2-fold over the same period, the total increase in actual energy supplied was 10-fold greater than the combined total from wind and solar. And as noted in #4, while the cycle of innovation continues for all energy sources, engineers are now in sight of physics limiting future gains for solar and wind as significant as those of the past.
6. “Wandering through the ARPA-E exhibition hall … you get a sense of how fast new technology is being applied to big, real-world problems. … Rebellion Photonics demonstrates a system for chemical imaging that can spot [natural] gas leaks and other potential problems before disaster strikes. A consortium of universities and private companies, dubbed TERRA, shows off robots that can assess biofuel crops and select the best genetic traits, doing in four hours what now takes seven days. A company called Local Motors pitches a car built with 3-D printing.”
Offering a litany of ‘cool’ energy technologies is common in enthusiastic writing about the future, but such lists rarely include inventions that profoundly change how energy is produced. Chemical imaging for gas leaks is mainly valuable for improving safety and maintenance of natural gas pipelines; important but not revolutionary. Robots will bring greater economic efficiencies to all agricultural and industrial processes – and are already doing so in the oil & gas industry. But they don’t constitute a “revolutionary” new energy source. As for a 3-D printed car – it’s still a car. And if 3-D printing makes cars cheaper, that will increase the future sales of cars and thus demand for fuel.
All such technologies, and many more, are exciting and may solve various “big, real-world problems” but they don’t change the fundamentals of the energy landscape or obviate the need for hydrocarbons.
7. “… the government in modern times has been a key incubator and facilitator for business. DARPA’s research spawned the Internet and its world-transforming networks, and it is now helping to drive the astonishing progress of machine learning and autonomous systems.”
We have here what philosophers term a “category” error. The federal government has a long and admirable record in funding basic research and episodically stimulating new technologies. However, it was private capital in private companies that built the Internet from seeds of federal research to be sure, but the networks were built based on the maturation of associated commercial technologies. And, critically, it was the absence of government direction, control, mandates or subsidies that enabled the rapid flourishing of the Internet infrastructure and industry.
As for the “astonishing progress” now emerging in computer machine learning and automation, while these are important domains for government research the leading edge and big spending programs are found predominantly in the private sector. Both machine learning and automation are anchored in electricity-consuming computing technologies that will bring more productivity and efficiency to every aspect of the economy and all energy sources includingshale, not just alternatives.
8. “[The] innovation summit was a bracing reminder of why, as Warren Buffett likes to say, people have never gone wrong betting on America.”
The aphorism is an excellent one. If one were betting on America you’d bet on the shale entrepreneurs to “do it again,” and avoiding government polices that hobble a critical industry. And you’d bet on continuing innovations in both shale and solar. But “betting on America” doesn’t mean betting on DOE, whether it’s DOE money or DOE choices of where to place those bets. It means betting on the entrepreneurs and innovators in private companies, and betting on investors and risk-takers in those companies and in private venture capital across America.
Again we have a “category” confusion, this time rooted in conflating basic research with engineering, and thus mixing up two different domains where the strengths of government and industry are inverse. Basic research is properly dependent on the long-term vision possible from federal support, while engineering new products (the “development” part of “research and development”) is best suited to private markets.
9. “The leading GOP candidates, Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), offer know-nothing denials of this march of [climate] science.”
Of course global warming is the unhidden elephant in the room on all the debates over energy technologies. But you don’t have to know anything about or debate climate science to know something about the indisputable underlying realities of the economics, engineering, and physics of energy.
Bill Gates has lucidly articulated the challenge that civilization-wide energy transformations entail: “[W]e need innovation that gives us energy that’s cheaper than today’s hydrocarbon energy, that has zero CO2 emissions, and that’s as reliable as today’s overall energy system. And when you put all those requirements together, we need an energy miracle.” Gates went on to clarify that he didn’t view energy “miracles” as impossible, but that such options don’t yet exist and thus the critical policy actions should focus on increasing support for basic scientific research where such miracles may one day emerge.
10. “This intense interaction between technology and the marketplace is what powers innovation in the United States.”
There is much truth in, and wide agreement with David Ignatius’ above concluding observation. But subsidies and government preferences can deeply distort if not destroy a productive “interaction” between technology and the marketplace. And neither subsidies nor any of the technologies Ignatius described will eliminate the use of hydrocarbons.
In fact, just expanding solar energy will require consuming oil, coal and natural gas associated with producing all of the associated materials. For example, reaching a goal where wind supplies 25% of global electricity demand (which equals an 8% share of all energy use) wouldentail burning 600 million tons of coal to produce the 450 millions tons of steel needed for those wind turbines, along with 600 million barrels of oil needed to fabricate the 20 million tons of fiber-composite turbine blades.
A matching build-out of solar (25% of global electricity) would require another nearly 600 million tons of coal to produce the needed 200 million tons of steel and aluminum (the latter is particularly energy-intensive), along with burning natural gas equal to 1 billion barrels-of-oil to produce the 200 million tons of glass needed. If built out over a single decade, it would using 75% of annual world glass production each year.
Such are the realities that tech revolutions face in the real world of energy.
http://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2016/04/11/the_future_of_american_shale_political__energy_realities_109108.html
-
More Rail, Fewer Roads Could be Cheaper and Greener -- Study
Apr 12, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Camille von Kaenel
Building a transportation infrastructure that will keep global warming to 2 degrees Celsius might be cheaper than continuing as normal, according to an analysis by the World Resources Institute.
The 2-degree pathway requires more investment in rail, buses and vehicle technology, but less in road infrastructure and parking, according to the working paper. The difference could ultimately lead to up to $300 billion in savings every year in a low-carbon pathway, which could cost $2 trillion, according to the paper.
Current investment in public and private transport amounts to between $1.4 trillion and $2.1 trillion annually.
"It [a] is question of shifting -- not increasing -- financial flows toward green investment [and] transport," wrote Benoit Lefevre, director of energy and climate for the sustainable transport and sustainable cities programs at the World Resources Institute and an author of the paper, in an email.
The International Energy Agency estimates that global transportation contributes 23 percent of the world's carbon emissions. That could grow 50 percent by 2030.
Eliminating $240 billion of investment in roads and $130 billion in parking and spending $25 billion more on rail, $8 billion on bus rapid transit and $26 billion in high-speed rail could make the difference between a world with 4 degrees of warming and one with only 2 degrees, according to the authors' analysis.
They pulled from previous research by the International Energy Agency, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, World Economic Forum, McKinsey Global Institute, New Climate Economy, and Institute for Transportation and Development Policy in association with the University of California, Davis.
They then broke down transportation investment into road, parking, rail, bus rapid transit and high-speed rail, eliminating airports, ports and interregional transport because the reports did not detail the climate impacts.
The projections do not take into account any rebound effect, or increased travel from availability of infrastructure, from the shift from road-based to public-transit-based transport.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/04/12/stories/1060035440
-
EPA Under Increasing Pressure To Act On PFOA Drinking Water Advisory
Apr 12, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
EPA and other federal and state agencies are under escalating pressure to apply stricter drinking water treatment levels to water supplies contaminated with the non-stick chemical perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) amid conflicting health advisory levels EPA and states are currently using, and as more communities have become aware of the chemical’s presence in their drinking water.
In particular, EPA is being pressed to issue a health advisory for PFOA for long-term exposures to the chemical in drinking water -- a measure the agency has long been developing and which will replace a provisional health advisory for short-term exposures that environmentalists and others say falls far short of setting a protective level for the public.
Concern about the short-term advisory level has grown after EPA Region 2 earlier this year advised a New York community to refrain from consuming private well water that exceeds 100 parts per trillion (ppt) PFOA, a much lower level than the chemical’s existing provisional health advisory level of 400 ppt.
The agency is repeatedly being questioned on the disparity in applying that health advisory level in New York, but not elsewhere, where regulators are generally applying the existing 400 ppt provisional short-term exposure health advisory.
Lawmakers, state regulators and environmentalists are adding their voices to a recent call from three Northeast governors for EPA to quickly provide states with uniform guidance for assessing safe levels of the emerging contaminant in drinking water.
An EPA spokeswoman says the agency will issue final lifetime health advisories for chronic exposures to both PFOA and a related chemical, perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), simultaneously this spring. Unlike a drinking water standard such as a maximum contaminant level, health advisory levels are not enforceable.
And the spokeswoman is defending the agency’s decision not to immediately broaden the 100 ppt advisory given to Hoosick Falls, NY, explaining the agency’s advice in that community was given to private well owners as a result of specific circumstances there, namely that free bottled water was already available and that New York’s health department had already offered to test private wells for PFOA.
Until the scientific review of the updated health advisory for PFOA is issued, EPA’s provisional health advisory still stands, the spokeswoman says in a written response to questions.
Studies conducted by an independent panel that formed as part of a lawsuit settlement around a DuPont plant in Parkersburg, WV, found probable links between PFOA and six adverse health impacts including kidney and testicular cancer as well as other conditions.
In addition to pressure on EPA, officials from other facets of government -- including military officials and Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf (D) -- are also being urged by a variety of parties to address PFOA and other substances that are part of the same class of chemicals known as perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs). The pressure is stemming from lawmakers, environmentalists, the law firm that represents citizens in a landmark PFOA class-action suit and at least one state government.
Disparate Levels
Lawmakers and others point to the disparity in safety levels being applied as they urge EPA to expedite the new health advisory level for PFOA, citing concerns over findings of the chemical and in some cases PFOS in water sources in their districts or states.
In 2009, EPA identified PFOA as an emerging contaminant, issuing a provisional health advisory of 400 ppt for short-term exposures to it in drinking water, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) points out in a March 28 letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. Yet, she says, in New York, EPA “has set an ‘action level’ of 100 ppt of PFOA, and further the State of Maine has set a health advisory level of 100 ppt and the State of Vermont has set a health advisory level of 20 ppt. These varying levels have created great uncertainty among the public regarding what PFOA level is safe for use and consumption,” she writes.
Ayotte’s concern stems from PFCs found in a water supply well around the former Pease Air Force Base in New Hampshire. EPA last year issued a first-time Safe Drinking Water Act administrative order for the Air Force to clean up PFC contamination at the former base. The contaminants are commonly found in firefighting foams that were used by the Air Force and other military services to extinguish fires at their facilities and airports.
The senator urges McCarthy to expedite release of the PFOA lifetime health advisory.
Similarly, two House members from Pennsylvania, Reps. Brendan Boyle (D) and Patrick Meehan (R), April 1 wrote to EPA Region 3 Administrator Shawn Garvin, also urging for the overdue lifetime health advisories for PFOA and PFOS to be issued, asking the agency to consider regulating these chemicals due to “mounting evidence demonstrating links to serious health effects,” and questioning why a stricter PFOA advisory was applied to Hoosick Falls but not to the vicinity around Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base, Willow Grove, PA, where both chemicals have been found in groundwater and public drinking water.
The environmental group Delaware Riverkeeper Network is also pressing for action at Willow Grove, but is urging Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf (D) to apply the 100 ppt level for PFOA now and to request responsible parties at sites with levels exceeding that amount to address it.
In their April 1 letter, Boyle and Meehan say, “We cannot comprehend why a federal agency’s determination of acceptable public health and environmental risk would vary from one geographic location to another.”
“We urge the EPA to reevaluate this inconsistency and apply a consistent standard that is optimally protective of public health.”
One environmentalist source who believes EPA’s new advisory should be much more stringent than 100 ppt says that while there must be significant pressure on EPA to issue the advisory, environmentalists also want to ensure that EPA develops a level that protects public health.
UCMR Data
Robert Bilott, an attorney with the law firm Taft Stettinius & Hollister who has represented thousands of plaintiffs potentially exposed to PFCs in their drinking water from DuPont’s Washington Works facility in West Virginia, has long been pressuring regulators, particularly EPA, to act on PFOA. In light of the agency’s response to lower its health advisory in Hoosick Falls, Bilott urged EPA earlier this year to assess communities across the country with elevated levels of PFOA.
More recently, he appealed to West Virginia’s two senators and the state’s health commissioner to investigate and address concentrations of PFOA in water supplies in two West Virginia communities above the 100 ppt mark, also raising the issue of disparities across state lines on the level to apply.
In response to some of Bilott’s inquiries, Region 3 Administrator Garvin tells him in a March 25 letter that “EPA is working with states and local communities to ensure that the latest information is available for purposes of making risk management decisions when it comes to drinking water protection and treatment.”
Garvin notes that EPA’s Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR) so far indicates that “a very small percentage of water systems nationally have detected concentrations of PFOA,” prompting the agency to “take action to reduce public exposure to PFOA.” He said the agency is working with state water officials and potentially impacted water systems to review drinking water data near the Washington Works plant. “EPA is considering whether any additional immediate response may be necessary to address risks to persons served by such water systems and potentially impacted private water supplies,” Garvin says.
During an Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies’ water policy conference held March 20-23, Peter Grevatt, director of EPA’s Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, named PFCs as one class of chemicals reported under the UCMR that so far is not showing up as nationally prevalent in water systems to the degree that would justify national regulations, but the chemicals “will still play out in a local way for local jurisdictions.” The data “also show occurrence of PFCs in various places that perhaps there hasn’t been much discussion about before, like Colorado,” he said.
Military Actions
The military is also under stepped-up pressure to address PFCs, often as a result of fire-fighting training exercises. For instance, Michigan regulators are urging the Air Force to provide an alternate source of drinking water to those residents using wells that draw from groundwater contaminated with PFCs that has migrated off-base from Wurtsmith Air Force Base in Iosco County, MI.
In response, the Air Force in a March 18 letter effectively denies any alternate water sources have been needed so far. It says that in 2015, the Air Force tested private wells off-base and found PFOA and PFOS but that those sampling results were below the provisional health advisories and therefore no further action is planned. The service plans further testing of private wells not yet tested, and if levels exceed the provisional health advisories, it “will take action to supply affected residents with alternate sources of drinking water,” the letter says.
In response to PFC contamination on the base, the Air Force has operated a pump-and-treat system since last year that it says intercepts PFC-contaminated groundwater before it discharges to surface water, the letter notes.
One state source says the Air Force is refusing to provide alternate water to residents off-base because it contends it cannot legally spend money on such an effort unless a regulatory level is exceeded. But a letter from a higher-level official in Michigan state government is expected to be forthcoming to continue to press the case for alternate water provisions, the source says.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-under-increasing-pressure-act-pfoa-drinking-water-advisory
-
EPA Unveils Draft of Its Most Common Construction Permit
Apr 12, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Tiffany Stecker
U.S. EPA yesterday issued a draft of its stormwater general permit for construction, the Clean Water Act permit covering the majority of developments in the country.
The agency is accepting comments on the proposal, which covers building sites between 1 and 5 acres. Nearly half of EPA's general stormwater permits are issued to construction facilities.
The general stormwater permit is the most common permit for builders, said Eva Birk, environmental policy manager for the National Association of Home Builders. The trade group sued EPA over the agency's issuance of numeric standards for its 2009 general permit, arguing that the standard was too stringent. The two reached a settlement in 2012, and EPA withdrew the permit in 2014.
Birk said NAHB is pleased to see the agency avoid numeric standards in this draft.
"We are hoping to encourage them to take further steps to reduce confusion and redundancy during this permit round," said Birk.
The group said its comments will address duplication in permitting, such as situations where a large developer and small builder working on the same project must develop separate stormwater pollution prevention plans.
The draft includes a proposal to reduce deadlines and increase the number of inspections. The industry will look into the costs of the proposed changes, specifically the costs of making the stormwater pollution plans publicly available, Birk said.
"It could have huge cost implications," she said.
The existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System general permit for the industry will expire Feb. 16, 2017.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/04/12/stories/1060035455
-
Environmental Protection at ‘Crossroads': EPA Science Chief
Apr 12, 2016 | Bloomberg BNA
By Anthony Adragna
The U.S. has reached a “crossroads” in environmental protection that will challenge state and federal regulators to change their decision-making process to respond more quickly to evolving threats, the Environmental Protection Agency’s top science adviser said April 11.
Key to that evolving approach will be recognizing once again that maximizing public health is one of the top objectives driving environmental protection, Thomas Burke, deputy assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Research and Development, told the Environmental Council of the States' spring meeting in Nashville, Tenn.
“For many years, people were really not understanding how carbon emissions related to them, related to the health of their communities,” Burke said. “We must make permanent changes by how we approach things in the assessment of risks.”
New Memorandum Signed
Burke's comments came as the EPA, ECOS and the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials signed a memorandum of agreement to work more closely on initiatives that reinforce the connections between environmental protection and human health.
“This agreement is a perfect symbol of an effort to reintegrate those concerns,” Acting Deputy Administrator Stan Meiburg said in signing the agreement.
Specifically, the groups agreed to “develop tools, reports, workshops, meetings and other tangible outcomes” to promote the connection between public health and environmental protection. They will identify short- and long-term steps to further the agreement within four months.
During his second term, President Barack Obama's administration has forcefully framed its case for several high-profile regulations—notably the Clean Power Plan and revised ozone standards—in terms of their importance for public health.
The memorandum also comes the week after an administration report found significant, costly and negative public health impacts are already occurring due to the impacts of climate change.
Less Reliance on Rulemakings?
Regulators must become comfortable sharing information more promptly and communicating it more clearly to the public, Burke said.
“We—the scientists at EPA, the scientists of academia and all of us—are being asked to answer questions faster than ever before with limited information,” Burke said. “How do we put that information out there when it’s probably not ready for regulation, it’s probably not ready to be the law of the land, but it’s really important for public health for people to know that?”
“We’re going to have to get a little bit more comfortable with decision-making in a way that we haven’t done it before,” Burke said.
Public Engagement Key
Properly soliciting input from the public about the scope of various environmental problems before jumping immediately to regulate is key, Burke said.
“I don’t think people demand perfection or absolute answers,” Burke said. “In fact, what I’m seeing more and more is that they reject those standards and those numbers. They want to understand how the decision was made.”
As part of the broader “culture shift,” Burke said the EPA intends to hire more employees with backgrounds in public health and epidemiology to complement its workforce.
http://www.bna.com/environmental-protection-crossroads-n57982069718/
-
Carbon Capture Tax Credit Expected to be Included in FAA Bill
Apr 12, 2016 | Politico Pro - Whiteboards
By Esther Whieldon
A five-year extension of a tax credit to support carbon capture, use and sequestration technologies is expected to be included in a tax extenders package added to the FAA reauthorization bill, according to Senate aides and lobbyists tracking the process.
Senate leadership and their staff last night continued to negotiate a deal for what energy resources could get a bump in the tax extenders package, but it remains to be seen when a final deal would be reached.
Minority Leader Harry Reid has pushed to include geothermal, biomass and fuel cells that were left out of five-year extensions for wind and solar power tax measures that Congress passed in December.
Sen. Heidi Heitkamp this morning introduced an amendment to extend a carbon capture technology tax credit that is expected to be included in a package along with a five-year extension of the renewable credits and potentially other items.
Heitkamp's amendment would give carbon capture technologies five more years to start construction or be placed in service to qualify for the tax credits of a value of up to $30 a ton over 10 years. Generally, the credit is $10 and $20 per metric ton, adjusted for inflation.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
LEED Pilot for Wood to Reduce Need for Government Regulation
Apr 12, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Brendan Owens
Building “green” is no longer just a trend. It is a booming economic engine that is considered essential by leading developers, planners and construction companies. The LEED certification system (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) has become a universally accepted symbol of durable and efficient building. Today, nearly 75,000 commercial projects are participating in LEED across the world with 1.85 million square feet of building space becoming LEED-certified every day.
One reason for LEED’s success is that it encourages best practices. A large and diverse group of experts devise the LEED system to make sure its credits include cutting edge technologies and best in class practices to safeguard consumers and the environment. While LEED usually focuses on leadership at the top end of the market, it has also been used to tackle challenging issues at the bottom end of the market as well. The latest example of this is a pilot approach to assure that all wood on building projects has been harvested legally.
Illegal wood is timber that’s been harvested beyond set limits, extracted from protected areas or taken without proper permission. Any of these actions undermines safety and the imperative for sustainable forestry.
In an effort to combat this problem, the U.S. Green Building Council, the creator and administer of LEED, recently announced a new compliance approach designed to further advance responsible sourcing of forest products and rid buildings of illegal wood. Its goal is to help eliminate irresponsibly sourced materials such as illegal wood from the building-material supply chain, which is increasingly global. While builders and owners in the U.S. may take comfort in a federal law that prohibits importation of illegal wood, compliance is imperfect, according to Interpol and others.
One of LEED’s major advantages is that it is a private sector initiative that provides incentives for construction firms to behave in ways that experts, through consensus, recommend. This leads to more rapid improvement than solely relying on governments to impose punishments for misbehavior.
LEED has already made tremendous strides in promoting leadership on the sourcing of forestry products. By ensuring legality of wood, the new pilot approach is designed to use the market to stop trade in illegal logging, which remains a serious problem. Illegal logging accounts for 50 percent-to-90 percent of all forestry activities in such “key producer” tropical forests as the Amazon Basin, Central Africa and Southeast Asia. Illegal logging comprises 15 percent-to-30 percent of all wood traded globally.
Trade in illegally harvested timber is highly lucrative. Such improper forestry has been estimated to produce wood worth between $30 billion and $100 billion annually. A peer-reviewed study in Forest Policy and Economics put a $2.8 billion price tag on illegal wood trade in the U.S. in 2013.
As LEED’s overseers began examining approaches to incentivize responsible sourcing of all materials that go into buildings – such as concrete, steel, copper and other materials – they saw the wisdom of addressing the need to reward the best and eliminate the worst practices.
The pilot approach aims to do both. The new Alternative Compliance Path (ACP) credit will be applied to the LEED green building rating system, which is the most widely used construction certification in the world. The pilot will test whether project managers can verify that the wood they use 100 percent legal. LEED has always rewarded leadership in the use of building materials. The new pilot seeks to leverage LEED’s market power to focus attention on the need for more comprehensive and effective verification of the source of building products. The legal wood pilot is designed to address a critical piece of the supply chain and reward project teams that proactively verify that the wood they are using is legal.
Over the past 15 years, the green building industry has invested a significant amount of resources to encourage responsible management of forests. This single issue has taken up the vast majority of the debate about raw materials sourcing. The wood pilot builds on the robust infrastructure that has already been built to ensure responsible forest management, wood sourcing and chain of custody. The pilot could serve as a model for the LEED standards for other building materials. If it works, it could also ultimately help improve buildings and protect our planet’s vulnerable forests.http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/275909-leed-pilot-for-wood-to-reduce-need-for-government
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested