Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 5/6/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) CN Earns ACC Responsible Care Partner, TRANSCAER Awards
May 6, 2016 | Railway Age
By Ben Vient
CN announced on May 5, 2016 it has been recognized as one of the three recipients of the prestigious Responsible Care Partner of the Year award of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), as well as a a 2015 National Achievement Award from Transportation Community Awareness and Emergency Response (TRANSCAER®). -
(ACC Mentioned) CN Recognized for Safe Transport of Chemicals, Receives TRANSCAER Award
May 6, 2016 | Progressive Railroading
CN has been recognized as one of three recipients of this year's Responsible Care Partner of the Year award from the American Chemistry Council, the Class I announced yesterday. -
(ACC Blog) BfR ‘Consensus Statement’ on EDCs Reinforces 5 Key Principles Underpinning Risk-Based Model of Regulation
May 6, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By American Chemistry
When reports surfaced last month that nearly two dozen scientists had gathered in Berlin to reach an “expert consensus” on how to identify endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), it wasn’t immediately clear who attended, how they were selected, or how – or even if – the European Commission would use some of the outcomes to help steer its efforts toward developing criteria for defining EDCs. -
(ACC Mentioned) Do Chemical Assessment Tools Work?
May 6, 2016 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle
Leading chemical assessment tools may not provide product manufacturers and retailers with adequate hazard-screening information, according to a study published in the Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management journal. -
Busting Cosmetic Safety Myths
May 6, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Christine M. Hill and Tina Sigurdson
Chemicals in cosmetics are largely unregulated, so it’s no surprise that some irresponsible companies and their hired-gun lobbyists are fighting the Personal Care Products Safety Act, bipartisan legislation that would finally regulate cosmetics. -
Skeptics Mock White House's Renewed Support for Natural Gas
May 4, 2016 | Washington Examiner
By John Siciliano
The Obama administration got firmly behind natural gas exports Wednesday as key to boosting energy security and prosperity in Latin America. But conservative groups say to be skeptical. -
Texas LNG Terminal, Pipeline Project Filed at FERC
May 6, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
NextDecade LLC has filed at FERC for its proposed 27 million tonne per annum (mtpa) liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal, which would be sited near Brownsville, TX, at the Port of Brownsville, along with an associated 137-mile pipeline system from the Agua Dulce Hub. -
EPA 'Moving Forward' with Model Rules This Summer
May 6, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Debra Kahn
U.S. EPA is moving ahead with guidance to help states trade greenhouse gas emissions credits under the federal Clean Power Plan for existing power plants, a top agency official said yesterday. -
EPA Raises Concerns Over Corps' Draft 'Segmented' Pipeline NEPA Review
May 6, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA is raising concerns over an Army Corps of Engineers review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of a planned oil pipeline crossing four states, echoing environmentalists' longstanding claims that the Corps often narrowly reviews "segments" of the pipeline rather than cumulative impacts of the overall project. -
The Multifaceted Metamorphosis Ahead for Mexico’s Energy Markets
May 6, 2016 | Platts
By Anne Swedberg
The Mexico energy market has been a hot topic ever since late 2013 when the government decided to liberalize the energy sector, opening it up to foreign investment. -
Probe Finds Faulty LNG Handling Process Caused 2014 Blast
May 6, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
A two-year investigation into an explosion at a liquefied natural gas facility in Plymouth, Wash., found that the blast stemmed from badly designed procedures to restart the system after routine maintenance. -
Train Hauling Coal Derails in W.Va.
May 6, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
A freight train carrying coal overturned in Kanawha County, W.Va., yesterday evening, an incident that blocked a nearby road for about two hours.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News - There are no clips to report at this time.
-
(ACC Mentioned) CN Earns ACC Responsible Care Partner, TRANSCAER Awards
May 6, 2016 | Railway Age
By Ben Vient
CN announced on May 5, 2016 it has been recognized as one of the three recipients of the prestigious Responsible Care Partner of the Year award of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), as well as a a 2015 National Achievement Award from Transportation Community Awareness and Emergency Response (TRANSCAER®).
The ACC’s Responsible Care® award “recognizes the strong performance and safety record of companies involved in the transportation, handling and marketing of chemicals. Responsible Care® is the chemistry industry's commitment to sustainability,” said CN. ”It is a global voluntary initiative to guide member organizations in safely managing chemicals through creation to manufacturing to disposal or recycling.”
CN has also earned a 2015 National Achievement Award from Transportation Community Awareness and Emergency Response (TRANSCAER®) in recognition of its ongoing work “to help communities understand the movement of dangerous goods and what is required in the event of transportation incidents.”
Through TRANSCAER®, whose sponsors include the ACC and the Association of American Railroads, CN works with partner chemical companies to support communities with information sessions and training and simulations for community leaders and first-responders about hazardous commodities.
The national TRANSCAER® award “recognizes extraordinary achievements that support the organization's emergency preparedness efforts,” CN said. CN has won a National Achievement Award for seven consecutive years.
CN Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Jim Vena said: “We are honored to receive the Responsible Care Partner of the Year Award and the National Achievement TRANSCAER® award. CN is committed to operating a safe railway, to handling chemicals and all commodities safely, and to working closely with the communities where we operate to share information about dangerous goods and be ready to respond quickly and comprehensively to any incident.”
In 2015, CN conducted almost 300 TRANSCAER® events in Canada and the U.S. involving more than 6,000 participants. Such events included rail-related training sessions for firefighters in the Moncton, N.B., region and South Bend, Ind., area.
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/freight/class-i/cn-recognized-as-responsible-care-partner-of-the-year-for-safe-movement-of-chemicals.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) CN Recognized for Safe Transport of Chemicals, Receives TRANSCAER Award
May 6, 2016 | Progressive Railroading
CN has been recognized as one of three recipients of this year's Responsible Care Partner of the Year award from the American Chemistry Council, the Class I announced yesterday.
The award recognizes the "strong performance and safety record of companies involved in the transportation, handling and marketing of chemicals," according to a CN press release.
Responsible Care is the chemistry industry's voluntary initiative to guide member organizations in safely managing chemicals from creation to manufacturing to disposal or recycling.
In addition, CN earned a 2015 National Achievement Award from Transportation Community Awareness and Emergency Response (TRANSCAER) in recognition of its ongoing work to help communities understand the movement of hazardous materials and what is required in the event of transportation incidents.
In 2015, CN conducted almost 300 TRANSCAER events in Canada and the United States involving more than 6,000 participants.
CN has received the TRANSCAER National Achievement Award for seven consecutive years, company officials said."We are honored to receive the Responsible Care Partner of the Year Award and the National Achievement TRANSCAER award," said Jim Vena, CN executive vice president and chief operating officer. "CN is committed to operating a safe railway, to handling chemicals and all commodities safely, and to working closely with the communities where we operate to share information about dangerous goods and be ready to respond quickly and comprehensively to any incident."
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/canadian_national/news/CN-recognized-for-safe-transport-of-chemicals-receives-TRANSCAER-award--48168
-
May 6, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By American Chemistry
When reports surfaced last month that nearly two dozen scientists had gathered in Berlin to reach an “expert consensus” on how to identify endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), it wasn’t immediately clear who attended, how they were selected, or how – or even if – the European Commission would use some of the outcomes to help steer its efforts toward developing criteria for defining EDCs.
As it turns out, the final consensus statement published on May 4 by the Germany-based Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) reinforces several key principles that would underpin a risk-based approach to regulating EDCs, such as those used in the U.S., Canada and Japan. (You can find more information on theBfR consensus paper on EDCs here.)
That such a diverse group of experts could come together to recognize the validity of risk-based scientific principles speaks volumes about the value it brings to protecting human health and the environment from potential exposure to EDCs.
5 ways risk-based science won the day
The BfR statement accepts that, to be an “endocrine disrupting” chemical, an adverse health effect must occur. According to the WHO, an endocrine disrupting chemical must alter the function of the endocrine system (i.e., it is endocrine active) AND consequently cause an adverse health affect. If there are no adverse health effects, by definition, a substance is not an endocrine disrupting chemical. The BfR statement adopts the WHO definition.
The statement reinforces an important distinction between endocrine activity and endocrine disruption. Attempts to characterize endocrine disruptors as any substance that merely interacts with the endocrine system – with no consideration for whether the effect is beneficial, neutral or adverse – have sorely misrepresented the science. The BfR statement makes this point clear: endocrine activity on its own should not trigger a chemical’s identification as an EDC.
The statement acknowledges the lack of scientific consensus on non-monotonic dose-response relationships and low dose effects. The scientists concluded that consensus was unlikely to be achieved anytime soon, and that consensus was not required to establish criteria for the identification of EDCs. Likewise, in the U.S., that means existing regulatory testing methods like those used by the EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) should continue to move forward and be used to screen and test for endocrine disruption.
The statement’s authors acknowledge that current EU legislation has not been updated to include all relevant and validated tests for endocrine disruption. This statement is a welcome invitation for the EU to now incorporate the validated screens and tests currently used in the EDSP and to apply the results already obtained from the application of the EDSP in the EU weight-of-the-evidence classification of EDCs. The new high throughput assays pioneered in the EDSP, which are insufficient for classification, can be used along with exposure information for prioritization and integrated with toxicity results for weight of evidence determinations.
The statement acknowledges the importance of taking a weight-of-the-evidence (WoE) approach. WoE approaches consider all available relevant and reliable evidence and take into account the strengths and weaknesses of the underlying study methods and quality. WoE means that mode of action must be considered as well as adverse effects.
BfR and potency – a potential sixth principle?
By the look of some initial comments made in the press, a few European-based NGOs are now scrambling to draw attention away from the risk-based principles the statement endorses. How? By focusing the media’s attention on the only potential area where they believe risk-based principles for regulating EDCs can’t win under the current EU law – and that’s with potency.
First, a quick primer: potency in chemical risk assessment refers to the amount of a substance required to produce a given effect. A chemical that can produce a biological effect at low doses is said to be more potent than one which produces effects only at higher doses.
In the EU, some have considered potency to be optional for inclusion in the first step in chemical risk assessment, hazard identification. Instead, according to the BfR statement, potency becomes relevant in the second step of risk assessment – hazard characterization. Either way, of course, potency is important.
The problem here isn’t with the statement, but with the fact that, under the current EU law, if a pesticide or biocide is identified as an EDC (a hazard) – step one – no further steps in a risk assessment are taken. It doesn’t even make it to step two, or three or four or five. So, even though potency does matter, there’s no consideration of potency, or real-world exposure scenarios, or probability of real-world effects.
According to the logic driving this “hazard-only” approach to regulation, water and much of the natural food we eat would be banned. Does that sound like sensible regulation to you? Of course not.
The BfR scientists didn’t seem to think so either. Instead, they get it – the risk-based approach is the most comprehensive, practical and protective approach to protecting human health and the environment to date.
And the fact that they effectively called out the EU on their “hazard-only approach” only reiterates the concerns the U.S. and other countries have expressed to the Commission about their potential next steps.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2016/05/bfr-consensus-statement-on-edcs-reinforces-5-key-principles-underpinning-risk-based-model-of-regulation/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Do Chemical Assessment Tools Work?
May 6, 2016 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle
Leading chemical assessment tools may not provide product manufacturers and retailers with adequate hazard-screening information, according to a study published in the Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management journal.
The analysis of chemical assessment tools — authors include Dow Chemical, American Chemistry Council and two consulting firms — finds that when evaluating the same chemical, individual tools come to different conclusions regarding the hazard categorization of each chemical.
This may call into question the extent to which such tools can provide product manufacturers and other stakeholders with definitive and actionable information about chemical substances in consumer products without further analysis and contextual information.
The analysis comes as the EPA has proposed changes to the Risk Management Program chemical safety rules that would require some facilities that use and distribute hazardous chemicals assess whether safer technologies and chemicals are feasible.
It also follows new regulations under California’s chemical-warning law, Proposition 65, which requires businesses to disclose the presence of chemicals known by the state to cause cancer or reproductive harm. The Prop. 65 list currently includes more than 800 chemicals.
The study reviewed select chemicals using the following hazard-based screening tools:
GreenScreen Full Assessment
EPA Design for the Environment/Safer Choice
GreenSuite
SciVera Lens
GreenWERCs (run in four modes: GreenWERCS GreenScreen List Translator, GreenWERCs Green Screen Scoring Model, GreenWERCs Walmart Scoring Model, and a user-defined GreenWERCS ChemRisk Model)
Retailers and product manufacturers are increasingly using a variety of tools, lists and other approaches to determine whether specific chemical ingredients in consumer products may be a concern, or to certify that chemical ingredients are safer for humans and the environment. The study authors conclude that there is a need for enhanced transparency and understanding of what each tool was designed to measure, as well as the appropriate conditions for each tool’s use, and suggest possible enhancements to the tools to increase their utility.
The various approaches analyzed in the study focus on a chemical’s innate “hazard,” meaning they consider whether the inherent properties of a chemical substance could cause harm to humans or the environment under any circumstance. Hazard-based screening does not consider how a chemical is actually used in a product, how much of the chemical substance exists in those uses, and whether and to what degree there is human or environmental exposure to the chemical substance through such uses.
The seven chemicals evaluated included two natural compounds (caffeine and citric acid), a degradation metabolite (glycolic acid), and four synthetic chemicals: ethylene glycol, dibutyl phthalate, benziothiazolinone (BIT), which is also an antimicrobial, and 1,2,4,6,9,10-hexabromocyclododecane (HBDC), which is designated as persistent and bioaccumulative by the European Union.
“As marketplace demand for ‘greener’ products increases, many retailers and brand owners are seeking ways to determine the safety of certain chemicals used in consumer products,” said Julie Panko, principal health scientist with Cardno ChemRisk and co-author of the study. “This project explored one factor in this emerging trend of product safety evaluation — whether leading hazard assessment tools would provide similar results, or, if there were different results, why these differences occurred. The results affirm what ACC and regulators have known for decades: to judge a product’s safety, a chemical hazard analysis needs to be put into the context of how the product is used, and by whom.”
The results show a wide variety of hazard categorizations for the same chemical—ranging from little or no hazard/toxicity to very high hazard/toxicity. For example, caffeine was ranked by two of the tools as a “low” hazard, as a “moderate hazard by one tool, as a “high” hazard by three tools, and as a “very high” hazard by two of the tools.
The authors indicated that the different results for the same chemicals were due to variations in: 1) the endpoints each tool considered for evaluation; 2) how each tool weighed the relevance of specific endpoints; 3) the sources of information the tools developer used to gather information; and 4) how each tool treated gaps in available data. Thus, the study found that the outcome of a hazard tool assessment is highly dependent on the tool selected for the screening.
“A list-based or hazard-only approach does not fully address whether a chemical ingredient presents health or safety issues when it is used. The inherent hazard of a chemical ingredient is only one aspect to consider when making informed decisions,” said Pamela Spencer, scientific director at Dow Chemical and co-author of the study. “Only by considering how a product is used in combination with the ingredient hazards can one determine product safety.”
The American Chemistry Council is in the process of conducting a follow-up demonstration study that evaluates chemical ingredients in the context of the whole products and its intended use. A paper publishing the results of this analysis is under development.
https://www.environmentalleader.com/2016/05/06/do-chemical-assessment-tools-work/
-
May 6, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Christine M. Hill and Tina Sigurdson
Chemicals in cosmetics are largely unregulated, so it’s no surprise that some irresponsible companies and their hired-gun lobbyists are fighting the Personal Care Products Safety Act, bipartisan legislation that would finally regulate cosmetics.
Here are the top myths being spread about the Personal Care Products Safety Act:
We don’t need reform because the industry regulates itself.
Some opponents of regulation say the industry regulates itself through the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR), established in 1976 by the industry’s trade association. But, CIR lacks the tools to fully assess the safety of cosmetic chemicals and has no power to enforce its recommendations. Ongoing sales of formaldehyde-laced keratin hair-smoothing products, most commonly know by the brand name Brazilian Blowout,illustrate the failure.
A tough safety standard will tie industry’s hands.
The safety standard in the Personal Care Products Safety Act is the same standard used to review pesticides. But, application of the “reasonable certainty of no harm” safety standard has not robbed farmers of the ability to use chemicals to combat pests and weeds. Shouldn’t cosmetic chemicals be as safe as pesticides?
The bill discriminates against small businesses.
The Personal Care Products Safety Act actually creates an advantage for small businesses. First, companies with annual sales below $100,000 would not have to register with the Food and Drug Administration. Second, companies with annual sales below $500,000 will not have to pay fees. Third, companies with annual sales below $2.5 million will only have to pay $250 annually. Finally, smaller companies will have more time to meet new standards and get extra help from government experts.
The bill would increase FDA regulation of soap.
The bill does not expand the existing legal definition of “soap.” Old-fashioned “soap” -- soap that does not make a cosmetic claim and is composed mainly of the “alkali salts of fatty acids” – would not be regulated by FDA. Only soap products currently classified by FDA as cosmetics would be subject to the bill.
The good news is that responsible companies like Revlon and Johnson & Johnson are supporting the bill. Why? Polls show that 87 percent of Americans want stricter regulation of cosmetics.
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2016/05/busting-cosmetic-safety-myths
-
Skeptics Mock White House's Renewed Support for Natural Gas
May 4, 2016 | Washington Examiner
By John Siciliano
The Obama administration got firmly behind natural gas exports Wednesday as key to boosting energy security and prosperity in Latin America. But conservative groups say to be skeptical.
"We want you to be energy secure so more people across the region can … grow," said Vice President Joe Biden, convening a major energy summit Wednesday between the U.S., Caribbean and Central America on a landmark hemispheric energy plan. "The more you grow, the more you prosper, the better it is for my country."
A key ingredient in that move toward prosperity will be access to U.S. natural gas exports. Biden said there is an "abundance of natural gas" in the region due to the U.S. shale boom, "which means our neighbors have access to cheaper energy."
It's a message that conservatives typically tout: that shale oil and gas exports are gamechangers for the United States and it allies. Critics say the administration has leaned more toward solar and wind when it comes to its energy policy because of the president's focus on climate change in his last year in office.
The conservative group American Energy Alliance tweeted Wednesday that it’s a case of "good cop/bad cop" when it comes to the White House's policy on natural gas versus renewables.
The group made the comment while retweeting an earlier Washington Examiner story on the administration changing its tune.
Tom Pyle, the group's director, said the administration has been "two-faced" when it comes to natural gas. "Obama takes credit for stuff he didn't do," says Pyle. "Two dollar gas. No thanks to you, guy."
The centerpiece of the president's climate agenda, the Clean Power Plan, had initially relied heavily on natural gas to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the country, Pyle explains. But when it was finalized and made into law, "Boom! The final rule cut [the industry] out completely."
He said the administration taking credit for exports is a farce. If they were serious about exports, Pyle says, they would have made the export permit approval process "less random and cumbersome."
Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill continue to push for legislation to place firm deadlines on the natural gas export license approval process because of Energy Department slow walking, holding up billions of dollars in energy investments.
The administration has an "amazing ability to cut through red tape when it come to renewables, but when it comes to hydrocarbons" its a "slow walk," said Pyle.
Biden praised the first batch of exports sent to Latin America recently as a great achievement. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, who addressed the summit alongside Biden, said the Energy Department is studying how to bring more natural gas to the Caribbean and the region.
"Clearly we are a rather signifiant producer of natural gas," Moniz said. Since February, six cargoes of liquified natural gas have sailed to Asia, the Americas and Europe, he said.
Biden discussed Mexico's interest in building new natural gas-fired power plants that will use U.S.-produced natural gas. In two weeks, a new gas-fired plant comes online in Monterrey, Mexico to begin transmitting 120 megawatts of electricity across the border to Guatamala, Biden said.
It's a development that couldn't have been dreamt of six months ago, he said. But due to reforms made in Mexico, an "energy transformation" is occuring, he added.
"There's going to be winners and losers" in any major shift, he said. "How do we make the vast majority winners?" is the main question for public officials.
Biden also congratulated Panama on the recent upgrades to its canal system linking the Pacific and Atlantic. "Go see the two new locks that have been built," he said. "And its a gamechanger.
The president of Panama, Juan Carlos Varela, said the upgrades will be used to make his country into a major "hub" for liquefied natural gas from the United States to Central America and South America.
The new upgrades to the canal will expedite the arrival of exports of liquified natural gas from the United States by 11 days, he said.
The energy plan for the region includes solar, wind and geothermal resources along with natural gas.
Although lowering emissions to curb global warming is a priority for the administration, so is energy security and keeping energy prices low. So, while it continues to promote renewables, natural gas is essential to weaning the region off of coal and oil, it says.
Moniz said it is important to "pursue these intertwined threads between energy security and climate change."
Meanwhile, during a seperate meeting between the U.S. and European countries Wednesday, a joint statement applauded the lifting of the 40-year-old ban on oil exports as a major achievement in improving global stability.
The U.S.-European Union Energy Council "welcomed the lifting of U.S. crude oil export restrictions in 2015 and the commencement of U.S. [liquefied natural gas] exports from the Gulf Coast in 2016, as they are important milestones for global energy markets that can also help improve security of supply globally and in Europe," the statement read.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/skeptics-mock-white-houses-renewed-support-for-natural-gas/article/2590430
-
Texas LNG Terminal, Pipeline Project Filed at FERC
May 6, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
NextDecade LLC has filed at FERC for its proposed 27 million tonne per annum (mtpa) liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal, which would be sited near Brownsville, TX, at the Port of Brownsville, along with an associated 137-mile pipeline system from the Agua Dulce Hub.
The Woodlands, TX-based company said it is now "in an excellent position to sign offtake agreements and declare final investment decision in 2017" for Rio Grande LNG and the Rio Bravo Pipeline.
"Despite recent low oil and gas prices, we have found robust appetite for U.S. LNG on a long-term basis all around the world," said NextDecade CEO Kathleen Eisbrenner. "This interest reaffirms the price competitiveness of U.S. LNG for customers looking to diversify their gas supply on a global level."
The project is proposed for a 1,000-acre industrial site in Cameron County on the Port of Brownsville and represents a potential investment of up to $20 billion.
The terminal would entail six liquefaction trains, each with a nominal capacity of 4.5 mtpa (i.e., a long-term average of approximately 0.6 Bcf/d), four LNG tanks (each with a capacity of 180,000 cubic meters), two marine jetties for ocean-going LNG vessels (with capacities ranging from 125,000 to 185,000 cubic meters), one turning basin, and four LNG and two natural gas liquids truck-loading bays, according to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission filing [CP16-454, 455].
LNG to be loaded onto trucks at the terminal would be used solely for the purpose of supplying LNG to truck-fueling facilities in South Texas and would not be regasified and reintroduced into the U.S. pipeline system.
Pipeline facilities would include twin 42-inch diameter pipelines running parallel, three 180,000 hp compressor stations, two 30,000 hp interconnect booster stations, six mainline valve sites, four metering sites along a 2.4-mile-long header system, as well as ancillary facilities.
The header system at the upstream end of the pipeline would have multiple interconnects to the existing natural gas pipeline grid in the Agua Dulce market area. Firm capacity is expected to be fully subscribed by an affiliate of Rio Bravo Pipeline for the purpose of supplying the terminal. However, transportation of gas for the terminal and any additional purposes would be in accordance with the results of an open season, which is expected to be completed by the end of the second quarter, NextDecade said in its filing.
Last November NextDecade said it had signed nonbinding agreements for 14 mtpa of LNG with customers from across Asia and Europe (see Daily GPI, Nov. 5, 2015). Since then, that number has grown to 26 mtpa, it said Thursday. The company expects to receive authorization from the FERC by the end of the first quarter of 2017 and expects to begin exporting LNG from Rio Grande LNG by the end of 2020.
At full buildout, the Rio Grande facility is expected to be one of the largest LNG export facilities in the world, NextDecade said.
The project was prefiled at FERC in March 2015 at the same time that Sempra Energy prefiled for an unrelated LNG export terminal in Port Arthur, TX (see Daily GPI, March 23, 2015). Last March Texas LNG Brownsville LLC filed at FERC for its 4 mtpa LNG export terminal proposed for a 625-acre site at the Port of Brownsville (see Daily GPI, March 31). Exelon Generation unit Annova LNG LLC made a pre-filing review request last year for its proposed Brownsville, too (see Daily GPI,March 11, 2015).
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/106332-texas-lng-terminal-pipeline-project-filed-at-ferc
-
EPA 'Moving Forward' with Model Rules This Summer
May 6, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Debra Kahn
U.S. EPA is moving ahead with guidance to help states trade greenhouse gas emissions credits under the federal Clean Power Plan for existing power plants, a top agency official said yesterday.
Janet McCabe, EPA's acting assistant administrator for air and radiation, said the agency expects to make progress this summer on its so-called model carbon-trading rules, which would set out a framework for how states can meet their emissions targets by trading with each other.
"We got a lot of comment on those model rules. We don't want to lose momentum on that, so we'll be doing that, moving that forward this summer," McCabe told officials attending a carbon markets conference.
Despite the legal disputes that have engulfed the Clean Power Plan, EPA is assisting states that want to keep planning for it to take effect. Even while the program is stayed by the Supreme Court pending lower-court rulings, EPA is predicting a victory and continuing to refine its guidelines.
It submitted a proposal last week to the Office of Management and Budget for a program to give credit for early action on renewables and low-income energy efficiency, known as the Clean Energy Incentive Program (ClimateWire, April 27).
McCabe stressed that EPA is still heeding the stay, and she said she didn't have a timeline for the release of the model rules. She also didn't say whether the rules would be released in final version or in some other form.
"I want to be very careful and clear to emphasize that EPA is absolutely respecting the stay that the court put in place," she said. However, the stay "doesn't stay you guys from doing the kinds of things that you do every day on climate issues. It doesn't stay EPA from being available to help states and others as they move forward with climate activities, and we've been very clear that we're prepared to do that."
Worries about losing 'momentum'
States and utilities alike have said they hoped EPA would publish the final model trading rules this summer, regardless of the Supreme Court decision to halt implementation of the rule. A group of 14 states coordinated by the Georgetown Climate Center sent a letter to EPA last week requesting that and other details about the rule (ClimateWire, April 29).
McCabe said she had heard the states' interest and wanted to reciprocate.
The CEIP program has "generated a lot of interest out there in the energy world and among communities and state governments, so we don't want to lose any time, so we'll be getting a proposal out there quite soon for people to look at," she said. "Another aspect of the Clean Power Plan that people are very interested in us not losing momentum on is the model trading rules."
Lenny Dupuis, environmental policy manager for Dominion Resources, said it's good news that EPA plans to finalize the trading guidelines.
"It's paramount that they get finalized so that the states have the tools to go forward with developing their plans," he said.
A representative of state and regional air pollution control agencies agreed.
"States are very appreciative of the resources EPA will be providing, including model trading rules," said Bill Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies. "These will be extremely helpful if and when the stay is lifted. NACAA will be publishing its comprehensive model rule in the weeks ahead."
Questions on mass-based plans
Other conference attendees said they hoped EPA would provide guidance on how to deal with the risk of emissions shifting, or "leaking," to new power plants, which aren't covered by the rule.
States are concerned that it would be difficult to demonstrate that leakage is not occurring if they choose to regulate their power plants based on their total emissions, a method known as "mass-based" under EPA's rule.
"If EPA said something in the model trading rules about the third option for dealing with leakage ... I think it would be really helpful," said Emily Fisher, deputy general counsel for the Edison Electric Institute, which represents investor-owned utilities. "I've had conversations with state regulators, both environmental and economic, who have said, 'Well, we kind of like mass, but then [there's] leakage.'"
Another area that observers are hoping to elucidate is how states that choose a mass-based standard should account for energy efficiency savings.
"The rule is pretty much silent on EM&V [evaluation, monitoring and verification] for mass," said Christopher James, a principal at the Regulatory Assistance Project. "There's an assumption within EPA that if you're doing mass-based, this energy efficiency stuff just happens. I think that assumption could deserve a little more attention."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/05/06/stories/1060036822
-
EPA Raises Concerns Over Corps' Draft 'Segmented' Pipeline NEPA Review
May 6, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA is raising concerns over an Army Corps of Engineers review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of a planned oil pipeline crossing four states, echoing environmentalists' longstanding claims that the Corps often narrowly reviews "segments" of the pipeline rather than cumulative impacts of the overall project.
"Essentially, we're seeing the Corps once again segment their analysis of the pipeline into a bunch of little pieces," narrowly considering impacts instead of looking at the entire project's potential impacts, one environmentalist says. The source adds that EPA's concerns that it outlined in a recent comment letter are "valid."
The Corps in December released a draft NEPA environment assessment (EA) of a segment of the Dakota Access Pipeline, a planned 1134-mile pipeline to cross four states, transporting crude oil from the Bakken and Three Forks oil fields in North Dakota to Illinois. Under NEPA, federal agencies must assess the potential adverse environmental impacts of their actions, seek input from other agencies on the review, and mitigate any harm.
The Corps is examining part of the pipeline that will cross the Missouri River twice in North Dakota, estimated to be 35-miles long, including a 210-mile main pipeline and a 148-mile supply pipeline.
The draft EA, on which the Corps took comment through March, focused on the river crossings, the Corps' flow easements upstream of Lake Sakakawea and federal tracts of land managed by the Corps.
Despite the narrow focus of the draft EA, EPA says in a recent comment letter on the draft EA that "we recommend that the applicant's spill planning and emergency response efforts cover the entire length of the pipeline as the proposed pipeline crosses many creeks and rivers that could quickly convey a spill into the Missouri River or other water resources."
The Corps will now review the comments before it issues a final EA, though EPA is seeking a new draft EA and second round of public comment before the Corps moves ahead with the project.
In its comment letter, EPA questioned the Corps' spill analysis, noting there are drinking water intakes located 10 miles from the proposed Missouri River crossings. Despite the low probability of a significant spill reaching the river, EPA warned, "There would be very little time to determine if a spill or leak affecting surface waters is occurring, to notify water treatment plants and to have treatment plant staff on site to shut down the water intakes."
Mitigation Measures
The agency is urging the Corps to expand the NEPA analysis to describe additional mitigation measures regarding emergency preparedness to reduce the impacts in the event of a spill, such as an emergency response plan that includes cold weather and ice cover measures; procedures for rapid notification to public water systems and well owners; drills and exercises; and pre-positioned response assets, including equipment to address spills.
Noting the proximity to the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, EPA also urges the Corps to revise the draft EA to assess potential impacts to water resources and cultural and environmental sites.
EPA says that the Corps should develop a "more thorough environmental justice (EJ) analysis" for the review, saying the areas of EJ analysis should correspond to the impacts of the proposed project instead of only the area of construction disturbance. "For oil pipeline projects, potential impacts to EJ communities would include the effects of leaks and spills to downstream water supplies (both drinking water quality, agricultural uses, and costs) and aquatic resources such as fish and riparian vegetation used by EJ populations," the agency says.
The agency is also pointing to several potential impacts that appear to be unique to the Bakken oil reserves. EPA notes that in its response to a 2015 Bridger Poplar Pipeline spill it said that prolonged oil and water contact and lack of evaporation due to ice cover caused a much larger than expected concentration of dissolved-phase organics being transported to the water treatment plant. "This is likely a unique situation to Bakken crude released into an iced-over waterbody," and the Corps should therefore note that winter response for Bakken spills may be more difficult than a typical spill during winter months," according to the comment letter.
Environmentalists' Concerns
EPA's comments could bolster environmentalists' claims that the Corps too narrowly construes its NEPA reviews of pipeline segments when reviewing projects involving coverage under the Clean Water Act (CWA) nationwide permit 12, easements, and other agency actions.
Late last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected environmentalists' suit seeking to force the Corps to broaden its NEPA and CWA reviews of the cumulative impacts of the Flanagan South Pipeline project, largely ruling on a ripeness issue concerning easements in the suit.
The D.C. Circuit in a Sept. 29 ruling in Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, et al. by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit followed oral arguments in April where the court heard debate over where to draw a so-called bright line rule on when it is appropriate for agencies to "segment" reviews of extensive pipeline projects in order to consider impacts under NEPA and the applicability of CWA permits.
Judge Cornelia Pillard on behalf of fellow panel Judge Robert Wilkins -- with a concurring opinion by Judge Janice Rogers Brown that only agrees with the judgment and not the reasoning -- affirmed a lower court decision partially granting the federal defendants' and industry intervenors' motions for dismissal. This motion said the agencies involved in aspects of the pipeline's approvals each only play small roles in what is essentially a private project.
The D.C. Circuit said the Obama administration was not required to conduct a NEPA analysis of the entirety of the Flanagan South crude oil pipeline, which included portions not subject to federal control or permitting. The ruling says the 593 mile pipeline from Illinois to Oklahoma crosses land that is "almost all" privately owned.
For the parts of the project covering federal land, agencies were responsible for reviews including verification under NWP12, a general CWA permit for utility projects; wildlife authorities' approval of incidental "take" under the Endangered Species Act; and federal approval of easements. But the court said that these duties were limited to "discrete geographic segments" making up less than five percent of the entire pipeline.
In the ruling, Pillard cited a landmark 2014 D.C. Circuit ruling in Delaware Riverkeeper v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that illustrates the connected actions principle, but says that"it does not accomplish all that Sierra Club asks of it." Under the Riverkeeper precedent, an agency cannot segment NEPA review of projects that are "connected, contemporaneous, closely related, and interdependent," when the entire project at issue is subject to federal review.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-raises-concerns-over-corps-draft-segmented-pipeline-nepa-review
-
The Multifaceted Metamorphosis Ahead for Mexico’s Energy Markets
May 6, 2016 | Platts
By Anne Swedberg
The Mexico energy market has been a hot topic ever since late 2013 when the government decided to liberalize the energy sector, opening it up to foreign investment.
The reform provides an unprecedented opportunity for international companies to participate in development of the nation’s vast oil resources as PEMEX unwinds its current monopoly. Multiple other opportunities exist in the power sector, in renewables development and in the natural gas pipeline sector.
The energy reforms were largely a result of the steep decline of the country’s oil production, inadequate financial resources to turn production around and an inability of PEMEX to keep pace with the technological change taking place in the industry.
Mexico ranks sixth in the world for non-conventional oil and gas resources, right behind Canada and Algeria, but lacks the financial resources to develop its reserves. It would take US$20 billion to extract the country’s reserves over a 210-year period and $87 billion to do it in 50 years. It also would not be possible to do this with one state-owned exploration and production monopoly — this is why the reforms were necessary.
However, private investment cannot come quickly enough. Active drilling rigs in Mexico fell to 43 in February, down 43% from a year prior. Developmental rigs fell to 35 in February, down 44% from February 2015. The biggest year-on-year declines came from the Southern Region (down 15.7 rigs; 52%) and the Southwestern Marine Region (down 12.4 rigs; 56%).
In March, Pemex’s announced a $5.5 billion budget cut, and active rigs plummeted another 43%, while developmental rigs dropped to only 21. The Southern region again was hit hardest, with developmental rigs falling to seven during the month, down 55% from January.
Petroleum production is a major concern for the country, but renewables also are an important focus of the reforms. On top of having significantly large oil and gas resources, Mexico also has significant resources for renewable energy such as geothermal, wind and solar. It is estimated that current renewables generation, plus proven additional renewable resources in the country, could boost generation from renewables from 3.9% of the country’s total power generation to 9.89%.
Adding possible renewable resources to the mix could satisfy the country’s total generation needs, according to Mario Gabriel Budebo, director general of the EXI Fund: Energy and Infrastructure and former independent director of gas and basic petrochemicals at PEMEX. Budebo, who was the keynote speaker at the Platts Global Power Conference in Las Vegas in early April, also noted that significant infrastructure would need to be built to support such a major turn to renewables, highlighting the significant need for private investment to support the renewables efforts. He also gave a firsthand account of the Mexican energy landscape and the other investment opportunities the reform provides for international companies.
Investment in pipeline infrastructure also is a major need throughout the country. Just a few years ago, only 10 states had natural gas pipelines, but today 22 states have them. The Ministry of Energy estimates US$10.1 billion needs to be invested in pipeline infrastructure between 2015 and 2019 to build 3,205 miles of new pipeline, which would increase the total pipeline network to 11,081 miles.
While the country waits for the benefits of private investment in exploration and production, most of its natural gas supply to feed all the new gas pipeline and power generation infrastructure will originate in the United States. In its new Mexico Energy Monthly report, Platts Analytics said US natural gas exports to Mexico rose to more than 3.5 Bcf/d in April, prompted by a near 0.7 Bcf/d year-on-year increase in gas demand from the Mexican power sector. Greater reliance on US gas supply has reduced the need for more expensive imported liquefied natural gas. LNG imports by Mexico, despite rising to about 0.6 Bcf/d in April, were down 0.2 Bcf/d from April 2015 levels. Total non-US gas supply in Mexico was down 0.3 Bcf/d in April compared to April 2015.
Platts Analytics expects that US natural gas exports to Mexico could break above 4 Bcf/d by early summer as demand picks up and domestic supply continues to decline due to a lack of drilling activity.
Power demand is expected to increase as the country transitions to greater reliance on gas-fired generation and retires as much as 2.1 GW of fuel oil-generation plants over the next year.
However, lingering gas pipeline transportation constraints on both the north-to-south corridors (Los Ramones Phase II South) and the east-to-west corridors (El Enino – Topolobampo), may hinder exports this summer if planned pipeline expansions miss their expected in-service dates, in which case Mexico would likely increase reliance on LNG imports.
Mexico’s energy infrastructure development is behind other emerging economies, creating significant investment opportunities for both domestic and foreign companies.
http://blogs.platts.com/2016/05/06/mexico-energy-oil-gas-power/
-
Probe Finds Faulty LNG Handling Process Caused 2014 Blast
May 6, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
A two-year investigation into an explosion at a liquefied natural gas facility in Plymouth, Wash., found that the blast stemmed from badly designed procedures to restart the system after routine maintenance.
On March 31, 2014, a liquefaction facility owned by Williams Cos. Inc. subsidiary Northwest Pipeline blew up, injuring five workers and causing $72 million in damage to the plant and nearby area. The explosion also led to the evacuation of a 2-mile radius around the plant, including the entire town of Plymouth (EnergyWire, April 1, 2014).
The plant is a so-called peak shaving facility consisting of two storage tanks that liquefy gas from the pipeline system during the summer for regasification during later periods of high demand. Each tank can hold up to 1.2 billion standard cubic feet of LNG.
At the time of the explosion, one of the storage tanks was being returned to operation after a shutdown for routine maintenance, according to an investigation carried out by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission and the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).
Workers at the plant had "purged" the system of oxygen according to established procedures designed to keep natural gas and oxygen from blending into an explosive mixture, and were in the process of warming up and pressurizing equipment components to restart liquefaction.
But the designated process actually left some remaining oxygen in the piping system. Though the same procedure had been used without problem over the past several years, on that March day, as the equipment's pressure and temperature rose, the methane-oxygen mixture spontaneously ignited.
Later, by examining damaged equipment and conducting lab tests on oxygen-methane mixtures, investigators found that the mixture "auto-ignited" in a section of pipe, causing a "rolling detonation" that followed the gas back toward the source. That caused an explosion, resulting in "catastrophic failure" of the outer layer of the tank.
The explosion triggered multiple small fires at the plant and badly damaged several buildings and pieces of equipment. It caused a half-inch pipe carrying LNG to be sheared off, spraying a small quantity of gas for 25 hours before being shut off.
Taking action
"The investigation found the leading cause of the explosion was inadequate procedures that allowed oxygen to remain in the system," Washington regulators concluded. But additional factors included "procedures that lacked sufficient details for employees to follow and obtain consistent results."
In a letter to PHMSA Administrator Marie Therese Dominguez, the commissioner of Washington state's Utilities and Transportation Commission called on the agency to recommend new gas purging guidelines that take into account lessons learned from the incident.
The state also urged PHMSA to start a rulemaking on its regulations covering LNG operations, including new requirements for operator qualifications, gas purging and startup procedures, use of the latest National Fire Protection Association codes, and a general update to match recent changes to the industry.
Some of those items were already listed by PHMSA officials as priorities for discussion in an upcoming forum on LNG safety regulations scheduled for May 18 and 19 in Washington, D.C. (EnergyWire, April 27).
The new investigation tying weaknesses in the current rules to a specific accident could put pressure on the agency to act quickly.
In a separate pipeline safety violation report, the two safety agencies allege that Williams violated federal pipeline safety rules by not having adequate gas purging procedures in place, recommending that PHMSA impose an unspecified penalty on the company.
They noted, however, that Williams had cooperated fully with the investigation, hiring consultants to determine the sequence of events and causes of the explosion, and taking steps to replace other equipment similar to that which failed. A spokesman for Williams could not be reached for comment.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/05/06/stories/1060036810
-
Train Hauling Coal Derails in W.Va.
May 6, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
A freight train carrying coal overturned in Kanawha County, W.Va., yesterday evening, an incident that blocked a nearby road for about two hours.
The 150-car train that spans 8,000 feet was attempting to haul 21,000 tons of coal from a mining site owned by Blackhawk Mining LLC to Handley, W.Va., when it went off the rails, the conductor, David Fleck, said.
Seven cars left the track, four of which overturned, he said. A crew removed the cars that were blocking the roadway by 7:30 p.m. yesterday.
It is still unclear what caused the train to derail.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/05/06/stories/1060036830
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Add recipients
Suggested