Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 6/29/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) Nano-Tech Coating Lets Soap Products Flow Freely
Jun 29, 2016 | Design Engineering
By Staff
Have you every found yourself standing with a near-empty bottle of hand soap, shampoo or laundry detergent, trying to get the last little bit of soapy material out? It can be rather frustrating. -
(ACC Mentioned) ADAO Applauds Obama’s Signing of the 21st Century Chemical Safety Act
Jun 28, 2016 | Mesothelioma Cancer Alliance
By Jillian Duff
The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) celebrated President Obama’s signing of the 21st century Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act on June 22. -
(ACC Mentioned) Changes Coming to the Way Chemicals are Regulated
Jun 29, 2016 | Cleveland Business
By Rachel Abbey McCafferty
Last week, President Barack Obama signed legislation to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act, a move that will have an impact on manufacturers that make or use chemicals. -
(ACC Mentioned) San Francisco Just Passed the Nation's Toughest Ban on Styrofoam
Jun 29, 2016 | Mother Jones
By Jenny Luna
San Franciscans, bid adieu to Styrofoam. On Tuesday, the city unanimously passed an ordinance banning the sale of any product made from polystyrene, the petroleum-based compound that's molded into disposable dishware, packing materials, and beach toys—among other things. -
Toxic Substances Control Act: Past, Present and Future
Jun 28, 2016 | Lexology
By Amanda Porter and Michelle L. Corrigan
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was enacted on October 11, 1976 to regulate certain chemical substances and mixtures being used in interstate commerce. -
Republicans Seek to Repeal Conflict Minerals Reporting Rule
Jun 29, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Republicans on the House Financial Services Committee have proposed a full repeal of the US’s conflict minerals reporting rules. -
FDA Proposes Hand Sanitizer Safety Revamp
Jun 29, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Colby Bermel
The Food and Drug Administration proposed a rule today calling for more scientific data on ingredients in hand sanitizers. -
(ACC Mentioned) Shell's New Shale 'Cracker' Plant Will Spark the Rebirth of Pa. Manufacturing - Here's How
Jun 29, 2016 | Penn Live
By David Spigelmyer and David Taylor
Pennsylvania manufacturing and the hard-working men and women of the Commonwealth that it employs have long been the backbone to our state and nation's economy. -
US, Canada, Mexico Detail Continent-Wide Clean Energy Plan
Jun 29, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Leaders of the United States, Canada and Mexico on Wednesday added new details to their new clean energy effort, a push to generate 50 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025. -
White House Aligns with Canada, Mexico on Emissions Plan
Jun 29, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
The White House today formally announced an "action plan" with Canada and Mexico to address climate change that goes beyond this week's earlier announcement that the three nations will draw 50 percent of North America's power from no carbon sources by 2025. -
McAuliffe Orders Study to Pursue Power Plant Carbon Cuts
Jun 29, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Elizabeth Harball and Emily Holden
Clean Power Plan or no Clean Power Plan, Virginia's governor aims to cut carbon from his state's electricity sector. -
EPA Sends Final Oil & Gas VOC Guidelines To OMB
Jun 29, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA has sent for White House pre-publication review its final guidelines for how the oil and gas sector can reduce emissions of ozone-forming volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from existing drilling operations, although industry officials doubt the need for the guidance given the agency's plan to eventually cap methane from the operations, which is expected to curb all emissions. -
Where Will All the New US Olefins Go?
Jun 29, 2016 | Platts
By Michael McCafferty
It is well known that shale-driven ethylene expansions are taking place in the North American market. The question is, will these growing supplies of olefins outstrip the ability of units downstream to take in product? -
BLM Plan Backs Truce Over Colo. Plateau
Jun 29, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Phil Taylor
The Bureau of Land Management yesterday advanced a pact between environmentalists and drilling companies to scale back oil and gas development atop a scenic and biologically rich plateau in western Colorado. -
Strategic Shale Gas Infrastructure Placement May Reduce Environmental Impacts, For A Price
Jun 29, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
The strategic placement of shale gas infrastructure could reduce environment impacts for a reasonable additional cost, but doing so would require commitments from planners and regulators and would be a departure from current practices, according to researchers. -
Coalition of Mayors Pushes for 'Local Control'
Jun 29, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Local governments should have authority over hydraulic fracturing within their borders, a coalition of mayors said yesterday. -
Good Jobs and Clean Energy are Not Mutually Exclusive
Jun 29, 2016 | The Hill - Ballot Box Blog
By Terry O'Sullivan
If you’ve been reading newspaper headlines in recent weeks, you may think environmentalists and unions are clashing with each other over clean energy policy. In fact, infrastructure unions such as LIUNA and climate advocates around the world share the same goal of fighting climate change. -
Rules to Shore Up Pipelines Could be Approved Today
Jun 29, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple's (R) administration could finalize a closely watched package of regulations aimed at tightening pipeline construction in the Bakken Shale oil field. -
Freight Trains Collide Head-on, Explode into Flames in Texas Panhandle
Jun 28, 2016 | Washington Post
By Ashley Halsey III
A pair of freight trains collided head-on and exploded into flames Tuesday morning in the Texas Panhandle, and there were reports that three crew members were missing. -
The Bipartisan Climate Solution: a Tax Swap
Jun 29, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Keith Kozloff and Emil Frankel
You wouldn’t know it from today’s polarized politics, but protecting the environment used to be a bipartisan effort. There were, of course, the path-breaking conservation achievements of Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican. -
EPA Eyes Ambitious Schedule Of Major Air Regulations Throughout 2016
Jun 29, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is readying a slew of proposed and final major Clean Air Act rules for release during the rest of 2016 that will include an overhaul of the agency' s regional haze emissions program; guidance on implementing its particulate matter (PM) and ozone ambient air standards; new regulations on interstate air pollution; and other regulations.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Nano-Tech Coating Lets Soap Products Flow Freely
Jun 29, 2016 | Design Engineering
By Staff
Have you every found yourself standing with a near-empty bottle of hand soap, shampoo or laundry detergent, trying to get the last little bit of soapy material out? It can be rather frustrating.
Ohio State University researchers have tackled this exact problem. Engineers Bharat Bhushan and Philip Brown have developed the perfect texture for inside plastic bottles to allow for soap products to flow freely.
Plastic bottles are lined with microscopic y-shaped structures that cradle the droplets of soap aloft above tiny air pockets, so that the soap never actually touches the inside of the bottle.
The “y” structures are built using small nanoparticles made of silica or quartz, that when treated, wont stick to soap. This method is extremely effective with the a common plastic packaging material, polypropylene.
The applications for this technology extend beyond grappling with personal annoyance. Manufacturers are very interested in the technology as they make billions of bottles that end up in the garbage with their products still in them, explains Bhushan, Ohio Eminent Scholar and Howard D. Winbigler Professor of mechanical engineering at Ohio State.
Although polypropylene isn’t the most common bottle material, 177 million pounds of it were made into bottles and bottle lids in the United States in 2014 alone, according to the American Chemistry Council (ACC). And as more and more polypropylene bottles hit the market, the more there is a need to recycle, which is where The Ohio State invention comes into play. Before plastic bottles can be recycled, they have to be rinsed completely clean, and Bhushan suspects that he’s not the only person who doesn’t bother.
“We all struggle with shampoo bottles at home,” Bhushan said. “I have a few in my shower right now. Trying to get the last drop out, I put it upside down, and my wife adds water to the bottle and fights with it for a while, and then we give up and just throw it away.”
The coating was specifically designed to deal with the unique challenge posed by soapy products.
The technology comes down to surface tension—the tendency of the molecules of a substance to stick to each other. The organic molecules that make soap “soapy” have a very low surface tension and therefore stick to plastic quite easily, explains Brown, a postdoctoral fellow.
“It was an extra challenge for us to make a surface that could repel surfactant,” he agreed. The goal, which was suggested by a commercial shampoo manufacturer, was to create a shampoo bottle lining that was cheap, effective and environmentally friendly.
Bhushan and Brown created a method to spray-coat a small amount of solvent and ultra-fine silica nanoparticles onto the inside of bottles. Manufacturers change the texture of molded plastics by using solvents to soften the surface of the bottle. The duo realized they could add the silica mixture with the solvent to soften the surface of the polypropylene enough that when the plastic re-hardened, the silica would embed in the surface.
The structures are only a few micrometers–millionths of a meter–high, and covered in even smaller branchlike projections. Due to the shape and properties, the structures don’t need to completely cover the surface, instead, they are planted micometers apart.
The main branches of the “y” overhang the plastic surface at an angle less than 90 degrees–steep enough that water, oils and even surfactant can’t physically sustain a droplet shape that would fall in between the branches and touch the plastic.
“You end up with air pockets underneath, and that’s what gives you liquid repellency,” Brown said. This forced the soap droplets to bead and roll off.
http://www.design-engineering.com/polypropylene-coating-soap-1004023989/
-
(ACC Mentioned) ADAO Applauds Obama’s Signing of the 21st Century Chemical Safety Act
Jun 28, 2016 | Mesothelioma Cancer Alliance
By Jillian Duff
The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) celebrated President Obama’s signing of the 21st century Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act on June 22. In a press release, ADAO President Linda Reinstein stated:
“Today, a monumental step was taken in the fight against asbestos, a known human carcinogen for which there is no safe level of exposure. By signing into law the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, President Barack Obama ensured the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will have the necessary tools to once and for all ban asbestos in America.”
The act passed the House of Representatives near the end of May and then again in the Senate earlier this month, despite a delay due to objections from Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul.
“Not only will this law help end the man-made asbestos crisis that still to this day takes as many as 15,000 American lives each year, but it will also empower the EPA to finally test and regulate the thousands of chemicals present in our daily lives,” said Reinstein.
The ADAO is an organization that promotes awareness about the dangers of asbestos and that played a critical role in making sure asbestos was one of the substances to be reviewed by the EPA under the new policies and procedures created by the law.
“I was honored to attend the signing ceremony on behalf of the ADAO community. Our staff and volunteers participated in countless hours of negotiations and numerous hearings to ensure that the collective voice of asbestos victims was heard loud and clear by policy makers,” said Reinstein.
In addition to the ADAO being invited to the signing, Bonnie Lautenberg, members of Congress who supported the bill, regulators such as industry reps from the American Chemical Council (ACC) and SC Johnson, and organizations like the March of Dimes and Environmental Defense Fund were in attendance.
“I am so very proud of each and every member of our community, from those who traveled to Washington, DC to share their stories to those who reached out to their elected officials from their homes. Each person played a critical role in this accomplishment and it is a privilege to represent our community at today’s event,” said Reinstein.
At the speech, the President touched on the limitations of previous laws. “The system was so complex, it was so burdensome, that our country hasn’t even been able to uphold a ban on asbestos, a known carcinogen that kills as many as 10,000 Americans every year,” said President Obama. “I think a lot of Americans would be shocked by that.”
Reinstein commented, “But make no mistake, we are not yet at the finish line. There is still much work to be done, and time is of the essence. Under the new law, the EPA may take as long as seven years to assess, regulate, and ban asbestos.
In that time, an estimated 100,000 Americans will lose their lives to asbestos-related diseases and countless more will be needlessly exposed to asbestos. The EPA must limit delay by including asbestos in the list of the first chemicals it evaluates and quickly exercising its authority under this legislation to ban asbestos.”
http://www.mesothelioma.com/news/2016/06/adao-applauds-obamas-signing-of-the-21st-century-chemical-safety-act-.htm#ixzz4CzDFAxLP
-
(ACC Mentioned) Changes Coming to the Way Chemicals are Regulated
Jun 29, 2016 | Cleveland Business
By Rachel Abbey McCafferty
Last week, President Barack Obama signed legislation to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act, a move that will have an impact on manufacturers that make or use chemicals.
What caught my eye was the positive reaction I saw to the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act — the full name of the legislation to reform the original toxic substances act — from the trade-related groups I follow like the Steel Manufacturers Association and the National Association of Manufacturers. That’s not always the reaction I see from industry to new or expanded regulations.
But Ross Eisenberg, vice president of energy and resources policy at the D.C.-based National Association of Manufacturers, said manufacturers were “thrilled” with the bipartisan update.
The Toxic Substances Control Act had outgrown its usefulness, subjecting manufacturers to a variety of different regulations, Eisenberg said. That patchwork approach can make it difficult for manufacturers to plan out and sell their products, but the overhaul lays out a procedure and a schedule for the Environmental Protection Agency to examine those chemicals one by one.
The American Chemistry Council emailed me some information on the act, noting that it was the first time the country’s “primary chemical regulations” were updated in 40 years. It emphasized that all new and existing chemicals will be subject to an EPA review, with chemicals at high priority for “full risk evaluation” receiving focus.
For more information, visit the council’s website.
Manufacturing for millennials, Gen X-ers
Independence-based Precision Metalforming Association is starting yet another spin-off group designed to support a specific population within manufacturing. The group, which originally served as the parent organization for the now-independent Women in Manufacturing, has started a new initiative called MFG NXT.
The group is designed to support millennials and members of Generation X who may become leaders in the manufacturing sector. It’s meeting for the first time on Wednesday, June 29, according to a news release.
I spoke to Andrew Bader at OGS Industries about the idea for this group in the spring. Allison Grealis, president of Women in Manufacturing and vice president of membership and association services at the Precision Metalforming Association, said the vision for this group is to have it be a national initiative, instead of just a Cleveland-centric one.
The first group at Wednesday’s meeting will be used as a focus group, she said, as the group figures out how to best stay in touch and share stories. Social media feeds for the group are being created, as well, so stay tuned.
http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20160629/BLOGS09/160629777/changes-coming-to-the-way-chemicals-are-regulated
-
(ACC Mentioned) San Francisco Just Passed the Nation's Toughest Ban on Styrofoam
Jun 29, 2016 | Mother Jones
By Jenny Luna
San Franciscans, bid adieu to Styrofoam. On Tuesday, the city unanimously passed an ordinance banning the sale of any product made from polystyrene, the petroleum-based compound that's molded into disposable dishware, packing materials, and beach toys—among other things. Even though it's commonly known as Styrofoam, that's just a name-brand owned by the Dow Chemical Company.
It's not SF's first such restriction. In 2007, the city prohibited the use of polystyrene use all to-go food containers. More than 100 cities, along with Washington DC, now have similar laws in place. (The first Styrofoam ban was passed in 1988 by the City of Berkeley.) But San Francisco's new ordinance, part of the city's goal of "zero waste" by 2020, is the broadest yet. As of January 1, 2017 it will be unlawful to sell polystyrene packing materials (those infuriating foam peanuts, for instance), day-use coolers, trays used in meat and fish packaging, and even foam dock floats and mooring buoys.
Polystyrene's story begins in the first half of the 20th century, but it didn't become a staple of our everyday lives until the second half, when world production of plastic resins increased 25 fold. Before long, polystyrene was synonymous with take-out food, barbeque plates, and disposable coffee cups—Americans today still used an estimated 25 billion foam cups each year.
This week's ban is a victory for environmentalists, who since the late 1970s have been up in arms over polystyrene's impacts on marine life and waterways. (Recent evidence suggests the resins may be problematic for human health.) Polystyrene breaks down into tiny pieces, easily blown into the sea, where birds and fish often mistake them for food. The nonprofit Agalita Marine Research and Education found that about 44 percent of seabirds have ingested plastic, and 267 species of marine life are affected in various ways by plastic trash. (Witness photographer Chris Jordan's devastating bird photos.)
While polystyrene is said to never completely break down in landfills, it actually can decompose in the oceans. The stuff eventually sinks, which makes it difficult to know how much of it exists. And polystyrene contributes to the horrifying notion that by 2050, we may have more plastics in the ocean than fish.
Critics of the new ban are quick to point out that polystyrene is recyclable—a judge actually overturned New York City's ban on to-go containers last year, ruling that the city could make big money recycling the stuff. But while San Francisco residents can bring large pieces of polystyrene to a transfer station free of charge, it rarely gets recycled. The problem, says Robert Reed, a local project manager for Recology, a company that helps cities manage solid waste, is that few people bother to bring in their Styrofoam, and when they do, it's usually not in good enough condition to be repurposed. (It can be melted down and used as trim or molding for building construction.) "The few buyers who exist demand that the material be very clean," Reed says in an email. "They don't even want dust on it."
The American Chemistry Council, the trade group for chemical makers, opposed the city's ban, arguing that polystyrene's light weight results in less carbon emissions when products are transported. The group urged the city to consider the environmental costs of all packaging materials, as polystyrene will likely be replaced with compostable foams. "All packaging leaves an environmental footprint," Tim Shestek, the council's senior director, said in a statement.
"Compostables are not the silver bullet," concedes Samantha Sommer, a project manager with Clean Water Action California, which aims to curb single-use products. Even compostable products, she says, "come from resources; it takes resources to produce, it produces energy and water emissions throughout its life cycle, and then becomes difficult to manage."
But Styrofoam all the more so.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/san-francisco-ban-styrofoam-polystyrene
-
Toxic Substances Control Act: Past, Present and Future
Jun 28, 2016 | Lexology
By Amanda Porter and Michelle L. Corrigan
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was enacted on October 11, 1976 to regulate certain chemical substances and mixtures being used in interstate commerce. 15 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq. TSCA delegated enforcement authority to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which may prohibit a chemical from use in commerce, or limit its production or use, if it is found to pose an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. 15 U.S.C. § 2605. In the 40 years since TSCA was enacted, the EPA has used this authority to place restrictions on nine chemicals.
1976 TSCA by the numbers
Approximately 82,000 chemicals are known to be used in commerce and are documented within TSCA's inventory.1 Of these chemicals, 62,000 were already being used in commerce when TSCA was passed in 1976. So far, the EPA has reviewed over 40,000 of these chemicals for any hazardous risks. Five of the nine chemicals the EPA has restricted to date were within the 'existing' inventory at the time of TSCA's passage, and include: (1) polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), (2) fully halogenated chlorofluoroalkanes, (3) dioxin, (4) asbestos and (5) hexavalent chromium.
The remaining four chemicals restricted by the EPA under TSCA began being used in commerce after 1976. They are primarily substances used in metal working fluids which become hazardous when combined with nitrates. These include: (1) mixed mono and diamides of an organic acid, (2) triethanolamine salts of a substituted organic acid, (3) triethanolanime salt of tricarboxylic acid, and (4) tricarboxylic acid.
2016 TSCA reform
On June 7, 2016, the U.S. Congress passed a bill to reform TSCA. See, Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act(H.R. 2576) (Lautenberg Act). On June 22, 2016 President Obama signed the Lautenberg Act into law. The new law has amended TSCA in a variety of ways. Notably, within two years, the EPA:
+must develop policies and procedures for:
--Requesting chemical safety data from manufacturers and processors of chemicals used in commerce
--Evaluating and prioritizing existing chemicals and their risks
--Reviewing and testing new chemicals and their potential hazards
--Conducting safety assessments and determinations of whether a chemical abides by set safety standards
+must produce an annual report detailing the status of new and ongoing chemical assessments
+may request the production of information from manufacturers or processors of chemicals for certain purposes, regardless of any prior knowledge that the chemical poses a risk, via a rule, consent agreement, or order
Chemical screening and prioritization under the Lautenberg Act
In carrying out the priority screening program for existing chemicals, the EPA must focus on the risks and hazards of those chemicals used in commerce within the past ten years. In order for the EPA to consider inactive chemicals, there must be a potential for high hazards or widespread exposure. A manufacturer or processor of an active chemical may pay the EPA to prioritize a safety assessment and determination for that chemical.
Before introducing a new chemical into commerce, the EPA must make a determination of whether it will meet safety standards following a 90-180 day review period. The EPA may collect fees from chemical manufacturers, importers or processors. Standards for companies qualifying as small manufacturers and processors must be reviewed within 180 days of enactment and every ten years thereafter.
Chemical Testing under the Lautenberg Act
Under the Lautenberg Act, testing on animals must be minimized. Any testing of chemicals under EPA guidelines must be attempted by non-animal means prior to the allowance any animal testing.
Any non-confidential testing information of a manufacturer or processor must be made available to the public. The EPA must review all confidential business information (CBI) claims and reclassify which CBI claims are and are not protected from disclosure, including exceptions and exemptions. All CBI protections are limited to a 10-20 year period.
Effect of the Lautenberg Act on State Laws
The Lautenberg Act makes some allowance for the regulation of chemicals by the states. However, any state action banning or restricting chemicals that are not designated as high-priority by the EPA must be reported to the EPA by the state. The EPA must then conduct a prioritization screening for that chemical if it (1) poses an unreasonable risk, (2) has a likely impact on interstate commerce, or (3) has been subject to restrictions in two or more states. Any state action banning or restricting chemicals that are designated as high-priority, but have not undergone an EPA safety determination, must be reported to the EPA with scientific and legal bases for the state action.
With the passage of the Lautenberg Act, the states have only limited authority to restrict chemicals that (1) are currently being reviewed by the EPA, (2) have been determined by the EPA not to pose unreasonable risk, or (3) are subject to federal risk management. However, state laws requiring reporting and monitoring of chemicals used within the state are preserved. Also, any state laws imposing chemical restrictions that were enacted prior to April 22, 2016 are considered "grandfathered in" and will not be preempted by the Lautenberg Act.
Impressions
The passage of the Lautenberg Act will likely have a significant impact on all manufacturers and processors of chemicals in the United States, including manufacturers and distributors of products containing chemicals. While the Lautenberg Act allows states to retain their current restrictions or impose new restrictions on chemicals used within the state, state laws may be preempted if the EPA performs an assessment of the chemical at issue, especially with regard to the same uses and concerns of the chemical that the state is attempting to regulate.
Federal preemption was one of the hottest issues of debate within the TSCA reform arena, and will likely have a large impact on the children's products industry. Currently, there are several state laws and proposed state regulations specifically placing restrictions on chemicals used in products designed for and marketed for use by children.2 Whether and to what extent these laws will be preempted by the Lautenberg Act, and how the regulation of chemicals by grandfathered state laws in conjunction with the newly reformed TSCA, will likely be debated for years to come.
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=06c4eeba-6457-4fdf-8e12-6181da18cf74
-
Republicans Seek to Repeal Conflict Minerals Reporting Rule
Jun 29, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Republicans on the House Financial Services Committee have proposed a full repeal of the US’s conflict minerals reporting rules.
The proposals are included in a discussion draft of the Financial CHOICE [Creating Hope and Opportunity for Investors, Consumers and Entrepreneurs] Act, released last week.
Among comprehensive changes to the US’s financial regulations, it calls for for a repeal of section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act, and that the provisions of the law affected by the section be “restored or revived as if [it] had not been enacted”.
Section 1502 requires publicly traded companies to conduct due diligence and report to the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) on whether their sourcing of conflict minerals – tin, tungsten, tantalum and gold (3TG) – is supporting armed groups in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) or its neighbouring countries.
According to the House committee's accompanying analysis to the bill, section 1502 “imposes a number of overly burdensome disclosure requirements … that bear no rational relationship to the SEC’s statutory mission to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly and efficient markets, and promote capital formation.”
“Indeed, by imposing enormous compliance costs on public companies, [it] impedes the ability of [publicly traded] firms to innovate, grow and create jobs, while at the same time lowering the returns they can offer their investors,” it added.
On-the-ground effects
The committee’s analysis adds that “there is overwhelming evidence that Dodd-Frank’s conflict minerals disclosure requirement has done far more harm than good to its intended beneficiaries – the citizens of the Democratic Republic of Congo and neighboring Central African countries.”
The analysis says that section 1502 has led to a de facto embargo of the region’s minerals, “further impoverishing Africans while leaving local militias unaffected”.
But Holly Dranginis, senior policy analyst at the Enough Project, told Chemical Watch there has been “noticeable, measurable progress” that is connected to 1502 and its implementation.
And a repeal of the requirements could “absolutely” chip away at this progress, she said. Many companies – although not all – would halt their due diligence measures, and possibly even begin unwittingly buying minerals embroiled in conflict, were the requirements lifted.
According to Ms Dranginis, a repeal would also send a message to companies that it is no longer important for them to look into their sourcing practices, and would tell the conflict regions of the DRC that rule of law isn’t important to the US government or its corporations.
Bill prospects
The Republican proposal, she said, is an “all-out attack” on the US’s conflict minerals due diligence requirements. “Repeal,” she added, “is a worst-case scenario for supporters of 1502 and of increased supply chain due diligence.”
Speaking at the Economic Club of New York earlier this month, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R–Texas) said: “I wouldn't hold your breathe on getting [the bill] passed in this Congress.”
But, he said, “we have an election coming up here in November; we believe it is important to show how Republicans entrusted with all three levels of government would govern. And so I carefully laid out a case why I believe Dodd-Frank has failed, and why we can replace it.”
Separately, an amendment to strip funding of section 1502 enforcement has been proposed for an appropriations bill that is up for consideration, when the House returns next week.
https://chemicalwatch.com/48311/republicans-seek-to-repeal-conflict-minerals-reporting-rule
-
FDA Proposes Hand Sanitizer Safety Revamp
Jun 29, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Colby Bermel
The Food and Drug Administration proposed a rule today calling for more scientific data on ingredients in hand sanitizers.
The proposal seeks to establish criteria for assessing whether sanitizer products meet FDA's "generally recognized as safe" and "generally recognized as effective" standards.
FDA wants to commission studies that produce data on ingredients' antimicrobial properties and clinical simulations that show to what degree sanitizer ingredients reduce bacteria.
The proposed rule is the latest move by FDA to re-evaluate safety and effectiveness requirements in a 1994 TFM, or tentative final monograph. In the past several years, FDA has addressed these standards for sanitizer products in hospital and health care settings. The rule today solely deals with consumer products.
The agency cites improved, more accurate analytical methods as a reason for revisiting the standards, in addition to new information on the development of bacterial resistance.
The Federal Register document states that no sanitizer ingredients currently meet the safety and effectiveness criteria that the proposed rule would like to put into place. This doesn't necessarily mean that sanitizer products on the market right now are unsafe or ineffective, but FDA is looking to set standards for future determinations.
"Currently, the significance of this new information is not known and we are unaware of any information that would lead us to conclude that any consumer antiseptic rub active ingredient is unsafe," the notice says. "The benefits of any active ingredient will need to be weighed against its risks."
The active ingredients that will be analyzed are alcohol (ethanol or ethyl alcohol), isopropyl alcohol and benzalkonium chloride (ADBAC). If none of these ingredients receives sufficient testing data, they can't be used in future products.
In the 1994 TFM, both isopropyl alcohol and ADBAC earned Category III classifications from FDA, which means "insufficient data available to permit final classification." However, they have continued being used in sanitizer products.
If this proposed rule is finalized, anticipated changes include new provisions on labeling and volume application.
"We anticipate that specific effectiveness claims in labeling will reflect the testing performed in support of these claims," the notice reads. "Effectiveness testing using surrogate endpoints as described in this proposed rule is designed to support antibacterial claims."
FDA sees two ends of a spectrum for how this testing could play out. The three ingredients could earn safe and effective status, or they all could not. Or some, but not all, would be approved.
In the all-safe scenario, total upfront costs of the proposed regulation would range from $340,000 to $1.02 million. If all three ingredients were found unsafe and ineffective, those costs could be $15.99 million to $47.09 million for reformulation and relabeling.
"[I]t's our responsibility to determine whether these products are safe and effective so that consumers can be confident when using them on themselves and their families multiple times a day. To do that, we must fill the gaps in scientific data on certain active ingredients," Janet Woodcock, director of FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement.
"[T]he American Cleaning Institute looks forward to providing in-depth comments to FDA on their proposed rules," Richard Sedlak, ACI's executive vice president of technical and international affairs, said in a statement. "We will work to provide additional data as necessary to ensure the agency has the most complete, useful, and up-to-date information on these beneficial products.
"Consumers can continue to use hand sanitizer products with confidence as this regulatory process moves forward," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/06/29/stories/1060039612
-
Jun 29, 2016 | Penn Live
By David Spigelmyer and David Taylor
Pennsylvania manufacturing and the hard-working men and women of the Commonwealth that it employs have long been the backbone to our state and nation's economy.
Steel produced in the Keystone State built the ships and planes that carried us to victory in World War II and our abundant raw materials have powered our nation and served in the building of our country's critical infrastructure.
While Pennsylvania's manufacturers have a storied, celebrated history, in recent decades our manufacturing sector has grown much slower than the national average and faces intense competition from other states and countries.
But thanks to natural gas development, we have an historic opportunity to reverse that trend and usher in a new era for our region's manufacturers.
That shale-driven manufacturing revival received a major shot in the arm earlier this month when Shell announced its commitment to construct a petrochemical facility in Beaver County.
The facility will "crack" ethane borne from locally produced natural gas to turn it into ethylene – the primary feedstock for plastics, rubber, and other essential, everyday items.
Representing the largest investment made in Pennsylvania since WWII, this single project will have a significant and positive impact on our region's economy as it's expect to create 6,000 construction jobs and 600 permanent jobs once the facility is complete.
Additionally, and in some respects even more exciting than the cracker itself, is the potential for western Pennsylvania to attract downstream investment and even more jobs from manufacturers who use the resource to make everyday products.
Pennsylvania-produced ethane will feed a petrochemical facility in Beaver County that hopefully feeds manufacturers across the Ohio River valley to make everyday products.
This sort of locally integrated shale supply chain would be transformational and it's within reach given Shell's commitment.
Importantly, these jobs are good-paying and are the sort of opportunity where one can work their entire career. Plastics manufacturing employees on average earn a wage 73 percent higher than the average American, according to a 2015 American Chemistry Council report.
And for our region's building trades and construction union members, this project will be a lifeline to good union jobs with family-supporting pay.
Indeed, Shell's cracker facility – as the Beaver County Chamber of Commerce president Jack Manning said – is "a generational sea change for Beaver County" and a "once-in-a-lifetime investment" for the Commonwealth.
The story of manufacturing's comeback is the crown jewel of natural gas development.
But for shale development, this facility – the first domestic project of its type to be constructed north of the Gulf Coast in more than two decades – would not have been possible.
And while this plant is a significant win for the Commonwealth and our region's economy, Shell's investment paired with continued, responsible development of our natural gas resources will drive even more supply chain businesses and manufacturers to expand and locate throughout the Appalachian region.
The fact is, manufacturers require two principal inputs: an affordable, reliable source for energy and feedstocks.
Combined with Commonwealth's world-class talent, manufacturing is on the comeback in Pennsylvania thanks to our region's affordable and abundant natural gas supply.
Some call this the "energy advantage" and Pennsylvania manufacturers are capitalizing on it.
A late 2014 PricewaterhouseCoopers analysis projects shale development will drive the creation of 930,000 manufacturing jobs by 2013 and 1.41 million by 2040.
The good news is that Pennsylvania is still in the early stages of realizing the benefits from shale development. But we need common sense policies that support and encourage job-creating natural gas production and manufacturing.
American energy supports American manufacturing jobs – that's a policy where all sides should agree.
David Spigelmyer is the president of the Marcellus Shale Coalition and David Taylor is the president of the Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association.
http://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2016/06/shells_new_shale_cracker_plant.html
-
US, Canada, Mexico Detail Continent-Wide Clean Energy Plan
Jun 29, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Leaders of the United States, Canada and Mexico on Wednesday added new details to their new clean energy effort, a push to generate 50 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025.
The centerpiece of the plan is a push to deploy more renewable energy, nuclear power, advanced fossil fuel technology and energy efficiency measures to reach their goal by the middle of the next decade.
They will do that, according to a fact sheet from the White House, through a host of efforts, including approving new cross-border transmission lines, studying “energy system integration” continent-wide and purchasing cleaner vehicles and energy for government operations.
The countries will also work together on joint energy efficiency targets and research and development efforts for renewable energy and carbon capture and storage technology.
Mexico will also join the U.S. and Canadian push to reduce methane emissions by at least 40 percent by 2025, with all three countries pledging federal methane regulations to reach the goal.
President Obama and his Canadian and Mexican counterparts will outline the deal during a meeting in Ottawa on Wednesday.
The North America deal is the latest international effort pursued by the Obama administration, and an ambitious one. In 2015, 37 percent of total power generation across the continent was from clean sources, the White House said this week.
The U.S. gets about 33 percent of its electricity from renewables, hydropower and nuclear, according to the federal Energy Information Administration. It doesn’t need to get to 50 percent in order for the content to reach its overall goal, but a top White House official said this week that is a “stretch goal” of the agreement.
“That is not necessary to hitting this North American goal, but it is a stretch goal that we think the U.S. can accomplish,” Brian Deese, Obama’s top climate change adviser, said on Monday.
http://www.thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/285979-us-canada-mexico-detail-continent-wide-clean-energy-plan
-
White House Aligns with Canada, Mexico on Emissions Plan
Jun 29, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
The White House today formally announced an "action plan" with Canada and Mexico to address climate change that goes beyond this week's earlier announcement that the three nations will draw 50 percent of North America's power from no carbon sources by 2025.
The United States, Mexico and Canada committed to further boosting clean energy, curbing heat-trapping refrigerants and joining an international mechanism to reduce the aviation sector's carbon footprint.
The nations also laid out how they plan to reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas sector.
The three countries also reaffirmed a commitment to formally join the Paris climate agreement this year. In December 2015 in Paris, more than 190 nations agreed to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit warming to 1.5 C.
"North America has the capacity, resources and moral imperative to show strong leadership building on the Paris Agreement and promoting its early entry into force," President Obama, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, who are all in Ottawa, Ontario, for the North American Leaders' Summit, said in a joint statement.
"We recognize that our highly integrated economies and energy systems afford a tremendous opportunity to harness growth in our continuing transition to a clean energy economy," the leaders said.
The three countries had been expected to announce a suite of climate actions at this week's summit (ClimateWire, June 29).
Earlier this year, Obama and Trudeau announced a bilateral agreement on climate change that included an emphasis on reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas sector. Methane is a greenhouse gas that's more than 25 times as potent as carbon dioxide (Greenwire, March 10).
On Monday, White House senior adviser Brian Deese announced that the leaders of the three North American countries would commit to powering half the continent from nonemitting sources, including hydropower, wind, solar and energy efficiency, by 2025 (Greenwire, June 27).
Today's announcement formalizes that agreement. As part of it, the three countries are placing an emphasis on cross-border transmission projects that have historically been hard to site.
The three nations announced a host of other clean energy goals, including aligning appliance and equipment efficiency standards.
The nations said they would work to reduce energy consumption from motor vehicles through accelerating the use of efficient vehicles in government fleets and aligning ultra low-sulphur diesel fuel and heavy-duty vehicle emissions standards by 2018.
North American countries also agreed to work together through the International Civil Aviation Organization to reduce aviation greenhouse gas emissions.
Today's action plan also calls for big reductions in short-lived climate pollutants, including methane.
"Short-lived climate pollutants such as methane, black carbon and hydrofluorocarbons are up to thousands of times more potent than carbon dioxide," Obama, Trudeau and Nieto said in the statement. "Common sense actions to reduce these pollutants will deliver significant climate and health benefits in the near term and into the future."
The three countries will aim to reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas sector between 40 and 45 percent by 2025.
Today's plan commits the nations to issuing regulations that would limit emissions from both new and existing sources in the industry. In the United States, U.S. EPA has already issued regulations over new sources and is working on limitations for existing industry equipment.
The North American countries also said they supported efforts to reduce emissions of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), an ozone-depleting refrigerant that is also a potent greenhouse gas. All three nations said they would domestically promote alternatives to refrigerants that contain HFCs.
Paul Bledsoe, a former climate official in the Clinton administration, applauded the agreement among the three big fossil fuel users and said it signaled anxiety about the long-term market viability of fossil fuels.
But he said that the national policies will go furthest.
"It's the national policies, as always, that matter most," Bledsoe said. "So, does the U.S. increase in an energy tax bill next year under, say, President [Hillary] Clinton, tax incentives for renewable energy? Do they strengthen the financing in production, investment incentives for carbon, capture and storage?"
Former Secretary of State and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has called climate change a significant issue on the campaign trail. On the other hand, Republican candidate Donald Trump has said that he would seek to undo the Paris climate agreement and Obama administration regulations.
Speaking to reporters today, Deese said that the president was not worried about his climate legacy if Trump is elected.
"If you look at what the private sector is doing, you look at what other countries are doing, there is a significant move toward clean energy, that momentum is going to continue," Deese said, according to White House pool reports. "We are going to do whatever we can to reinforce that and try to offer the certainty that companies need to make those investments and create those jobs."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/06/29/stories/1060039614
-
McAuliffe Orders Study to Pursue Power Plant Carbon Cuts
Jun 29, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Elizabeth Harball and Emily Holden
Clean Power Plan or no Clean Power Plan, Virginia's governor aims to cut carbon from his state's electricity sector.
Under an executive order Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) signed yesterday, the state will form a working group to study how to rein in emissions from power plants. Executive Order 57 does not set a specific greenhouse gas emissions reduction target, but rather states the group will "evaluate options under Virginia's existing authority to address carbon pollution."
"Increasing Virginia's emphasis on clean energy generation will help grow Virginia's economy by reducing carbon emissions, ensuring our Commonwealth's long-term energy security and creating the next generation of good jobs in this emerging sector," McAuliffe said in a statement.
The announcement is the latest example of the Virginia governor's determination to pursue carbon cuts despite repeated moves by the state General Assembly to hinder compliance with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
The group, to be led by Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources Molly Ward, will seek input from scientists, energy experts, business leaders and environmental advocates.
"The energy choices we make today will be felt for generations to come, so it's worth thoroughly reviewing all options under Virginia's existing authority," Ward said in a statement.
Some -- but not all -- environmental groups praised the announcement.
Walton Shepherd, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, called the order a "smart move."
"Nothing stands in the way of Virginia drafting plans to reduce dangerous carbon pollution and expand renewable energy," Shepherd said. "That'll put it well on the road to meeting the climate-protecting goals of the Clean Power Plan when it's upheld by the courts."
But the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, a group that has increased its criticism of McAuliffe in recent months for his support of natural gas, issued a statement claiming the executive order falls short.
"Essentially, the order commits Virginia to further study but nothing in the way of real action, even as the Governor continues to promote fossil fuel plans that would greatly increase greenhouse gas emissions," Chesapeake Climate Action Network spokeswoman Kelly Trout said in an email.
The state's largest utility, Dominion Resources Inc., plans on participating in the working group's study, Dominion spokesman Dan Genest said.
A Clean Power Plan workaround?
Michael Dowd, who heads the air division at Virginia's Department of Environmental Quality, said the state's authority to regulate air pollution, including carbon emissions, is fairly broad.
But the work group may have to figure out the specifics, like whether the state has authority to create a carbon-trading program or auction allowances, for example.
Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D).Photo courtesy of the commonwealth of Virginia.
"Everything is still on the table," Dowd said.
Virginia had already held a series of meetings studying how it might reduce its power-sector emissions under the Clean Power Plan. If deemed legal, EPA's rule would require the state to reduce its emissions rate 32 percent from 2012 levels by 2030.
But in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to stay the Clean Power Plan, the Virginia General Assembly in April blocked the state environment agency from spending money to develop a compliance strategy for the federal climate regulation (ClimateWire, April 21).
Dowd, who organized the Clean Power Plan planning meetings, said although the ideas being discussed may be related, the new work group will not be planning for the federal regulation.
But Matt Stanberry, vice president of market development with the business association Advanced Energy Economy, said the executive order could help the state move forward with the groundwork needed to meet EPA's required emissions reductions.
"If the Clean Power Plan is upheld, this could be quite helpful in developing the state implementation plan," Stanberry said.
He added that "even if the Clean Power Plan wasn't upheld, the state could move forward with its own plans for emissions reductions."
However, the work group must present its report by the end of May 2017. McAuliffe's term ends just seven months later, giving him little time to act on any recommendations.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/06/29/stories/1060039566
-
EPA Sends Final Oil & Gas VOC Guidelines To OMB
Jun 29, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA has sent for White House pre-publication review its final guidelines for how the oil and gas sector can reduce emissions of ozone-forming volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from existing drilling operations, although industry officials doubt the need for the guidance given the agency's plan to eventually cap methane from the operations, which is expected to curb all emissions.
EPA sent the control techniques guidelines (CTGs) for White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) review June 28, and OMB review typically takes 90 days or more.
Once adopted, the final CTGs will apply to oil and gas equipment in certain areas out of attainment with the agency's ozone national ambient air quality standards, as well as the Ozone Transport Region of Mid-Atlantic and Northeast states that have historically struggled with high ozone levels.
The CTGs would not directly impose binding regulations for VOC sources, instead providing recommendations for states to consider in determining reasonable available control technology (RACT) to cut VOC emissions from certain existing sources. States would be allowed to use different technologies or approaches than are outlined in the CTGs, but RACT requirements are subject to EPA approval and a state must show its approach will achieve the required pollution cuts.
However, oil and gas industry officials have questioned the need for the CTGs as a strategy for cutting ozone from existing emissions sources in the sector, saying the agency's apparent plan to eventually regulate methane from existing sector sources negates the need for the guide given that cutting methane can also reduce ozone.
"What I find most troubling is why EPA would continue with the CTGs now that it is moving on a nationwide existing source rule," one industry source recently told Inside EPA, referring to the agency's June 3 Federal Register notice seeking comment on a draft information collection request on methane emissions from existing oil and gas operations that is expected to inform an existing source methane rule.
Meanwhile, the agency on June 22 sent for OMB review a federal implementation plan (FIP) emissions strategy for oil and natural gas production facilities on Utah's Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation.
EPA says the FIP -- a Clean Air Act tool through which it directly writes emissions control requirements for a specific area -- will fill a “regulatory gap” on controlling VOCs on the reservation to ensure that air quality protections from oil and gas emissions are the same on that land as elsewhere in Utah.
http://insideepa.com/the-inside-story
-
Where Will All the New US Olefins Go?
Jun 29, 2016 | Platts
By Michael McCafferty
It is well known that shale-driven ethylene expansions are taking place in the North American market. The question is, will these growing supplies of olefins outstrip the ability of units downstream to take in product?
US ethylene production is at an all-time record level, according to data from the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers association. Data for the first quarter of 2016 showed that ethylene production was at 6.857 million mt, down fractionally from the previous quarter but nearly 10% higher than the level from the first quarter of 2015.
The production growth is due to cracker project expansions and strong utilization on the Gulf Coast. LyondellBasell brought online an expansion at its Corpus Christi facility in the second half of 2015 and utilization rates are estimated at about 94%.
Meanwhile, downstream ethylene demand kept pace, but by the slimmest of margins. Production of polyethylene — the main end-use derivative for ethylene — climbed from 4.18 million mt in the first quarter of 2015 to 4.5 million mt in the first quarter of 2016. Ethylene conversion into polyethylene is roughly 1:1.
Most of the new shale-driven cracker projects are well underway and are expected to be completed in the next few years with majors such as ExxonMobil, Dow and CP Chemical bringing online in excess of 7 million mt of ethylene capacity by 2019.
Will this expansion be met by derivative demand?
Our analysis shows that the ethylene market in the US will be balanced with 5.8 million mt of polyethylene capacity, 1.7 million mt of monoethylene glycol capacity and a slight increase in ethylene dichloride capacity brought online over the same time frame.
Meanwhile, the projected balance for the propylene market is less stable. With the increase in lighter feedstock cracking the US has seen production of cracker co-products drop off over the past 10 years.
In addition, new crackers being built in the US are all geared at maximizing ethane consumption, which produces lower levels of propylene, crude C4s and aromatics.
However, there will be a large increase in the amount of on-purpose propylene production over the coming years as producers try to plug the propylene hole and take advantage of low propane prices. The total increase in propylene production is expected to be about 2.2 million mt by 2019, or 20% higher than the current levels. But, unlike the ethylene market, the increase in propylene production won’t be matched by an equivalent build out in the downstream derivatives market.
However, recently, BASF are to postpone a decision on a natural gas (methane)-based propylene investment in Freeport, Texas due mainly to the current uncertainty in oil prices causing volatility throughout the whole energy complex. If this trend continues, we may see a drop in this potential 20% increase in propylene production.
Currently our estimates show that polypropylene demand for propylene will only amount to about 500,000 mt/year of demand. The expected length in the US propylene market could be met by additional polypropylene lines as the US looks to fill holes in the Canadian and Mexican market polypropylene markets. Or the US could look to export larger amounts of propylene.
The market only currently has around 600,000 mt/year of propylene waterborne export capacity but this could increase in the coming years as well.
Canada looks to building first polypropylene capacity
In recent developments, and despite volatility of raw material prices, the Canadian gas company Pembina Pipeline and Kuwait’s Petrochemical Industries Company (PIC) are to undertake a study to build a 35,000 b/d propane dehydrogenation (PDH)/polypropylene (PP) plant in Alberta. The amount of PP capacity for the facility is planned to be 800,000 mt. This clearly is a move to utilize the propane coming from the shale exploration and create more demand for the feedstock. The new capacity is projected to come online in 2020 and could serve the currently short domestic market as well as export, mainly into the US and Mexico, as Platts Analytics forecasts that the US PP market will remain relatively tight in this timeframe and Mexico will be deficit.
http://blogs.platts.com/2016/06/29/where-will-new-us-olefins-go/
-
BLM Plan Backs Truce Over Colo. Plateau
Jun 29, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Phil Taylor
The Bureau of Land Management yesterday advanced a pact between environmentalists and drilling companies to scale back oil and gas development atop a scenic and biologically rich plateau in western Colorado.
BLM's release of a final environmental impact statement for the Roan Plateau marks one of the final steps in implementing the settlement agreement that litigants struck in 2014 (Greenwire, June 16, 2014).
"The release of the Final EIS puts us one step closer to finally resolving the controversy surrounding the Roan Plateau," said BLM Director Neil Kornze in a statement. "It implements the vision put forward in 2014 by a group of local, state and industry leaders, as well as sportsmen and conservationists, by protecting some of Colorado's most important fish and wildlife habitat while also allowing for the responsible development of the oil and gas resources in the areas where it makes the most sense."
BLM on July 1 will open a 30-day protest period and a governor's consistency review for the plan. The final step is for BLM to sign a record of decision.
Earthjustice attorney Mike Freeman, who helped negotiate the settlement, said the final EIS appears to advance the carefully brokered agreement.
"We're just starting to review it, but this plan looks to bring us closer to our goal of providing lasting protection for the Roan for generations to come," he said in a statement.
Controversy over the Roan has simmered since 2007, when BLM opened most of the lands to drilling and a year later sold roughly 55,000 acres of leases, netting a record $114 million in bonus bids. Denver-based Bill Barrett Corp., a major leaseholder, at one point proposed drilling as many as 3,200 natural gas wells atop the plateau.
Drilling was placed in doubt, however, in June 2012 when a federal district court in Denver found flaws in the agency's resource management plan (RMP) that had authorized the leases and remanded it to BLM (EnergyWire, June 25, 2012).
And today's natural gas prices are a small fraction of what they were in 2008.
Rather than let BLM decide which leases to reaffirm or cancel -- or let President Obama potentially designate the lands as a national monument, as proposed by former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt -- environmentalists and energy companies came to the bargaining table.
The settlement that emerged in 2014 would cancel 17 out of 19 leases atop the plateau and refund the owner, Bill Barrett, the $47 million it paid to obtain and maintain them.
BLM canceled most of the leases on the plateau in January 2015, pursuant to the agreement.
Under BLM's final plan, the two remaining leases on top and a dozen more below the rim that were retained under the settlement would remain open to leasing and development subject to the terms and conditions identified in the settlement.
Those include limits on the number of well pads, maximum surface disturbance, the timing of disturbance and access roads.
Approximately 1,830 acres above the plateau rim and 30,170 acres below the rim would be open to oil and gas leasing and development. Nearly 35,000 acres of BLM surface would be closed to leasing.
The plateau leases are held by Bill Barrett; three other leaseholders -- WPX Energy Rocky Mountain LLC, OXY USA Inc. and Ursa Piceance Holdings LLC -- own the lower elevation leases.
BLM said it received more than 50,000 public comments on its draft EIS, the vast majority of which supported the 2014 settlement.
"The release of the Final SEIS represents the penultimate step in the BLM's fulfillment of its commitments under the Roan settlement," said BLM Colorado State Director Ruth Welch in a statement. "We are looking forward to achieving a final resolution of this important project."
Environmental signatories to the settlement include the Conservation Colorado Education Fund, the Colorado Mountain Club, Colorado Trout Unlimited, Rocky Mountain Wild, Rock the Earth, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the National Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society and the Wilderness Workshop.
Industry signatories are Bill Barrett, Vantage Energy Piceance LLC, WPX, OXY USA and Ursa Piceance.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/06/29/stories/1060039601
-
Strategic Shale Gas Infrastructure Placement May Reduce Environmental Impacts, For A Price
Jun 29, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
The strategic placement of shale gas infrastructure could reduce environment impacts for a reasonable additional cost, but doing so would require commitments from planners and regulators and would be a departure from current practices, according to researchers.
In the 25-page study "The costs of avoiding environmental impacts from shale gas infrastructure" published in Conservation Biology, researchers used new software and developed a spatial optimization algorithm to plan well pad locations, access roads and pipeline routes at 84 sites in the Marcellus Shale in five counties in Pennsylvania.
The researchers found that on average up to 38% of aggregate environmental impacts from shale gas infrastructure could be avoided for a 20% increase in development costs.
The study was performed by Austin Milt of the Center for Limnology at the University of Wisconsin; Tamara Gagnolet, Appalachian Energy Program Manager at The Nature Conservancy; and Paul Armsworth of the Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville.
According to the researchers, shale gas developers usually plan infrastructure configurations by hand. Since the industry's current practice is to minimize costs, the researchers said developers often equate conservation-oriented planning as being more expensive.
"To change industry practice, it is vital to quantify the costs of avoiding additional environmental impacts beyond regulatory requirements," the researchers said, adding that the oil and gas industry "lacks software that simultaneously plans multiple types of infrastructure with environmental avoidance as a primary objective."
Although numerous studies have previously quantified the environmental impacts of shale gas infrastructure, the researchers said theirs was the first to quantify the tradeoffs between the costs of development and the resulting environmental impacts. They added that "existing software could not adequately serve our study," and so they developed new planning software called Bungee, which stands for "Balancing Unconventional Natural Gas Extraction and the Environment."
Bungee uses a three-step process to plan infrastructure. The program first determines where and how much infrastructure may be placed, taking into consideration planning constraints such as regulatory setbacks and construction practices. It then prepares the collected data to assess the environmental impact of the proposed infrastructure and creates an aggregate environmental impact score. In the final step, Bungee plans infrastructure layouts using a generic algorithm.
The researchers analyzed 84 developed sites in Pennsylvania's portion of the Marcellus Shale with grouped unconventional, horizontal, "active" or "regulatory inactive" wells drilled from 2008-2013. The sites ranged in size from 465-7,297 hectares. Each well pad point was then overlaid with a six-well production unit measuring 3,000-by-11,000 feet and rotated 27-degrees counterclockwise to imitate local gas operations.
The impact score took into account five metrics: forest acreage lost, total edge-to-area ratio; wetland encroachment; potential sedimentation in water bodies; and expected impact on rare species.
"On average across our study sites, avoiding 38% of the aggregate environmental impact of development would increase development costs by 20%," or between $800,000 and $3.8 million per well pad, the researchers said. "Further avoidance quickly becomes cost prohibitive." They added that large, low-cost reductions were possible at some sites, but the results varied widely -- one site could avoid 75% of environmental impacts for an additional 15% in cost ($4.1 million total, or $1 million per well pad), but another site could avoid only 2% of impacts for an additional 14% in cost ($7.7 million total, or $1.1 million per well pad).
According to the researchers, most of the sites (75 of 84, or 89%) have tradeoff curves that indicate "it is relatively cheap to avoid impacts [there]."
For sites without planning, the researchers found that in most cases a visual inspection -- where overlaid layouts on a raster approximation of the impact score are then visually compared to the locations of high-impact layouts to lower-impact layouts relative to the underlying raster -- could differentiate between sites that could avoid much impact for little cost (25 of 84, or 29%) and those sites which could do very little (17 of 84, or 20%).
"Those 25 sites of the first group tended to have more planned roads or pipelines in high-impact areas," the researchers said. "Much less often planned well pads, but not roads or pipelines, were in high-impact areas.
"Those 17 sites of the second group, which achieved either no large or very costly impact avoidance, tended to be constrained by impacts. Many sites lacked low-impact alternatives for pipelines and pads. Often, sparse existing pipelines and/or feasible well-pad locations forced gathering pipelines through high-impact areas. In other sites, reductions in some impacts led to increases in others, such that the aggregate environmental impacts did not change much."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/106914-strategic-shale-gas-infrastructure-placement-may-reduce-environmental-impacts-for-a-price
-
Coalition of Mayors Pushes for 'Local Control'
Jun 29, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Local governments should have authority over hydraulic fracturing within their borders, a coalition of mayors said yesterday.
In a joint statement, 33 mayors from more than a dozen states urged state and federal officials to "affirm the ability of localities to protect the health and quality of life of residents against the widespread expansion of industrial fracking into their communities."
The mayors banded together on the issue on the sidelines of the U.S. Conference of Mayors' annual meeting in Indianapolis over the weekend, voicing concerns about the cascade of court cases that have blocked local governments from instituting fracking bans and other restrictions, along with recent legislative efforts to keep municipalities out of the regulatory game.
Most recently, a federal court in West Virginia ruled that a county could not ban disposal of fracking waste within its borders. That decision followed rulings in Colorado, Ohio and New Mexico that struck down fracking bans, finding that they were pre-empted by state law regulating oil and gas development. State legislatures in Texas, North Carolina and Oklahoma, meanwhile, have taken a proactive approach against "local control," passing state laws that effectively outlaw local bans.
"This growing trend of preemption is alarming," the mayors said in yesterday's statement.
According to the group, many of the impacts from fracking are felt primarily at the local level, where municipal governments are often unable to handle the added burden of industry on roads and social services.
"This notion of local control -- that we have the right to come together with our neighbors and make our own choices on issues that threaten our public health or quality of life -- is a long-standing American tradition, and we should reject attempts to limit it," Santa Fe, N.M., Mayor Javier Gonzales said in a statement.
Santa Fe County, where the city is located, adopted its own restrictions on oil and gas development in 2008. Nearby Mora County passed a ban that was overturned in early 2015.
"The best way for states to protect public health from fracking is to follow the lead of states like Vermont and New York and put a stop to the dirty drilling practice altogether," Environment America's Rachel Richardson said in an email after the release of the mayors' statement. "Until then, city and county governments should have the chance to protect their citizens from harm."
The roster of local leaders signing on to the letter also includes Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto; Longmont, Colo., Mayor Dennis Coombs; and several mayors from California, Florida and other states.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/06/29/stories/1060039559
-
Good Jobs and Clean Energy are Not Mutually Exclusive
Jun 29, 2016 | The Hill - Ballot Box Blog
By Terry O'Sullivan
If you’ve been reading newspaper headlines in recent weeks, you may think environmentalists and unions are clashing with each other over clean energy policy. In fact, infrastructure unions such as LIUNA and climate advocates around the world share the same goal of fighting climate change. Where we differ passionately is in our strategy and approach to reaching that goal. It’s time to put to rest the false choice between jobs and the environment and have a rational discussion about a common-sense path to a clean energy future.
Just as our country’s energy mix is complex, so is the solution to climate change. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, about 37 percent of nation’s overall energy usage is from petroleum and about 16 percent is from coal. Carbon-free nuclear power provides about 8 percent of our energy, but, a number of plants are slated for closure and new capacity is unlikely. That means more than half of our current energy sources face an uncertain future. A growing fossil fuel sector – natural gas – now accounts for nearly a third of our energy.
Often depicted as the panacea for our nation’s energy future, renewable energy sources are growing and now provide about 8 percent of our energy. The problem is, they are not growing fast enough, and demand continues to outpace capacity. According to the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory, it will be 2050 before the country will be 80 percent powered 24-7 by renewable energies.
We must act faster than that.
The Clean Power Plan, proposed by President Obama last year, challenges the United States to reduce our carbon emissions by nearly a third by 2030. Every state has a target under this plan.
The plan is worthwhile and ambitious, but it also threatens to create a critical energy void. If each state were to meet its goal solely by eliminating oil and coal, without adding any capacity, the United States faces at least a 21 percent power deficit by 2030. That is more electricity than the U.S. industrial sector consumed in 2015 for agriculture, assembly lines and construction combined.
As much as we embrace renewables, they are not ready to replace that lost energy by themselves. To fill that 2030 clean energy shortage, America would need over 3.8 million acres of solar panels – costing about $1.8 trillion and covering an area nearly twice the size of Yellowstone National Park.
The good news is that we don’t have to choose just one form of energy. Natural gas produces 50 percent less carbon than coal, and is credited as a key driver for the decline in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in recent years. Natural gas is also a critical backup fuel for renewables, many of which are intermittent power sources. If the United States takes advantage of the abundance of natural gas and develops it to the highest environmental standards, we can be responsible stewards of the planet and provide power until renewables fully mature.
It is true that as a union of construction workers, our interest is in creating and protecting jobs that help men and women care for their families and their futures. We would be derelict in our responsibilities if that were not so. But we also understand and believe in the greater good – and that means leaving a legacy of cleaner air for our workers’ children and grandchildren.
We believe that our nation can set its sights on, and reach the goal of, an economy that dramatically reduces carbon emissions. It is not, however, rational to wage war against a major source of energy without an alternative, nor is it honest to equate reason and reality with disregard for the planet.
If environmentalists care about a path forward on climate change and clean energy, they should join with their allies in the working class on a common-sense plan to achieve their stated goal.
O’Sullivan is General President of the Laborers’ International Union of North America, which represents a half-million workers predominantly in the construction industry.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/285237-good-jobs-and-clean-energy-are-not-mutually-exclusive
-
Rules to Shore Up Pipelines Could be Approved Today
Jun 29, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple's (R) administration could finalize a closely watched package of regulations aimed at tightening pipeline construction in the Bakken Shale oil field.
Under a quirk in North Dakota's rulemaking process, the final version of the rules won't be made public until after the state Industrial Commission votes on it. That is scheduled to happen today.
Landowners, environmentalists and a union representing pipeline workers have pushed for the regulations, saying they'll prevent some of the spills that have marred the Bakken field for the last few years. The oil industry has opposed parts of the package.
"We'd be really happy if the rules were adopted as proposed," said Holly Pearen, an attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund who has tracked the rules.
The Industrial Commission held a series of hearings about the rules in April and received 492 pages of written comments. The state Department of Mineral Resources, which reports to the commission, has tweaked parts of the rules in response to comments, but those changes won't be disclosed until the commission meeting, said Alison Ritter, a spokeswoman for the department.
The commission is made up of three elected officials, all of them Republicans: Dalrymple, state Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem and Agriculture Commissioner Doug Goehring. If the commission approves the rules today, they could go into effect by Oct. 1, Ritter said.
The rules apply to gathering pipelines, the low-pressure systems that transport oil and wastewater from individual oil and gas wells to the broader transportation network. North Dakota has about 12,700 miles of the lines, and state officials expect an additional 36,000 miles to be built as the Bakken Shale field matures.
The gathering lines have been lightly regulated in North Dakota and most other states, and they've been responsible for some of the biggest oil and wastewater spills in the Bakken (EnergyWire, Oct. 29, 2015).
The rules would require pipeline owners to post a bond to cover the cost of cleanup, provide the state with detailed plans of both existing and new systems, and notify state officials when a system is sold or transferred.
The rules also call for pressure-testing new pipes and using horizontal bores rather than open trenches for lines that cross wetlands or streams.
The North Dakota Petroleum Council has said some of the rules would be too costly (EnergyWire, May 11).
The Laborers' International Union of North America, which has pushed for tougher pipeline standards, wants the state to collect the names of contractors so that pipeline owners can weed out companies linked to bad construction. The union launched a website this week with video testimony from workers who say they have witnessed sloppy, unsafe construction.
"We believe that information should be collected and that it should be made available to the public," said Kevin Pranis, marketing director for the union's Great Lakes region.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/06/29/stories/1060039565
-
Freight Trains Collide Head-on, Explode into Flames in Texas Panhandle
Jun 28, 2016 | Washington Post
By Ashley Halsey III
A pair of freight trains collided head-on and exploded into flames Tuesday morning in the Texas Panhandle, and there were reports that three crew members were missing.
The collision was about five miles from the town of Panhandle, about 30 miles northeast of Amarillo, on tracks that run alongside U.S. Route 60. Both trains were identified as belonging to BNSF, one of the nation’s largest freight railroads, and each had two crew members.
The trains’ cargo had not been determined. Deep black smoke was billowing from the wreckage, and witnesses said most of the cars strewn around the crash site appeared to be box cars.
“I don’t know how anyone survived,” Billy Brown, a farmer in the area, told the Associated Press. “It’s terrible. I’ve seen a number of train wrecks, but I’ve never seen one like this.”
Investigators from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) arrived at the scene before noon, and the National Transportation Safety Board said it was also dispatching a team.
BNSF spokesman Joe Faust said it was unclear how fast the trains were traveling when they collided, but the speed limit on those tracks is 70 mph.
Faust said one crew member jumped from the train before they collided.
“Rescue efforts are underway at the scene with respect to the three other railroad employees involved in the incident,” he said.
“Our preliminary investigation and review of the incident clearly demonstrate this is the type of incident that PTC is intended to prevent,” Faust said. “Safety is the most important thing we do. This is why we have been aggressively deploying PTC across our network.”
BNSF has been a leader among freight railroads in embracing a technology intended to prevent just the kind of head-on collision that apparently occurred Tuesday. The system of onboard electronics and wayside towers known as Positive Train Control (PTC) would automatically apply braking systems if two trains were operating on the same set of tracks.
BNSF has notified the railroad administration that it intends to have its PTC system fully operational to meet a 2018 federal deadline, but some railroads have been turning their systems on piecemeal as the technology is put in place. It was unclear whether PTC was operational on the BNSF trains and the tracks on which they were traveling.
PTC, long sought by the NTSB and FRA, was the focus of an investigation last year in Philadelphia after an Amtrak train went into a curve at twice the posted speed limit, derailing in a wreck that killed eight people and injured 159. If PTC had been turned on in the Amtrak system, investigators found, it would have slowed the train and prevented the accident.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/freight-trains-collide-head-on-explode-into-flames-in-texas-panhandle/2016/06/28/d6c9d18c-3d45-11e6-a66f-aa6c1883b6b1_story.html
-
The Bipartisan Climate Solution: a Tax Swap
Jun 29, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Keith Kozloff and Emil Frankel
You wouldn’t know it from today’s polarized politics, but protecting the environment used to be a bipartisan effort. There were, of course, the path-breaking conservation achievements of Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican. And, in the 1970s through the 1990s major federal environmental legislation – the National Environmental Policy Act, the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Council on Environmental Quality, the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act – occurred under Republican administrations in cooperation with Democratic Congressional leadership.
Even climate change was once a concern of Republicans and Democrats alike. In the late 1980s, President George H.W. Bush and his cabinet recognized the need for leadership and coordinated international action against a threat seen as “the most far reaching environmental issue of our time.”
Regrettably, that century-old tradition of bipartisanship has broken down, with wide differences between the two parties over climate science and policy. But one solution could rally support on both sides of the aisle: a tax swap that lowers corporate income taxes while placing a tax on carbon.
Discussions about a swap could begin this year. House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Bradyrecently pledged to introduce a tax reform package that would lower the corporate income tax rate. Brady and others note that the 35 percent marginal statutory rate in the U.S. is significantly higher than among other OECD countries, which average about 25 percent. However, reducing the U.S. rate to 25 percent could lead to an estimated revenue loss of $1.2 trillion over ten years. Democrats are unlikely to support tax reform without new revenues to make up this shortfall.
A tax on carbon – which levies a fee on fossil fuels – is an appropriate way to make up this revenue loss. A carbon tax would create incentives to limit greenhouse gas emissions and stimulate investment in low-carbon energy. It is a market-based approach, similar to those used under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush to control acid rain and to phase out ozone-depleting chemicals. In those cases, environmental goals were achieved at lower costs than initially predicted. Carbon taxes are just as effective: in British Columbia, a revenue-neutral carbon taxreduced fossil-fuel use by 16% while spurring brisk economic growth.
A carbon tax would make markets more rational. When production or consumption imposes a social cost that is not reflected in the market price of goods or services, economic decisions become distorted. That is one reason that major energy companies are calling governments to put a price on carbon; Exxon Mobil has come out in favor of a revenue-neutral carbon tax.
A legislative package that adopts a carbon tax while reducing the statutory corporate tax rate would address concerns raised in the anti-carbon tax resolution recently passed in Congress. It would support:
Economic growth: Setting a carbon price would unleash American ingenuity and investment, just as energy market fluctuations and trends have always done. Most of our primary global competitors face energy prices much higher than those paid in the U.S. Separate research projects find the reduction in economic activity resulting from a carbon tax could be offset by recycling the revenue to reduce corporate income taxes, even without considering benefits from climate stabilization and pollution reduction. And phasing in a carbon tax would provide time for business and industry to adjust to higher fossil fuel prices.
Environmental integrity: The carbon price can be adjusted over time to achieve a specific environmental objective, including those related to U.S. commitments under the 2015 Paris Agreement. By demonstrating leadership in fulfilling its commitments, the U.S. will have more leverage in asking other countries to fulfill theirs.
Fiscal responsibility: By maintaining revenue neutrality, the tax swap package would neither grow nor shrink the federal budget. Administrative costs will be modest because the tax would be collected from less than three thousand fossil fuel producers, and passed down to utilities, businesses, and households.
Economic fairness: The status quo – allowing carbon pollution at no cost -- is unfair. Climate change-related costs fall hardest on the poor, the elderly and those on fixed incomes. These groups are most vulnerable to elevated heat levels, disease, and other climate-related impacts. They have the least ability to move to safer locations or otherwise adapt. Some carbon revenues could be used to prevent the tax from burdening low income households, as well as to address the economic dislocation that coal regions are now experiencing from market forces. A tax swap would serve intergenerational fairness because we would no longer shift the costs of climate disruption onto our childrens’ children.
And finally, a tax swap sidesteps endless debates around climate science. Many Republicans are unwilling to pay for carbon reductions, because they believe the science around climate change remains unsettled. But a tax swap means that we can achieve substantial greenhouse gas reductions at minimal cost. Think of it as low-cost insurance against the future risks of a disrupted climate.
It’s a prudent approach that could work on both sides of aisle. As then-Secretary of State James Baker III declared back in 1989, “We cannot wait until all the uncertainties have been resolved before we act to limit greenhouse gas emissions and to prepare for whatever climate change we are already committed to.” We’ve waited long enough.
Emil Frankel was Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, U.S. DOT, 2002-2005. He now serves as a Senior Fellow at the Eno Center for Transportation. Keith Kozloff is a former senior environmental economist at the U.S. Treasury Department.
http://www.thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/285227-the-bipartisan-climate-solution-a-tax-swap
-
EPA Eyes Ambitious Schedule Of Major Air Regulations Throughout 2016
Jun 29, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is readying a slew of proposed and final major Clean Air Act rules for release during the rest of 2016 that will include an overhaul of the agency' s regional haze emissions program; guidance on implementing its particulate matter (PM) and ozone ambient air standards; new regulations on interstate air pollution; and other regulations.
Most of the agency's emissions rules have proven controversial, ranging from legal challenges over federal plans imposing pollution cuts on states for the haze program to litigation on significant rules such as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) trading program. EPA's agenda for this year suggests that rules finalized in 2016 could therefore face potential lawsuits that continue through 2017.
At a June 28 meeting of EPA's Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) permits subcommittee in Washington, D.C., EPA air official Juan Santiago identified the Office of Air & Radiation's (OAR's) busy schedule.
Many of the proposed and final rules under preparation will implement existing air quality standards, providing regulatory tools and guidance, according to Santiago's presentation.
Santiago, associate director of the air quality policy division within OAR's Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, told the CAAAC panel to expect several major rules in the near future.
One such rule is the agency's pending final regulation streamlining regional haze reduction requirements for states under the haze emissions program, now expected in late summer or early fall.
A related revised policy providing regulatory exemptions from national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for air emissions during exceptional events, such as wildfires or dust storms, is also due in the coming months. EPA will release new guidance on wildfires along with the exceptional events rule review.
Ozone Standard
Both the exceptional events and wildfire guidance are vital to implementation of the agency's new, tougher ozone NAAQS of 70 parts per billion (ppb) issued Oct. 1, which EPA tightened down from the prior level set in 2008 of 75 ppb. As with previous NAAQS standards, EPA did not release necessary implementation regulation alongside the NAAQS despite longstanding calls from states and industry for the agency to do so.
To address this issue, EPA will in September propose rules and guidance for states to craft state implementation plans (SIPs) to attain the NAAQS, for areas classified “nonattainment.” This will include provisions relating to area classifications, SIP due dates and nonattainment new source review permitting.
OAR is also readying for release this summer an update to its “Guideline on Air Quality Models,” which will include emissions screening and modeling tools. These include “significant impact levels” for ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5), which are threshold levels of projected pollution from a project. Industrial facilities projected to emit below the thresholds can potentially avoid more-onerous Clean Air Act permit review.
The guidance will also cover a further screening tool known as model emissions rate for precursors (MERP), used by permit writers to determine the likely air pollution impact of a project.
NAAQS Implementation
EPA will this summer release a final rule setting implementation measures for its 1997, 2006 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The rule will address a U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruling requiring that the agency apply the more-detailed and tougher provisions of Clean Air Act “subpart 4” on particulate plans rather than the less-stringent “subpart 1” that governs NAAQS pollutants generally.
Further permitting rules that EPA is preparing for release include a rule setting significant emissions rates -- another tool for permit writers to model emissions -- for greenhouse gases under the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program, which Santiago said is now under White House review and “should be out very soon.”
For Clean Air Act Title V operating permits, which include underlying PSD and new source review (NSR) permits, EPA also has plans. The agency in the summer will propose a rule to “increase transparency and stakeholder understanding” of the process for filing petitions for the agency to object to Title V permits.
EPA also plans to release in the fall guidance on Title V program evaluation and state permit fees, responding to an Inspector General report calling for improved oversight of the program and its fees.
The agency further projects that it will in late summer finalize a rule shifting the agency's public notice burden for Title V, NSR and other permit issues from print newspapers to an online notice format.
Interstate Pollution
One major rule EPA plans to finalize this summer is the updated CSAPR power plant NOx and SO2 emissions trading program, which EPA is modifying to help states meet its 2008 ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb, rather than the 1997 ozone standard expressed as 84 ppb that CSAPR currently addresses.
EPA in the rule will recalibrate state emissions caps, or “budgets,” for ozone-forming NOx to meet the tougher 2008 NAAQS, but also to satisfy a remand of the budgets by the D.C. Circuit
EPA acting air chief Janet McCabe in a June 27 memo addressed how EPA will respond to the court's remand of SO2 budgets for four states that the court said were unreasonably stringent.
McCabe says that the agency is now floating two options. Under the first option, states can either voluntarily choose to continue participating in CSAPR using the existing SO2 budgets.
Under the second option, EPA would remove federal implementation plans that it imposed on the states to implement the SO2 and NOx trading program. The agency would then address any remaining interstate air transport or associated regional haze air pollution obligations for the states “on a state-by-state basis.”
EPA must also designate areas in attainment or nonattainment for a further series of areas under a July 2 consent decree deadline agreed with environmentalists for the agency's one-hour SO2 NAAQS, set at 75 ppb. “EPA must complete a round of designations for areas associated with approximately 70 [electrical generating units] in 24 states and any undesignated areas with violating monitors,” Santiago said.
'Regional Consistency'
Finally, EPA will likely this summer issue a final rule outlining its policy on “regional consistency” of rulemakings, which stems from differing legal standards issued by courts in different judicial circuits. The final rule “provides an exception that would allow regions to deviate from national EPA policy when it is necessary to comply with a U.S. Circuit or District Court decision involving regional or locally applicable matters,” EPA says.
The rule responds to the D.C. Circuit's vacatur of an agency policy that allowed EPA to implement air rule differently in different regions, which in turn was a response to a 6th Circuit ruling on the application of oil and gas permitting rules.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-eyes-ambitious-schedule-major-air-regulations-throughout-2016
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested