Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 4/15/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) "Tiny House" That's Big on Energy Efficiency Arrives at Carnegie Science Center
Apr 15, 2016 | Spray Foam
By Jennifer Killinger
Plastics Make It Possible and Zack Giffin, co-host of FYI Network's "Tiny House Nation," teamed up to build an energy efficient tiny house using innovative plastic building products that can improve a home's energy efficiency. -
(ACC Mentioned) New Federal Silica Exposure Rule Could Cost Billions
Apr 15, 2016 | Plastics News
A new federal rule aimed at protecting workers from silica exposure will have farther reaching impact in plastics than some may think. -
(ACC Mentioned) Want Some Chemicals With That Shake? If You’re Eating Fast Food, You’re Getting Them
Apr 15, 2016 | Uproxx
If you ever wondered why the stuff you make at home never fully tastes like the junk you get from your favorite fast food joint, try opening up a chemistry book for tips and tricks. -
Would Chemical Safety Bill Be “Gold Standard” Or “Fool’s Gold?”
Apr 15, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Melanie Benesh
Cal Dooley, the top lobbyist for the chemical industry, likes to say he is optimistic that the proposed chemical safety law being developed in Congress would be the “gold standard” on which other nations could base their chemical regulations. -
Budget Deal Reached After Clean Power Plan Compromise
Apr 15, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Elizabeth Harball
Colorado lawmakers have ended a battle over the state air agency's budget following a heated debate about the Obama administration's rule to curb carbon emissions from power plants. -
EPA Defends Cost of 2015 Mercury Rules in Updated Analysis
Apr 15, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Amy Harder
The Environmental Protection Agency Friday issued an updated cost analysis, defending its issuance of the first-ever federal regulations requiring power plants to cut mercury emissions and other toxic air pollutants. -
U.S. Natural Gas Production Breaks Another Record
Apr 15, 2016 | Fuel Fix
By James Osborne
U.S. natural gas production continues to break record even as prices remain at historic lows. -
U.S. Issues New Rules on Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling
Apr 15, 2016 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport
The Obama administration on Thursday unveiled a final set of regulations on offshore oil and gas drilling that are aimed at preventing the kind of equipment failures that caused the disastrous 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. -
A 'Comforting' Hearing on Grid Cyberthreats, with Caveats
Apr 15, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Lawmakers got an unusually candid glimpse at what could happen in the aftermath of a major cyberattack on the U.S. grid during a House subcommittee hearing yesterday. -
Final EPA Cost Assessment Backs 'Necessary' Power Plant Air Toxics Rule
Apr 15, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Anthony Lacey
EPA has issued its final consideration of costs for its years-old utility maximum achievable control technology (MACT) air toxics rule, saying that the court-mandated review of the costs of the rule does not change the agency's determination that the rule is “appropriate and necessary” under the Clean Air Act.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) "Tiny House" That's Big on Energy Efficiency Arrives at Carnegie Science Center
Apr 15, 2016 | Spray Foam
By Jennifer Killinger
Plastics Make It Possible and Zack Giffin, co-host of FYI Network's "Tiny House Nation," teamed up to build an energy efficient tiny house using innovative plastic building products that can improve a home's energy efficiency. The 170-square-foot tiny house exhibit—"A Tiny House That's Big on Energy Efficiency"—will debut at the Carnegie Science Center in Pittsburgh on Saturday, April 16 and run through September 11. Zack Giffin built the house in Boulder, CO, and it was previously featured at the California Science Center in Los Angeles from November 2015 through February 2016.
The Plastics Make it Possible tiny house showcases innovative plastic building products that can improve energy efficiency in any size house—tiny or not-so-tiny.
Carnegie Science Center guests can explore the tiny house from 10 a.m. – 5 p.m. daily, weather permitting. The house will be on display on Carnegie Science Center’s back lawn. The house provides Pittsburgh with a chance to explore this new trend in minimalist living.
"This tiny house captures how plastic-based building materials can make a big impact on improving any home's energy efficiency, sustainability, and durability," said Steve Russell, vice president of plastics at the American Chemistry Council, which sponsors the Plastics Make it Possible initiative. "Visitors will see firsthand that the durable and efficient plastic building products in this tiny house have stood the test of time and travel during the house’s journeys from Boulder to Los Angeles to Pittsburgh."
Numerous building products featured throughout the home were donated, from the polyurethane foam insulation that provides a barrier against air and moisture to the tough, plastic solar shingles that protect the roof and generate energy. Other donated products include:
Jeld-Wen Architectural Fiberglass door courtesy of Pittsburgh-based Covestro and Innovation Exhibits, Ohio.
Polyurethane spray foam insulation courtesy of Dow Building Solutions, the Center for the Polyurethanes, Industry and WhySprayFoam.org.
Vinyl siding and trim courtesy of Associated Materials, the Vinyl Institute, the Vinyl Siding Institute, Inc., and National Housing Center.
Polyiso foam insulation Thermasheath-3 and RSeal construction tape courtesy of Rmax Operating, LLC, Axiom Communications Group and Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers Association.
Dow POWERHOUSE™ Solar Shingles courtesy of Dow Building Solutions and Dow Solar Field Operations.
Vinyl windows courtesy of TILTCO, A DIVISION OF WINDOWORLD INDUSTRIES, INC. and American Architectural Manufacturers Association.
WASCO polycarbonate skylight courtesy of Wasco Products, Inc. and Covestro, based in Pittsburgh.
Polyethylene cross-linked pipe courtesy of Uponor and the Plastic Pipe and Fittings Association. Pipe installed is Acme-Cash.
Luxury vinyl flooring courtesy of Metroflor and the Vinyl Institute.
Pittsburgh-based plastics makers are supporting the tiny house exhibit through their sponsorship of the Plastics Make it Possible campaign, including Covestro, LANXESS Corporation, and NOVA Chemicals Corporation.
Although tiny, the house is also big on style thanks to interior design firm JOHNSON NATHAN STROHE based in Denver, CO.
For more information on plastic building materials and sustainability, visit plasticsmakeitpossible.com/tiny-house. For more information on exhibit operating hours at the Carnegie Science Center, visit http://www.carnegiesciencecenter.org. To view the Tiny House mini-documentary, view the video below.
https://youtu.be/LH1tfAOQZG4
About Plastics Make it Possible: Plastics Make it Possible highlights the many ways plastics inspire innovations that improve our lives, solve big problems and help us design a safer, more promising future. This program is sponsored by America’s Plastics Makers™ through the plastics industries of the American Chemistry Council.
About Carnegie Science Center: Carnegie Science Center is dedicated to inspiring learning and curiosity by connecting science and technology with everyday life. By making science both relevant and fun, the Science Center’s goal is to increase science literacy in the region and motivate young people to seek careers in science and technology. One of the four Carnegie Museums of Pittsburgh, the Science Center is Pittsburgh’s premier science exploration destination, reaching more than 700,000 people annually through its hands-on exhibits, camps, classes, and off-site education programs.
http://www.sprayfoam.com/foam-news/tiny-house-thats-big-on-energy-efficiency-arrives-at-carnegie-science-center/2686#sthash.MqWLWkOZ.dpuf
-
(ACC Mentioned) New Federal Silica Exposure Rule Could Cost Billions
Apr 15, 2016 | Plastics News
A new federal rule aimed at protecting workers from silica exposure will have farther reaching impact in plastics than some may think.
Under the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration rules, permitted exposures to silica in the construction industry would be cut to 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air over an eight-hour period from 250 micrograms. In other industries, which have a 100 microgram standard, it will also be reduced to 50 micrograms.
The rules are set to take effect June 23 though the first compliance dates are at least another year away: June 23, 2017, for construction; June 23, 2018 for general industry — which would include plastics manufacturing; and June 23, 2021, for oil and gas fracking operations.
An estimated 2.3 million U.S. workers will be affected by the new rules, with about 2 million of them in construction-related industries, according to the Labor Department.
While silica exposure gets the most attention in mining and construction, precipitated and fumed silica are used in plastics as fillers, thickeners or softeners and in aiding flow for processing thermoplastics, compounds, composites and thermoplastic elastomers.
Silica also is used as fillers in popular composite countertop materials, such as DuPont’s Zodiaq. And it has been suggested as a replacement for plastic microbeads in cosmetic and personal care products, which have fallen out of favor or been legislated off the market.
The new rules impact “anybody that kicks up respirable silica,” as one expert put it, which could include compounders and resin producers that add silica to plastics. The 600-page rules are much stricter than current 1970s-era rules for personal protective equipment and housekeeping, written exposure control planning and engineering controls such as pricey ventilation systems.
Officials estimate that the new silica standard, when fully in effect, will save more than 600 lives and prevent more than 900 new cases of silicosis, a dangerous and often fatal lung disease, every year. Though OSHA estimates the cost of the rule at about $1 billion annually, the agency expects net benefits of $7.7 billion a year once it is in effect.
Trade groups whose industries will be impacted disagree with OSHA’s estimates.
“Our economists calculated, throughout general industry, the cost would be much, much higher than what OSHA claims,” said Kevin Moran, director of the American Chemistry Council’s Crystalline Silica Panel. “There’s a difference of opinion on what it’s going to cost. And it’s hard to say because there’s so many diverse industries out there, and all the unique and individual companies.”
A small plastics compounder would have to pay the same price for a ventilation system as a big company, Moran said. Such compliance costs will add up throughout the supply chain and eventually be passed down to consumers.
An economic cost-benefit analysis of the new silica rules by Washington-area policy study group Environomics, on behalf of ACC, projects the incremental costs of meeting the new standards to be approximately $4.7 billion per year.
A more economical — and possibly even effective — fix, the study says, would be to better enforce the original rules. Even OSHA agrees that as many as 30 percent of the U.S. companies exposing workers to airborne silica are not complying with the original rules.
While the new rules are, for the most part, a done deal, a parade a lawsuits could prevent them from going into effect, even after a more than 30-year battle to get more stringent rules on the books. Petitions challenging OSHA’s new silica rules have been filed in six federal appeals courts, though the Labor Department last week asked the courts to consolidate the petitions into a single case.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20160415/NEWS/160419863/new-federal-silica-exposure-rule-could-cost-billions
-
(ACC Mentioned) Want Some Chemicals With That Shake? If You’re Eating Fast Food, You’re Getting Them
Apr 15, 2016 | Uproxx
If you ever wondered why the stuff you make at home never fully tastes like the junk you get from your favorite fast food joint, try opening up a chemistry book for tips and tricks.
A recent study suggests that regular fast food diners have a higher concentration of the industrial chemical phthalates in their bodies. Phthalates are typically found in plastic binders, floor, window blinds, and the sort of cheap cosmetics that your hippy friends protest on Facebook. Researchers found that the machines used to process fast food are leaking the phthalates into your chicken patty melt. Even the gloves workers use to protect you from their gross germs are a problem. And nothing’s really being done about it until after we’ve already consumed enough phthalates to poop out plastic.
“Right now there are few choices for individuals who are interested in reducing their exposure, and there’s also not very much regulation of phthalates,” said Ami Zota, assistant professor of environmental and occupational health at the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health. In the U.S., “research happens once they’ve been introduced in commerce, rather than before,” she said.
Researchers also found that diners who eat the most fast food are 39 percent more likely to have phthalates in their system, compared to those who eat fast food in moderation or don’t eat fast food at all. What does this even mean? Nobody knows yet because the effects of phthalates on humans haven’t been thoroughly studied. However, according to Justin Colacino of the University of Michigan School of Public Health in Ann Arbor, it’s pretty devastating to lab animals.
“Phthalates are of concern because animal and epidemiology studies have linked exposure to a range of adverse health outcomes, from toxicity to developing male reproductive systems, neurodevelopmental issues, miscarriage, and preterm birth,” Colacino recently told Reuters.
Despite the link, Bloomberg notes The American Chemistry Council says phthalates are all good, determining that 10 years of research points to “no risk to human health at typical exposure levels, despite phthalates being used in many products.” However, in 2102, the EPA noted that it was “concerned about phthalates because of their toxicity and the evidence of pervasive human and environmental exposure to them.”
So, if you’re worried about your reproductive system, assistant professor Zota advises to eat organic, and when you can’t, eat fresh veggies. Which, as we’ve pointed out time and again, is just solid advice all the way around.
http://uproxx.com/life/fast-food-phthalates-chemicals/
-
Would Chemical Safety Bill Be “Gold Standard” Or “Fool’s Gold?”
Apr 15, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Melanie Benesh
Cal Dooley, the top lobbyist for the chemical industry, likes to say he is optimistic that the proposed chemical safety law being developed in Congress would be the “gold standard” on which other nations could base their chemical regulations.
House and Senate negotiators are trying to reconcile two proposed revisions of the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 – a law so weak that the Environmental Protection Agency was unable to use it to ban highly dangerous asbestos.
In prepared remarks at a recent industry conference, Dooley contended that, once finalized, the legislation could be held up as the “new gold standard for chemical regulation around the globe.”
Gold standard? Or fool’s gold?
While there’s still a slim chance the new legislation might be better than current law, let’s not get carried away.
For the past decade, the real standard setter for chemical management has been the European Union. The E.U.’s chemical regulatory program, called “Regulation, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals,” or REACH, is widely considered the most comprehensive and rigorous chemical law in the world.
The fact is, the bill Congress is finalizing is not going to displace REACH as the “gold standard.” Here are five reasons that REACH is a stronger law than what our legislators are now considering:
1. It has a stronger safety standard. REACH follows something called “the precautionary principle.” That means that when the risks of a chemical are not widely known or understood, regulators can take action to limit how it’s used until it is shown to be safe. In other words, chemicals are presumed to be risky unless proven otherwise. By contrast, the pending House and Senate bills use a modified version of the weak standard in current U.S. law. It takes the opposite approach – chemicals are presumed to be safe unless proven toxic.
2. REACH puts the burden of proof on industry. In the European Union, it’s industry’s responsibility to show that chemicals are safe through a system of registration, testing, periodic safety reports and special authorization requirements for the most dangerous chemicals. Under both the House and Senate bills, it would be up to the EPA to identify which chemicals are likely to pose risks and then prove that they’re toxic before it could impose any restrictions.
3. No data, no market. Under REACH, chemicals can only be marketed if there is data to show the chemical is safe or that it can be used safely. Under both the House and Senate bills, companies producing new chemicals only have to give EPA the data they have or can reasonably obtain. While both bills expand the agency’s authority to request more data, neither explicitly requires it to do so. As a result, chemicals could continue to slip into commerce without adequate information about their effects on health or the environment. And neither bill requires companies to submit safety data on chemicals already on the market unless there is a significant increase in production or if the EPA specifically demands it.
4. REACH targets the most toxic chemicals. The European system focuses much of its attention on chemicals placed on a list of “substances of very high concern for authorisation.” This includes substances that can cause cancer or genetic mutations, are persistent in the environment, accumulate in living things or are toxic to reproduction. Chemicals on the list of “substances of very high concern for authorisation” can only be used if companies seek permission for specific uses and demonstrate that the risks can be controlled. To date, E.U. regulators have put 31 chemicals on this list and are assessing another 168. In the U.S., both the House and Senate bills would make efforts to varying degrees get the EPA to prioritize or expedite its evaluations of chemicals that exhibit some of those characteristics. But neither bill would require EPA to quickly review and restrict 1,000 of the known most dangerous chemicals, meaning that it could take a generationto do the job.
5. Whole supply chain approach. One of the most unique aspects of REACH is that it requires industry to share information up and down its supply chain. That means a producer of toxic formaldehyde would have to share data with all its buyers – whether they use it in cleaning supplies, flooring or personal care products. This forces manufacturers to be aware of all possible uses of their chemicals and all the different ways people could be exposed. It also makes downstream users look at the safety data that could help them to use the chemicals more responsibly. With comprehensive supply chain information, it’s much easier and more accurate to evaluate exposure and complete risk assessments. There are no provisions in either the Senate or House bills that take this whole supply chain approach to chemical safety.
That doesn’t look like a “gold standard” to us.
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2016/04/would-chemical-safety-bill-be-gold-standard-or-fool-s-gold
-
Budget Deal Reached After Clean Power Plan Compromise
Apr 15, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Elizabeth Harball
Colorado lawmakers have ended a battle over the state air agency's budget following a heated debate about the Obama administration's rule to curb carbon emissions from power plants.
Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) supports U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan and the state's work to comply with the rule. But Republicans on the state Legislature's Joint Budget Committee, citing their opposition to Hickenlooper's position, moved to block about $8.5 million in funding for the agency charged with doing the work to prepare for emissions cuts.
That spurred a backlash from Colorado Democrats, environmental groups and air agency leaders because it would have eliminated about 95 positions from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's air pollution division. It also would have affected the agency's work on various other air quality regulations (ClimateWire, March 28).
This week, the Legislature settled on a significantly smaller reduction, blocking about $112,000 in funding from the air quality division. State Sen. Pat Steadman (D), who sits on the committee, said he considered the final budget a good compromise.
"There was never the intent to completely defund the division and the 95 employees that work there," Steadman said.
He defended the air division's work on the Clean Power Plan, saying it "has a broad mandate to protect air quality in our state."
"The things they were doing that were in concert with the Clean Power Plan were things they were previously authorized to do," Steadman said.
Becky Long, advocacy director with Conservation Colorado, also said her group was content with the outcome.
"There's nothing in current statute or in this budget bill that prohibits the state from working on the Clean Power Plan," Long said, adding that "we are really frustrated the whole thing happened."
Republican demands 'transparency' on state climate work
State Rep. Bob Rankin (R), who also sits on the Budget Committee, was less happy with the outcome.
"I would not characterize it as a resolution," said Rankin, who represents a major coal-producing region of the state.
Rankin said the funding block is an "estimate of what they might be spending on the overhead associated with doing the plan," although he still isn't certain this is the exact amount the state is spending on planning for the federal climate rule.
Rankin said he moved to block funding for the agency because he wasn't satisfied with the figures the state environment agency was providing about the resources devoted to the Clean Power Plan.
"If the state is doing something, we would like to know what they're doing," Rankin said. "We want transparency."
Rankin claimed it was never his intention to affect the environment agency's ability to implement other air quality regulations.
"In the end, we did not want to damage their other work, which is very important," Rankin said.
Martha Rudolph, director of environmental programs at the state's Department of Public Health and Environment, claimed it was challenging for the agency to determine an exact estimate for the resources it devoted to the climate regulation because there were no staff members working solely on the Clean Power Plan.
"Unfortunately, [the Legislature] thought we were not being up front with them, which we were," Rudolph said.
She said following the Supreme Court stay of the rule in February that her agency is now less focused on preparing a detailed compliance plan for the Clean Power Plan. Instead, officials are working on a broader state-led climate change strategy.
"Many of our utilities in the state, I think, recognize that if the rule is not upheld, this issue is not going to go away," Rudolph said. "I don't get the sense that the utilities want to stop these discussions -- maybe not strictly speaking on the Clean Power Plan, but they want a seat at the table."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/04/15/stories/1060035687
-
EPA Defends Cost of 2015 Mercury Rules in Updated Analysis
Apr 15, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Amy Harder
The Environmental Protection Agency Friday issued an updated cost analysis, defending its issuance of the first-ever federal regulations requiring power plants to cut mercury emissions and other toxic air pollutants.
The agency’s move was prompted by a Supreme Court ruling last year that said the agency hadn’t taken into account the costs to industry, as it was required to do, before deciding to adopt the rules.
The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 opinion last June, said the EPA must reconsider the mercury rules because of that omission. The rules, however, have remained in effect during that process.
The EPA says that power plants are the single-largest source of U.S. emissions of mercury, a neurotoxicant that can be particularly harmful to children and unborn babies.
The EPA initially adopted the mercury rules in 2012 and they took effect in April 2015. The agency initially concluded that costs weren’t a relevant consideration when it was deciding on the need for the mercury regulations.
Later, as it was writing the rule, the agency estimated an annual cost to the utility sector of $9.6 billion, compared with public-health benefits of at least $37 billion. The Supreme Court, however, said the agency should have made that calculation earlier, as it was deciding whether to adopt the rules in the first place.
In its updated analysis released Friday, the EPA listed three figures it said supported the case for regulating mercury emissions from power plants. It said utilities’ compliance costs would be a small fraction of their overall sales and their capital expenditures, and wouldn’t make electricity prices rise unduly for customers.
The estimate specifically applied the costs to the ongoing expenses of utilities and consumers. It found that the annual cost of complying with the rules would come to between 2.7% and 3.5% of annual electricity sales (relying on figures from 2000 to 2011). It said the capital costs of complying represent between 3.0% and 5.9% of annual power sector capital expenditures over 10 years. And it said the rules would raise electricity prices 3.1% over 10 years.
Most utilities have already complied with the rule, making Friday’s analysis more important for legal rather than substantive purposes. In one sign that stakeholders have moved on, EPA received just 39 comments as it prepared the updated analysis, compared with nearly one million comments when the rules were being written.
Some industry trade groups had argued that mercury rule would prompt blackouts and skyrocketing electricity prices. Neither scenario has materialized, due largely to the increased production of natural gas, which unlike coal produces no mercury and whose price has dropped sharply since 2008.
“The mercury standards are related to coal plants, and so if a company were to choose to re-power to natural gas, then their compliance with [the mercury rule] would be taken care of,” said Janet McCabe, assistant administrator of the EPA, whose office leads the agency’s work on air-pollution regulations.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-defends-cost-of-2015-mercury-rules-in-updated-analysis-1460734705
-
U.S. Natural Gas Production Breaks Another Record
Apr 15, 2016 | Fuel Fix
By James Osborne
U.S. natural gas production continues to break record even as prices remain at historic lows.
Average daily production reached 79 billion cubic feet in 2015, according to a new report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
That marked the second year in a row a new all-time record was set. Over the past decade, as hydraulic fracturing created a drilling boom across the country, gas production has increased 40 percent.
According to the EIA, the growth was almost entirely driven by productions gains in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Oklahoma and North Dakota.
Absent from that list is Texas, which has large gas fields in the Barnett Shale, northwest of Fort Worth, and the Eagle Ford Shale, south of San Antonio. If you take away Pennsylvania and the other four states with large gains, national production actually declined by a half percent, EIA said.
With so many years of growth, the country now has more gas than it knows what to do with. Storage facilities are at record levels, with 2.5 trillion cubic feet being stored at the end of this past winter, EIA said.
Typically summer is when storage facilities see their largest gains. But the EIA predicts that will not be the case this year, as facilities are already operating at between 44 and 73 percent.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2016/04/15/u-s-natural-gas-production-breaks-another-record/
-
U.S. Issues New Rules on Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling
Apr 15, 2016 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport
The Obama administration on Thursday unveiled a final set of regulations on offshore oil and gas drilling that are aimed at preventing the kind of equipment failures that caused the disastrous 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
The publication of the rules, which the administration released in draft form last year, is timed just ahead of the sixth anniversary of the April 20 explosion on a BP oil rig that killed 11 and sent millions of barrels of oil into the gulf. The new rules come as the Obama administration has proposed opening up some pristine Arctic waters off Alaska to new drilling, angering environmentalists.
The Interior Department rules represent the final in a series of actions responding to the spill, including tougher inspection requirements and an overhaul of the government agencies that oversee offshore drilling. The rules announced Thursday are intended to tighten the safety requirements on underwater drilling equipment and well-control operations.
In particular, the new rules will tighten controls on blowout preventers, the industry-standard devices that are the last line of protection to stop explosions in undersea oil and gas wells. The 2010 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig was caused in part by the buckling of a section of drill pipe, prompting the malfunction of a supposedly fail-safe blowout preventer on a BP well.
The rules also add tougher requirements to the design of undersea wells and the lining that coats the wells, as well as real-time monitoring of subsea drilling and spill containment.
“The well-control rule is a vital part of our extensive reform agenda to strengthen, update and modernize our offshore energy program using lessons learned from Deepwater Horizon,” Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said in a statement. She praised her agency’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, which developed the rule, saying that it “takes into consideration an intensive analysis of the causes of the tragedy, advances in industry standards, best practices, as well as an unprecedented level of stakeholder outreach.”
Environmentalists and the oil industry expressed skepticism about the new regulations. Environmentalists have noted that a panel appointed by President Obama to investigate the BP spill concluded that its chief cause was not the failure of the blowout preventer but a broader breakdown in oversight by the drilling companies and government regulators.
“The proposed rule is absolutely not sufficient to protect our oceans, but it is a significant improvement over the status quo and addresses some of the blowout-related concerns raised by various commissions following the BP disaster in 2010,” said Jacqueline Savitz, the vice president of Oceana, an advocacy group.
“The only way to truly ensure there will never be another disaster of the magnitude of Deepwater Horizon is to stop drilling offshore,” she added. “This is especially important in the Arctic, where conditions are extremely harsh, response capacity is almost nonexistent, and where there is absolutely no way to clean up an offshore spill.”
The oil industry contends that it has already improved safety controls on offshore drilling, some of which align with the new regulations. But the industry argued that other elements of the regulations were onerous and could hamper safety.
“Today’s highly prescriptive rule could result in unintended negative consequences leading to reduced safety, less environmental protection, fewer American jobs, and decreased U.S. oil and natural gas production,” said Dan Naatz, a vice president of the Independent Petroleum Producers of America.
The new regulations would require an outside organization to conduct annual assessments of the mechanical integrity of blowout preventers, including a requirement that the equipment be maintained according to the manufacturers’ original performance standards. It would also require continual monitoring, using undersea video and other equipment, of deepwater and other high-pressure, high-risk drilling activities.
In terms of equipment, the new regulations would require that blowout preventers be fitted with two devices, called shear rams, to provide a backup in case of equipment failure.
A 2014 report by the federal Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, an independent government watchdog, concluded that in the 2010 disaster the blowout preventer’s shear ram, an emergency hydraulic tool with two cutting blades, punctured the pipe and sent oil and gas gushing to the surface.
The study found that the drill pipe had buckled under the tremendous pressure of the oil and gas rising from the well from the initial blowout. A backup shear ram could improve the likelihood that the equipment would seal off the pipe before it blows out.
But some advocacy groups criticized the rule as too little, too late.
“The fact that it has taken six years to get this rule out is a stunning indictment of our regulatory process: It moves far too slowly,” Amit Narang, a regulatory policy advocate at Public Citizen, a nonprofit government watchdog group, said in a statement. “Even in the wake of historic deregulatory disasters like the BP oil spill, our regulatory system takes years to address glaring safety gaps that devastate working families, consumers and our environment.”
Ms. Jewell said the extended review reflected the difficulty of drafting the rules. “It was very, very important that we deeply understood the root cause of the disaster and the evolution of the technology,” she said in a conference call with reporters. “It takes a long time to understand what went wrong and a long time to do this right.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/15/us/politics/us-issuesnew-rules-on-offshore-oil-and-gas-drilling.html
-
A 'Comforting' Hearing on Grid Cyberthreats, with Caveats
Apr 15, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Lawmakers got an unusually candid glimpse at what could happen in the aftermath of a major cyberattack on the U.S. grid during a House subcommittee hearing yesterday.
Gerry Cauley, president and CEO of the North American Electric Reliability Corp., which oversees the security of the bulk power grid, said he "can't imagine" hackers causing an outage for "more than hours or days."
"It's easier to steal information or disrupt electronics. It's very challenging going from a cyberattack to physical damage," Cauley told members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management.
He said grid operators should prepare for longer stretches without electricity, given the possibility of a combined cyber and physical assault on the grid, extreme weather or other emergency.
"It is reasonable to ask the question, 'How are we taking care of people in a one- to two-week outage?'" Cauley said. He cited the GridEx III security exercise late last year, which tasked participants to think about how they would handle a monthslong outage brought on by truck bombs, automatic weapons, hacking tools and a variety of other disasters (EnergyWire, April 1).
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) said it was "comforting to know" the relatively mild worst-case scenario for a cyberattack that stood by itself. But he also pushed back against witnesses' claims that the U.S. government would coordinate effectively in the face of a major disaster online.
"What kind of a turf war would we get in between [the Department of Energy] and [the Department of Defense] with regards to a cyberattack that would have national security implications?" Meadows asked of Patricia Hoffman, assistant secretary for DOE's Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. "Who's in charge?"
Hoffman said help for the power grid would come from both DOE and DOD during a crisis, with the Federal Emergency Management Agency also stepping in to provide on-the-ground support. "Regardless of whether it's a physical, cyber or weather-related event, we are going to react as a whole of government in responding to that," she said.
Other officials also sought to reassure lawmakers that they could expect a unified front against a severe cyberattack, such as one targeting the power grid. "Cyber's new," said FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate. "A lot of the things that we do won't be new in response to the consequences."
For instance, the government would fall back on the familiar National Response Frameworkduring a cyberattack spanning multiple states. Local emergency responders would free people from elevators, and critical services such as hospitals and water facilities would work on securing fuel for backup generators.
However, Fugate acknowledged that existing plans don't go to great lengths to distinguish a grid cyberattack from, say, a hurricane.
"We've not had a lot of experience with cyber, so part of this is getting: What are we planning against? What will we do differently?" Fugate said. "And if that requires resources, where are those resources coming from?"
Subcommittee Chairman Lou Barletta (R-Pa.) urged greater consideration for readiness at the local level, where he said he wanted to "raise a red flag here today that we are not prepared in the event of something drastic."
"I'm not convinced that we've connected the dots all the way down to the local government," he said. "When I ask [mayors] the question, in the unlikely event that power is out in a cyberattack, how long are you prepared to provide services?
"Nobody can give me that answer," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/04/15/stories/1060035679
-
Final EPA Cost Assessment Backs 'Necessary' Power Plant Air Toxics Rule
Apr 15, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Anthony Lacey
EPA has issued its final consideration of costs for its years-old utility maximum achievable control technology (MACT) air toxics rule, saying that the court-mandated review of the costs of the rule does not change the agency's determination that the rule is “appropriate and necessary” under the Clean Air Act.
The final rule, released April 15 ahead of its publication in the Federal Register, is likely to face legal challenges from power companies and states opposed to the MACT -- although April 15 marks the deadline for all plants to come into compliance with the regulation.
The Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling last June faulted EPA for not considering costs in its initial determination that the MACT was appropriate and necessary under the Clean Air Act. EPA countered that the air law was not explicit on when it should consider costs, and said that it had weighed costs later when it set the rule's actual emissions limits. The high court disagreed, saying costs should have been a factor in the initial finding. The justices remanded litigation over the rule back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The D.C. Circuit then agreed to grant EPA's request for remand without vacatur of the utility MACT while it worked on the proposed cost finding, which it released last year.
The proposal was a supplemental finding on the costs of regulating coal- and oil-fired electric utility steam generating units (EGUs) with the MACT, which is also known as the mercury and air toxics standards (MATS).
EPA in its proposed revised finding did not attempt a full cost-benefit analysis of regulating power plant air toxics, but instead keeps much of the analysis conducted for the MACT rule itself, and then estimates compliance costs to the electric utility sector in order to determine if they are broadly reasonable. EPA cited the Supreme Court's opinion as authority for this, as the court expressly did not demand a full-blown cost-benefit review.
States in comments on the proposal were divided over the merits of EPA's cost assessment, with some backing the review while others say the study is based on a flawed analysis that undermines the air rule.
The final version of the finding backs the initial proposal on the need for the utility MACT, even after considering costs. “After consideration of public comments, the EPA, in this final supplemental finding, concludes that a consideration of cost does not cause us to change our determination that regulation of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from coal- and oil-fired EGUs is appropriate and necessary,” says the rule.
In a fact sheet accompanying the rule, EPA says, “After evaluating several cost metrics relevant to the power sector and considering public comments, EPA finds that the cost of compliance with MATS is reasonable and that the electric power industry can comply with MATS and maintain its ability to provide reliable electric power to consumers at a reasonable cost.”
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/final-epa-cost-assessment-backs-necessary-power-plant-air-toxics-rule
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested