Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 8/12/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) Fees Must Not Stymie Innovation, Chemical Makers Tell EPA
Aug 12, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Fees the Environmental Protection Agency will charge companies that make and use chemicals must not stymie innovation, industry representatives said Aug. 11. -
Chemical Management Fees Prompt EPA Questions for Industry
Aug 12, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency is asking companies that make and use chemicals to offer their perspectives on how the agency should collect fees under the amended Toxic Substances Control Act. -
UNEP's EDC Report Recommends Substances For Further Scrutiny
Aug 11, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Chynoweth
The UN Environment Programme (Unep) is consulting on a draft review of lists of chemicals that are recognised as, or suggested to be, endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). -
Washington State Considers Additions To Chemicals Of Concern List
Aug 11, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Washington state's Department of Ecology has begun a rulemaking process for updating reporting requirements that come under its Children's Safe Products Act (CSPA). -
Monsanto Can't Shake Lawsuit Over PCBs in Primary School
Aug 12, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
A Massachusetts town may proceed with claims against Monsanto Co. for elevated levels of polychlorinated biphenyls in an elementary school, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts said (Town of Princeton v. Monsanto Co., 2016 BL 259185, D. Mass., No. 15-cv-40096, 8/10/16). -
EPA’s Science Advisers Challenge Agency Report On The Safety Of Fracking
Aug 11, 2016 | The Washington Post
By Chris Mooney, Steven Mufson and Brady Dennis
Science advisers to the Environmental Protection Agency Thursday challenged an already controversialgovernment report on whether thousands of oil and gas wells that rely on hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” systemically pollute drinking water across the nation. -
Groups to Sue Over Offshore Fracking Assessment
Aug 12, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
Two environmental activist groups have filed a notice of intent to sue the federal government over its willingness to continue allowing hydraulic fracturing from oil and gas platforms off the coast of southern California. -
Kansas Regulators Further Restrict Injection Wells
Aug 12, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Christopher Brown
The Kansas Corporation Commission issued an order Aug. 9 expanding restrictions on oil and gas wastewater injection wells in the south central part of the state, after successful restrictions were put in place in 2015 to reduce felt earthquake activity. -
Local Officials Seek Disclosure Of Facility Hazard Data In RMP Overhaul
Aug 11, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA's Local Government Advisory Committee (LGAC) is urging the agency to bolster proposed revisions to its facility accident prevention program to ensure citizens and first responders know the chemical hazards in their communities and how to respond to a release, backing advocates' criticism that the proposal does not go far enough to improve disclosure. -
Motiva Convent Refinery Fire Out, HCU Heavily Damaged -Sources
Aug 11, 2016 | Reuters
By Erwin Seba and Liz Hampton
A blaze broke out on Thursday at Motiva Enterprises [MOTIV.UL] 235,000 barrel per day (bpd) Convent, Louisiana refinery, heavily damaging the structure of the heavy oil hydrocracker before being extinguished in the afternoon, sources familiar with plant operations said. -
Energy Industry Fights Back Against Anti-Pipeline Movement
Aug 12, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Buoyed by the Obama administration's rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline, environmentalists have successfully killed or delayed pipeline projects from New York to Oregon. -
(ACC Mentioned) Environmental Pariah No More? Study Says Plastics Reduce Environmental Costs
Aug 12, 2016 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle
Plastics — and ways to recycle them or make them more sustainable — are now a heavily debated topic. -
Advocates Ask EPA To Expand Methane ICR To Gather HAPs, Efficiency Data
Aug 11, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Environmentalists are urging EPA to expand its draft information collection request (ICR) seeking to gather methane emissions data from the oil and gas industry to also capture data on hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and the effectiveness of controls and measures of the air toxics, while also pushing the agency to swiftly regulate methane from existing sector operations. -
An Rx For Cap And Trade
Aug 11, 2016 | The Sacramento Bee
By Severin Borenstein
Gov. Jerry Brown and legislators are negotiating whether and how to extend California’s cap-and-trade program. They might ask themselves why. -
Delaware Ozone Transport Petition May Pressure EPA For Stricter CSAPR
Aug 11, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Delaware has filed a fresh petition for EPA to force emissions cuts from a West Virginia power plant in order to help reduce interstate pollution preventing the First State from attaining agency ozone standards, a move sources say may build pressure on EPA to issue a strict update to its cross-border air trading rule to further reduce the pollutant.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Fees Must Not Stymie Innovation, Chemical Makers Tell EPA
Aug 12, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Fees the Environmental Protection Agency will charge companies that make and use chemicals must not stymie innovation, industry representatives said Aug. 11.
The chemical industry trade association supports the fees authorized by the amended Toxic Substances Control Act, said Mike Walls, American Chemistry Council vice president of regulatory and technical affairs.
The amendments, however, constrain the fees EPA may charge, he said. The agency's fees should not be so high they discourage innovation, Walls said.
He urged the EPA to charge fees that are sufficient, but not more than reasonably necessary to ensure the fair, equitable and efficient implementation of the amended law.
The EPA held an in-person and Web-based consultation with chemical manufacturers and processors regarding a rule it will draft for fees it is authorized to charge to conduct risk reviews under the Toxic Substances Control Act as amended June 22 by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Act.
EPA is accepting comments through Aug. 24 on the proposed fee rule it plans to draft by mid-December and publish a final rule by June 2017.
“Before we put pen to paper, it's important to get comments,” said Barbara Cunningham, deputy director of EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. She posed specific questions the agency would like companies and trade associations to answer (see related story).
Baseline Needed
Walls said companies need a baseline for the fee discussion.
The Lautenberg act authorizes the EPA to defray up to 25 percent of the costs or $25 million—whichever is lower—of administering certain chemical management requirements of the law.
The agency's chemical management budget is about $56 million, Walls said. Twenty-five percent of that would be about $14 million, he said.
The $56 million figure, however, doesn't give an estimate of the agency's anticipated costs to administer new mandates under the law, Walls added.
Cunningham said the EPA is developing projected costs to administer the four provisions of the law.
‘Valid Reasons.'
Walls and other speakers referred to current policies under which the EPA does not charge for certain services, although it could, or charge reduced fees. They urged the agency to continue this practice.
For example, Walls said, the EPA has long been authorized to collect fees to administer toxicity and other data collected under Section 4 of TSCA, which authorizes information collection. Yet EPA has not done so. “We think there are valid reasons to continue this,” Walls said.
Companies that pay the costs of generating toxicity, exposure and other data should not be “double billed” through additional fees to review the resulting information, said Walls and Kathleen Roberts, vice president of Bergeson & Campbell Consortia Management, LLC.
Dan Newton, senior manager of government relations for the Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates, discussed the fees the EPA charges to review chemicals before they can be made in or imported into the U.S. The society represents many small specialty chemical manufacturers that pay such fees, he said.
There is broad consensus that TSCA's previous cap of $2,500 to review new chemicals was too low, Newton said. The Lautenberg Act authorizes EPA to charge more.
The environmental agency should be careful not to set new fees so high that they discourage innovating new chemistries, Newton said.
The EPA also should continue its current practice of not charging fees to review chemical manufacturers' requests to make or import new chemicals under certain exemptions allowed under TSCA such as those the agency makes for companies that want to make a new chemical to test out its market potential and for companies that want to make very low volumes of a chemical, according to Newton.
Walls said EPA's policies for charging fees to review new chemicals have helped establish the U.S. as the “preferred geography” to bring new chemicals to market.
“That has provided a significant competitive advantage,” he said. “We must not lose that advantage.”
Scope of Risk Evaluations
On the sidelines of the meeting, however, several participants told Bloomberg BNA that EPA's fees will have trade-offs. If the agency fails to charge fees for certain chemical management responsibilities than the fees it charges for its other services would have to be higher to defray up to 25 percent of its administrative costs, they said.
Another question EPA and chemical manufacturers must wrestle with, Walls said, involves the fees manufacturers would pay when they ask the agency to evaluate the risks of a chemical or group of chemicals.
Lautenberg allows chemical manufacturers to request the agency evaluate specific chemicals if they pay the EPA's costs to carry out their request,
If a chemical is on EPA's workplan, a list of about 90 chemicals the agency intends to assess, the manufacturer or consortia must pay 50 percent of the risk evaluation costs.
For all other chemicals, manufacturers must pay 100 percent of the costs of EPA's risk evaluations.
Jim Cooper, senior petrochemical adviser for American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, was among the speakers who told EPA that its risk evaluations should be limited to the conditions of a chemicals use that the company or consortia asked the agency to evaluate.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=95436810&vname=dennotallissues&wsn=499877500&searchid=28189280&doctypeid=1&type=date&mode=doc&split=0&scm=DELNWB&pg=0
-
Chemical Management Fees Prompt EPA Questions for Industry
Aug 12, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency is asking companies that make and use chemicals to offer their perspectives on how the agency should collect fees under the amended Toxic Substances Control Act.
During an Aug. 11 consultation, the EPA asked chemical manufacturers and processors to weigh in on five questions affecting how to allocate fees authorized by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (see related story).
The new law authorizes the EPA to defray up to 25 percent of the costs—or $25 million, whichever is lower—of administering certain chemical management requirements of the law.
The act, which was enacted June 22, requires the agency to issue a rule detailing the fees for companies.
The agency is accepting comment through Aug. 24 about how it should develop a proposed rule, which it plans to release by mid-December. The final rule is planned for release in June 2017.
Four Sections of Law
Under the amended law, chemical manufacturers and processors would pay fees to defray a portion of the agency's costs to administer sections of TSCA that deal with:
• collection of new toxicity, exposure or other data (TSCA Section 4);
• the agency's review of manufacturers' and processors' requests to make new chemicals or use certain chemicals in new ways (Section 5);
• the agency's evaluations of the health or environmental risks posed by a chemical or group of chemicals and deciding whether and, if so, how to manage those risks (Section 6); and
• reviewing and, when deemed acceptable, protecting confidential business information claims (Section 14).
Administrative Activities Expected
Pamela Myrick, a division director within the EPA's pollution prevention office, listed some of the activities the agency would carry out to administer the four sections of the law.
Before it would seek new data, for example, the EPA would determine what information it needed and propose a rule, order or consent agreement by which to obtain it, she said.
The EPA also would have to review the proposed tests the company or consortia would use and analyze the eventual data the tests would generate, she said.
All the while, the EPA would need to make sure the public was informed of these activities and that company claims for confidential business information were reviewed and information protected when justified.
Section 6 Requires Priority Ranking
Myrick said complying with Section 6 of the amended law will require the EPA to analyze and rank chemicals as high or low priorities for further review; to gather and analyze data to make a conclusion about whether a high-priority chemical poses an unreasonable risk; and to gather and analyze additional data if the agency decides the chemical poses a risk that must be managed.
EPA asked companies and trade associations to offer their thoughts on five questions:
• What weight should the agency give to its expenditures for carrying out the different sections of the law, given that it can collect up to 25 percent of total administrative costs for these activities?
• Should the EPA consider types of submissions, numbers of submissions, level of work involved or other factors as it structures fees?
• Has industry considered how to distribute payment among multiple manufacturers and/or processors?
• How should the EPA identify the universe of manufacturers, importers and processors affected by particular fees?
• How should the EPA balance the fees paid by manufacturers and processors?
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=95436796&vname=dennotallissues&fn=95436796&jd=95436796
-
UNEP's EDC Report Recommends Substances For Further Scrutiny
Aug 11, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Chynoweth
The UN Environment Programme (Unep) is consulting on a draft review of lists of chemicals that are recognised as, or suggested to be, endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs).
The draft assesses 24 existing EDC lists and suggests 77 substances warrant further scrutiny. This is due to their inclusion on three lists that have the "most justified and robust selection criteria".
These are:the REACH candidate list;the Danish EPA list of EDCs; andthe Substitute It Now (SIN) List, compiled by the NGO ChemSec.
The most commonly labelled EDCs, or potential EDCs, in the draft report include phthalates, bisphenols, benzophenones, parabens, organotin compounds, and alkylphenols.
The review categorises the 24 data sources into four groups:chemicals that are labelled as EDCs, or suggested as potential EDCs, by individual organisations;lists of chemicals that are being evaluated to determine if they should be labelled as EDCs or potential EDCs;a wide range of substances for which there has been a suggestion of endocrine disrupting potential; andknowledge bases and databases with focus on endocrine disruption including details, such as experimental results, modelling data, and completed EDC studies.
The draft makes a number of general observations. It notes that the selection criteria used to justify the inclusion of chemicals in a list vary considerably. It also highlights:inconsistencies in methods being used;lack of input from developing and transition countries; andthe need for further clarification of the meaning and purposes of the lists.
The report is open for consultation until 20 August. It was compiled by the International Panel on Chemical Pollution (IPCP) following a resolution on EDCs adopted at the fourth International Conference of Chemicals Management (ICCM4) last year.
It is part of a project led by the IOMC on the provision of information on EDCs. It is expected to be the first in a set of overview reports that will focus on existing scientific knowledge of environmental exposure, impact, legislation, measures and gaps regarding known and potential EDCs.
https://chemicalwatch.com/49097/uneps-edc-report-recommends-substances-for-further-scrutiny
-
Washington State Considers Additions To Chemicals Of Concern List
Aug 11, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Washington state's Department of Ecology has begun a rulemaking process for updating reporting requirements that come under its Children's Safe Products Act (CSPA).
During this process, it will evaluate possible additions to its chemicals of high concern to children (CHCC) list of reportable substances.
The CSPA reporting rule has been in place for five years. It requires manufacturers of those children's items covered to report the presence of CHCCs in products to the department annually.
The rulemaking addresses a statutory requirement to evaluate six flame retardants for possible inclusion as CHCCs. This arose from passage of HB 2545 in the state legislature earlier this year.
The six are:IPTPP (isopropylated triphenyl phosphate);TBB ([2-ethylhexyl]-2,3,4,5- tetrabromobenzoate);TBPH (bis [2-ethylhexyl]-2,3,4,5- tetrabromophthalate);TCPP (tris [1-chloro-2-propyl] phosphate);TPP (triphenyl phosphate); andV6 (bis[chloromethyl] propane-1,3-diyltetrakis [2-chloroethyl] bisphosphate).
The department says it will also review recent science and data to determine if any other chemicals should be added to or deleted from the CHCC list.
More broadly, it says that the reporting rule is ready for an update. It will also be looking for opportunities to make modifications to streamline the rule.
Stakeholders will have "many opportunities" to provide feedback as the rulemaking unfolds. This will include a chance to provide feedback on substances that should be added or removed from the existing list of CHCCs.
Washington's list has served as the basis for similar lists of priority chemicals for children's product reporting rules in Oregon and Vermont.Flame retardant ban
The state's new flame retardant law also places a ban on the sale of children's products and residential furniture containing above de minimis levels of five flame retardants.
The ban takes effect from 1 July 2017 and extends to products containing more than 1,000ppm of:TDCPP (tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl)phosphate);TCEP (tris(2-chloroethyl)phosphate);decaBDE (decabromodiphenyl ether);HBCD (hexabromocyclododecane); andadditive TBBPA (tetrabromobisphenol A).
The department says it is planning to implement these restrictions without a formal rulemaking.
The five substances are currently listed on the CHCC list.
https://chemicalwatch.com/49080/washington-state-considers-additions-to-chemicals-of-concern-list
-
Monsanto Can't Shake Lawsuit Over PCBs in Primary School
Aug 12, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
A Massachusetts town may proceed with claims against Monsanto Co. for elevated levels of polychlorinated biphenyls in an elementary school, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts said (Town of Princeton v. Monsanto Co., 2016 BL 259185, D. Mass., No. 15-cv-40096, 8/10/16).
Warranty and negligence claims aren't time-barred because the statute of limitations was tolled by a class action against Monsanto of which the town of Princeton was a part, the court said.
The claims were thus tolled from September 2012, when the class action was filed, until March 2015, when class certification was denied, the court said.
It is also unclear when the town learned of the contamination, the court said.
The town's duty to warn claim under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act fails, however, because the town didn't allege Monsanto, Solutia Inc. and Pharmacia LLC “had the ability to identify Princeton as a purchaser of PCB-containing products so that a warning could be issued,” the court said.
Former Monsanto is today known as Pharmacia. Monsanto and Solutia are affiliated companies that have assumed liabilities related to the historical manufacture of PCBs.
The town alleges that the Prince Elementary School was constructed when old Monsanto produced at least 98 percent of the PCBs in the U.S.
According to the complaint, window and joint caulking in the building contain PCBs and air samples in the school show PCBs at concentrations exceeding Environmental Protection Agency action levels.
The court dismissed the duty to warn claim without prejudice “because the court cannot conclude that amendment would be futile.”
Judge Denise J. Casper issued the opinion.
Creed & Gowdy, P.A., Kennedy & Madonna LLP and SL Environmental Law Group PC represent the town.
White and Williams LLP and Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy PC represent the defendants.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=95436782&vname=dennotallissues&fn=95436782&jd=95436782
-
EPA’s Science Advisers Challenge Agency Report On The Safety Of Fracking
Aug 11, 2016 | The Washington Post
By Chris Mooney, Steven Mufson and Brady Dennis
Science advisers to the Environmental Protection Agency Thursday challenged an already controversialgovernment report on whether thousands of oil and gas wells that rely on hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” systemically pollute drinking water across the nation.
That EPA report, many years in the making and still not finalized, had concluded, “We did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States,” adding that while there had been isolated problems, those were “small compared to the number of hydraulically fractured wells.”
The conclusion was widely cited and interpreted to mean that while there may have been occasional contamination of water supplies, it was not a nationwide problem. Many environmental groups faulted the study, even as industry groups hailed it.
But the 30-member advisory panel on Thursday concluded the agency’s report was “comprehensive but lacking in several critical areas.”
It recommended that the report be revised to include “quantitative analysis that supports its conclusion” — if, indeed, the conclusion can be defended.
The panel said its critique was backed by 26 of its members, but four dissented. The advisory group is comprised of academic, government, and industry scientists.
The EPA report in question was originally requested by Congress in 2010, when one of the principal environmental concerns centered on whether fracking could contaminate drinking supplies. Since then, other environmental questions — including concerns over methane emissions from drilling operations — have also gained prominence.
The report, published in June of last year in draft form, represents a nearly five-year effort by the EPA to analyze technical data from thousands from fracking operations and nearby aquifers in states around the country.
The study has been dogged by controversy over the scope and scale of the research. The draft study linked fracking to a few cases of water pollution but said the problems appeared so far to be isolated. It cautioned that a number of fracking-related activities carry a future risk of polluting wells and aquifers used for drinking and farming.
The EPA acknowledged last year that it was hampered in its assessment by inadequate data, preventing experts from reaching firm conclusions about whether contaminants in an individual well came from fracking or another source. Some critics of the report said poor data skewed the agency’s conclusions.
The Sierra Club hailed the Science Advisory Board critique, saying it “called out” the agency. “Instead of blindly allowing destructive fracking to continue in our communities, we should extend statewide fracking bans and moratoriums that will keep dirty, climate-polluting fossil fuels like fracked gas in the ground.”
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, refers to oil and gas wells that are drilled deep in the ground and then horizontally. After that, water containing some chemicals is blasted at high pressure into the well to fracture the rock, unlocking previously trapped natural gas or oil that then flows back up the well.
This technology has driven a major domestic U.S. oil and gas boom that has contributed to the recent plunge in oil prices and triggered the collapse of the coal industry. But there have also been widespread claims that major fracking operations in some communities have contaminated drinking water with methane gas or other substances.
“EPA will use the [science advisory board’s] final comments and suggestions, along with relevant literature published since the release of the draft assessment, and public comments received by the agency, to revise and finalize the assessment,” agency spokeswoman Melissa Harrison said in a statement. “EPA appreciates the work done by the SAB and hopes to finalize the assessment in 2016.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/08/11/epas-science-advisers-challenge-agency-report-on-the-safety-of-fracking/?utm_term=.f4d234b9c913
-
Groups to Sue Over Offshore Fracking Assessment
Aug 12, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
Two environmental activist groups have filed a notice of intent to suethe federal government over its willingness to continue allowing hydraulic fracturing from oil and gas platforms off the coast of southern California.
The Environmental Defense Center and Santa Barbara Channelkeeper said they would sue because two Interior Department agencies failed to consult with other agencies about impacts to endangered or threatened species when the Interior agencies developed aprogrammatic environmental assessment on the use of well stimulation or fracking techniques in California offshore areas.
Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement issued a finding of “no significant impact” May 27 for fracking and acidizing techniques used in the California offshore. Fracking creates cracks to allow oil or gas to be recovered, while acidizing uses hydrochloric acid to clear a well bore or rock channels for oil or gas flow.
The agencies wrote the environmental assessment and accompanying finding as part of a settlement of a lawsuit brought by the Environmental Defense Center.
Pending completion of the assessment, Interior had been withholding approvals of applications for permits to drill and applications involving fracking and acidizing on the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf. Fracking has been used occasionally from four offshore platforms off the California coast.
Need for Consultation Argued
The policy of allowing continued fracking and acidizing may affect 25 species listed for protections under the Endangered Species Act, the groups said in their notice of intent to sue.
“However, BSEE and BOEM have failed to engage in consultation to ensure the action does not jeopardize these listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat, as required by Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA,” the groups said. The consultations are done with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Because that objection was raised in public comments while the programmatic environmental assessment was being developed, the response of the agencies is already a matter of record.
The assessment was prepared to elucidate potential environmental impacts as a decision support tool for future proposals, the agencies said. The assessment didn't constitute an authorization or approval of any immediate action, they said.
“Any future proposals that require federal approval will undergo contemporaneous environmental review (including assessment of any potential impacts on ESA-listed species and critical habitat) and, if deemed appropriate, analysis and consultation,” the agencies said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=95436798&vname=dennotallissues&fn=95436798&jd=95436798
-
Kansas Regulators Further Restrict Injection Wells
Aug 12, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Christopher Brown
The Kansas Corporation Commission issued an order Aug. 9 expanding restrictions on oil and gas wastewater injection wells in the south central part of the state, after successful restrictions were put in place in 2015 to reduce felt earthquake activity.
According to a commission statement, the March 2015 order coincided with a reduction of 2.5 magnitude or larger earthquakes. But the order also coincided with an increase in smaller earthquakes outside the targeted area, prompting the commission to expand the restriction area.
Expanded Area
Under the new order—which is a modified version of a proposal that commission staff members developed early in 2016—the area of injection restrictions has been expanded to include all of Harper and Sumner counties, the focus of the earlier order, and parts of Kingman, Sedgwick and Barber counties.
All these areas are located near the Oklahoma border, around 250 miles from Kansas City, Kan.
The new order leaves unchanged the injection limit of 8,000 barrels a day included in the earlier order for large injection wells in the five areas of “seismic concern” in Harper and Sumner counties where earthquake activity was the greatest and drew the most attention.
But in most of Harper and Sumner counties, and in the added areas of Kingman, Sedgwick and Barber counties, the commission placed tighter restrictions on injection rates for larger wells than in the older order, cutting them back from 25,000 barrels a day to 16,000 barrels a day.
The northwestern corner of Harper County and the eastern half of Sumner County will continue to have a limit of 25,000 barrels a day, the order said.
Dissent on Limits
In setting new limit of 16,000 barrels a day for much of the area covered by the new order, the commission set aside a recommendation from commission staff that the injection-rate limit there be set at 12,000 barrels a day, a recommendation that provoked some push back from well operators. Staff's conclusion that a reduction to 16,000 barrels a day would have no effect on seismic activity is untested, the order said.
Commissioner Shari F. Albrecht dissented from the order on that point, agreeing with staff that a 12,000 barrel a day limit was appropriate in that area.
The new order also continues to require well operators to report daily injection volumes to the commission on a monthly basis, and asks commission staff to renew its attention to the issue of well spacing, and to consider whether wells located within one-quarter mile of each other should be consider a single well for the purposes of injection rates.
The order asks the commission to continue working with the Kansas Geological Survey to monitor seismic activity in the area, and to report back to the commission by spring of 2017.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=95436809&vname=dennotallissues&fn=95436809&jd=95436809
-
Local Officials Seek Disclosure Of Facility Hazard Data In RMP Overhaul
Aug 11, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA's Local Government Advisory Committee (LGAC) is urging the agency to bolster proposed revisions to its facility accident prevention program to ensure citizens and first responders know the chemical hazards in their communities and how to respond to a release, backing advocates' criticism that the proposal does not go far enough to improve disclosure.
EPA is planning to issue this year a final rule revising its Risk Management Plan (RMP) facility accident prevention program, as part of a broad federal effort co-led by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Department of Homeland Security to implement President Obama's Executive Order 1360 on improving the safety and security of industrial plants.
While the three agencies are overhauling their rules, many in industry are concerned that EPA's RMP overhaul is moving ahead of OSHA's process safety management rules.
LGAC July 29 approved a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy backing much of the agency's proposed overhaul, but also urging EPA to prioritize guidance bolstering citizens' right to know of chemical hazards posed by nearby facilities.
"It is one of our greatest responsibilities to protect our citizens from harm, and this includes ensuring they are informed of chemical hazards and how to respond to assure their safety in their workplaces," the letter says.
The letter adds, "[W]e need to assure that local communities, especially vulnerable, [environmental justice], small, and tribal communities' workers know the proper handling and disposal of hazardous chemicals as this is crucial to safe drinking water and clean air."
During the meeting, LGAC panelist Hector Gonzalez, public health director for Laredo, TX, who helped craft the letter, told panelists that communities have a right to know chemical risks posed by nearby facilities, as well as how to respond to a release.
The right applies both for first responders and citizens, who also need to know whether to shelter in place or evacuate in case of a release, he said.
On the sidelines of the meeting, Gonzalez told Inside EPA that EPA's proposed revisions are a start, but that the LGAC is seeking stronger disclosure provisions to ensure communities and citizens know of nearby chemical hazards. The LGAC letter seeks to ensure that EPA looks "comprehensively" at the public's right to know in the forthcoming rule, he said.
RMP Updates
EPA sought comment through May 13 on proposed updates to RMP, which requires companies to craft a plan to submit to the agency that outlines how they will reduce risks from releases at their facilities. The proposal would create new requirements for certain sectors to analyze whether alternative chemicals or processes would improve safety; conduct third party audits after reportable releases; and disclose additional data to emergency planners upon request.
The proposal also would require that facilities "distribute certain chemical hazard information for all regulated processes to the public in an easily accessible manner," including names of chemicals held above threshold quantities for reporting. But the proposal declines advocates' calls for public release of additional data, including on the potential consequences of a chemical accident.
The LGAC letter emphasizing a public right to know chemical hazards comes after advocacy groups have faulted EPA's March proposal for failing to go far enough in expanding public disclosure of facility risk information, and not establishing a publicly-accessible database of available safer alternatives to encourage use of alternative substances, among other things.
In the letter, LGAC asks that EPA provide guidance to local governments and communities on recognizing chemical hazards and responding to releases. Specifically, the group argues that in order to "fully modernize" RMP, EPA should "prioritize a renewed guidance on the 'Right to Know,' which states that citizens, employees, and first responders have the right to know the chemicals to which they may be exposed."
LGAC also requests that EPA's rule advance outreach to local communities to ensure citizens are aware of various chemicals, their risks, and how to respond.
"Communities need to know how to respond to any release, spill, or exposure through training simulations, community awareness, communication to understand the potential hazardous chemical risks and to prepare and respond in the event," the letter says. "All information should be provided in a manner that is understood by the user and should be multi-lingual."
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/local-officials-seek-disclosure-facility-hazard-data-rmp-overhaul
-
Motiva Convent Refinery Fire Out, HCU Heavily Damaged -Sources
Aug 11, 2016 | Reuters
By Erwin Seba and Liz Hampton
A blaze broke out on Thursday at Motiva Enterprises [MOTIV.UL] 235,000 barrel per day (bpd) Convent, Louisiana refinery, heavily damaging the structure of the heavy oil hydrocracker before being extinguished in the afternoon, sources familiar with plant operations said.
Motiva confirmed that the fire was extinguished and said there were no injuries.
Initial assessments by Motiva indicated that repairs to 45,000 bpd HCU, called the H-Oil unit, are expected to take between one and four months, the sources said. Little damage was seen to the unit's reactors, they said.
The fire appears to have begun at about 10:50 a.m. CDT (1550 GMT) when a pipe ruptured on the hydrocracker, which uses hydrogen under high pressure to make diesel and gasoline, according to the sources.
The reactors are where hydrogen and gas oil mix in the hydrocracker. Damage to the reactors could mean the unit would be unable to make motor fuels.
One of the sources said the reactors appeared to be in "decent shape."
Motiva had been planning to reconfigure the H-Oil unit to run a wider slate of feeds in a revamp scheduled for February 2017. No decision had been made yet about possibly doing the revamp while the unit is shut for structural repairs, the sources said.
The rest of the refinery, located 68 miles (109 kilometers) west of New Orleans, remained in operation during the blaze.
About 300 workers were evacuated from the refinery during the fire, the sources said.
Motiva said no injuries had been reported and all personnel had been accounted for. The company also confirmed the fire was on the H-Oil unit the rest of the refinery was operational.
A spokeswoman for the U.S. Chemical Safety Board said the agency was following up on the incident.Highways and roads near the refinery were shut for a time, St. James Parish officials said, but then reopened.
U.S. oil product futures prices rallied, with ultra-low sulfur diesel futures gaining 4.8 percent on the day. Gasoline futures rose 4.4 percent on the day. The diesel crack spread, a measure of refiner margins, also rose, gaining more than 7 percent.
Mars Sour, the U.S. Gulf Coast medium sour benchmark delivered into Louisiana, fell by roughly 25 cents to 35 cents per barrel following news of the fire as traders weighed a potential cut to crude demand.
In addition to halting production of diesel from the refinery, the fire further disrupts an already delayed project by Motiva to combine the Convent refinery with the Motiva refinery in Norco, Louisiana, located 50 miles (80 km) away. Before the blaze, that plan had already been pushed back nine months for completion.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-oil-refinery-motiva-idUSKCN10M26Q
-
Energy Industry Fights Back Against Anti-Pipeline Movement
Aug 12, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Buoyed by the Obama administration's rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline, environmentalists have successfully killed or delayed pipeline projects from New York to Oregon.
Now the fossil fuel industry is fighting back.
The Consumer Energy Alliance, which counts pipeline operator Spectra Energy Corp. and Chevron Corp. among its 400,000 members, announced Aug. 11 an advocacy campaign to counter the burgeoning “Keep it in the Ground” movement.
The group's effort, dubbed “Pipelines for America,” seeks to educate consumers about why pipelines, and other energy projects, are important. The campaign is intended to drive home points about the infrastructure's role in lowering consumer energy costs, creating jobs, promoting safety and other benefits.
“A few loud voices are misdirecting the discussion,” David Holt, the Consumer Energy Alliance's president, told Bloomberg BNA. “We've seen opposition to things as simple as redirecting the flow of a pipeline, where folks have come out and said, ‘No, we don't want that.' ”
The opposition may be coming from a “small but vocal” minority, but Holt said it is risking the energy revolution wrought by hydraulic fracturing and shale gas development.
“Without adequate pipeline infrastructure, the energy is not going to reach the markets that need it,” Holt said. “This is an increasingly critical issue if we don't get ahead of it as national we are going to see price spikes and a more volatile price of energy.”
‘Fake Grass-Roots Campaign.'
Environmental groups, of course, see things a little differently.
“Another fake ‘grass-roots campaign' funded by Big Oil will not change the fact that landowners and environmentalists are standing shoulder to shoulder to stop eminent domain for private gain and reverse the impacts of climate change that are hurting livelihoods,” Jane Fleming Kleeb, the grass-roots activist credited with stopping the Keystone pipeline in Nebraska, told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail.
“America is turning away from pipelines that risk our water and take away property rights, but Big Oil and their fake groups will keep pretending there is actually a future for them in our country's energy plans,” said Kleeb, who serves as president of the Bold Alliance.
Pipeline projects that have been suspended or canceled in the wake of Keystone's rejection include Kinder Morgan's $1 billion Palmetto Pipeline in Georgia as well as the company's $3.3 billion Northeast Energy Direct pipeline in New England.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=95436789&vname=dennotallissues&fn=95436789&jd=95436789
-
(ACC Mentioned) Environmental Pariah No More? Study Says Plastics Reduce Environmental Costs
Aug 12, 2016 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle
Plastics — and ways to recycle them or make them more sustainable — are now a heavily debated topic.
Companies including IBM, Ford and Dell are developing plant-based and other materials for use in products and packaging. And some recent reports have suggested traditional plastics should be replaced with such alternative materials, which would be better from an environmental perspective.
In May a plastics initiative to increase recycling and reuse as well as bioplastics launched with the backing of major companies including Amcor, Unilever, Coca-Cola, Dow Chemical and Mars. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation organized the New Plastics Economy and kicked off the initiative following a report it released that said an industry-wide expansion of sustainable plastic initiatives could deliver $3.5 billion in environmental savings.
Just yesterday IBM researchers said they have found a way to create cheaper, biodegradable plastics from plants that can be used to make a range of products, from eating utensils to medical devices. This follows a plastics recycling process IBM researchers announced in late June.
Now a new report by Trucost says maybe using plastics in products and packaging is better for the environment that using alternatives. This isn’t to say that plastics don’t have an environmental cost — the report puts it at $139 billion. Nor does it mean that there isn’t room for improvement and that manufacturers shouldn’t take steps to make plastics more sustainable. It does, however, indicate that there are some environmental benefits to using plastics.
Plastics and Sustainability: A Valuation of Environmental Benefits, Costs, and Opportunities for Continuous Improvement, finds the environmental cost of using plastics in consumer goods and packaging is nearly four times less than it would be if plastics were replaced with alternative materials such as glass, tin, aluminum and paper.
The study, funded by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), is based on natural capital accounting methods. These methods, highlighted in the recently released Natural Capital Protocol, measure and value environmental impacts such as consumption of natural water and emissions to air, land and water, which are not typically factored into traditional financial accounting.
Previous reports, such as Trucost’s 2014 Valuing Plastics study and the World Economic Forum/Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the Future of Plastics, published earlier this year, only examined the environmental costs of using plastics.
Trucost says the funding received from ACC, an industry group whose plastics division represents major represents plastics manufacturers, didn’t influence the study.
“As an independent research firm, Trucost’s aim is to identify more sustainable business models and we are agnostic as to what those business models are or what materials or technologies they involve,” Trucost senior VP Libby Bernick told Environmental Leader. “This new study for ACC and the previous study for UNEP and Ocean Recovery Alliance both identified a high environmental cost of plastic, that has not changed. What’s different in this most recent study is that Trucost analyzed a path forward for more sustainable plastic use in consumer products. Trucost found there are environmental benefits to using plastic in consumer products, the environmental costs of alternatives are about four times higher, and there are also high environmental costs of plastic that need to be reduced.”
The new study will help “advance an informed discussion about plastics and sustainability,” said Steve Russell, ACC vice president of plastics.
Russell told Environmental Leader that Trucost’s 2014 study “was a good first step to show what valuing natural capital costs can do, but it left some important questions unanswered. The American Chemistry Council’s Plastics Division asked Trucost to use the same methodology and extend that natural capital cost assessment in three key ways.
“As a result, the new study provides a more complete picture of the life cycle impacts of consumer goods and packaging by adding transportation and use phases to the evaluation, compares the environmental costs of using plastics to the costs of substituting plastics with alternative materials, and identifies solutions to further reduce the environmental costs associated with using plastics.”
The new study compares the environmental costs of using plastics to alternative materials and identifies opportunities to help lower the environmental costs of using plastics in consumer goods and packaging. It finds replacing plastics in consumer products and packaging with a mix of alternative materials that provide the same function would increase environmental costs from $139 billion to $533 billion annually.
On average more than four times more alternative material is needed (by weight) to perform the same function, the report says. And while the environmental costs of alternative materials can be lower per ton of production, they are greater in aggregate because of the much larger quantities of material needed to fulfill the same purposes as plastics.
The report also recommends steps to help further reduce plastics’ overall environmental costs, such as by increasing the use of lower-carbon electricity in plastics production, adopting lower-emission transport modes, developing even more efficient plastic packaging, and increasing recycling and energy conversion of post-use plastics to help curb ocean litter and conserve resources.
The production of plastics and their transport are the largest environmental costs, totaling more than $60 billion and $53 billion, respectively, in 2015. Trucost estimates that the industry could achieve upwards of $41 billion in environmental cost savings by making manufacturing and transportation more sustainable.
If the sector doubled its use of renewable energy, it could save $7.6 billion in environmental costs, for example. Upping that to 100 percent clean energy boosts savings to $15.2 billion.
Developing packaging designs that use 30 percent less plastic could save another $7.3 billion and improving vehicle fleet efficiency by 20 percent could add an additional $10.6 billion in environmental savings.
Additionally, moving to a circular economy would reduce waste collection and management costs — and provide economic gains from the recovered value of plastics — to the tune of about $7.9 billion. And expanding recycling and recovery to keep plastics out of oceans and conserve resources could save another $2.1 billion.
Bernick says the take-away for plastics manufactures is that they need to step up their efforts to reduce the environmental costs of plastics.
“Plastic provides considerable environmental benefits — for example, by creating lighter weight products that use less energy to transport — but the industry needs to go further, faster,” she said. “Incremental efforts by all plastic businesses really add up. For example, almost $41 billion in environmental costs could be avoided if every plastic manufacturer adopted relatively modest gains in using low carbon energy, improving logistics and increasing recyclability.”
Russell says the plastics industry is working on these recommendations.
“Consumer goods companies can be confident that plastics help lower environmental impacts compared to alternatives and that plastics makers are working to further improve plastics’ environmental performance through enhancements to manufacturing, design and post-use recycling and recovery,” he said.
Consumer product companies have a role to play, too.
“Consumer product companies and their brand managers need to be asking: What is the environmental cost of my product, and how can I reduce it?” Bernick said. “Environmental benefit analysis provides the visibility managers need to understand the return of different sustainability strategies and where to direct investments. Putting a monetary value on environmental impacts enables brand managers to take real action, quantify avoided risks and make a difference.”
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2016/08/12/environmental-pariah-no-more-study-says-plastics-reduce-environmental-costs/#ixzz4H7JmztBe
-
Advocates Ask EPA To Expand Methane ICR To Gather HAPs, Efficiency Data
Aug 11, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Environmentalists are urging EPA to expand its draft information collection request (ICR) seeking to gather methane emissions data from the oil and gas industry to also capture data on hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and the effectiveness of controls and measures of the air toxics, while also pushing the agency to swiftly regulate methane from existing sector operations.
The draft ICR, which the agency took comment on through Aug. 2, is part of an ongoing effort to address air pollution concerns about the industry. EPA has updated its new source performance standards (NSPS) to set limits on the potent greenhouse gas (GHG) methane from new and modified industry operations but opted against such a rule for existing sources.
Instead, the data collected by the ICR could help a future administration craft that rule.
Oil and gas groups in their comments on the request said its scope is too broad and makes it difficult to identify cost-effective methane controls and other important information.
In contrast, a coalition of environmental groups says in comments that EPA's Clean Air Act section 114 data collection authority is "extremely broad" and allows it to compel industry to provide information that "may reasonably assist" in crafting emissions rules under section 111 of the air law, including data on HAPs that could inform eventual emission standards for those pollutants.
The comments were filed by Clean Air Task force, Earthjustice, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Integrity Project (EIP), Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
Environmentalists are urging EPA to ensure that the draft ICR addresses improving emissions data for HAPs from the sector and whether control technologies are effective for existing sources.
'Important Opportunity'
The pending ICR process is an "important opportunity to fill some of these data gaps and presents a unique opportunity to efficiently give EPA a robust dataset of methane, volatile organic compounds, and HAP emissions for this sector," NRDC says in comments filed on Aug. 2. The air toxics data would be essential to refine estimates of HAP reductions from targeting existing volatile organic compound (VOC) and methane sources under section 111(d), and to enable EPA to review and revise its air toxics rules under section 112, the group says.
EIP says in Aug. 2 comments filed separately from the other groups that EPA should also request more detailed information on tanks, separators and the controls used to control emissions from those sources, details on effectiveness of best practices, and other information the group says will help identify effective emissions controls.
"Accurate information about the design of tanks and separators and associated control equipment is critical for EPA's planned rulemaking efforts," the comments say. "Multiple studies have shown that separator tanks are a large source of VOC and methane emissions and that existing control equipment frequently underperforms" and EPA's enforcement office has detected "widespread" compliance issues with those sources.
The advocates' comments also urgE EPA to use data already collected through its GHG data reporting program for reporting year 2014, saying it is "sufficiently detailed, reliable, and broad in scope" for the agency to begin work on an existing source rule while using the ICR process to secure more targeted information.
The groups "acknowledge that the ICR process will allow EPA to supplement its robust set of existing data by providing information on non-reporters from" the GHG reporting program, "covering more emission points within the sector, assessing emissions from a broader range of sources and equipment types, and evaluating the most cutting-edge methods, techniques, and technologies for reducing emissions."
Emission Guidelines
The coalition of environmental groups' comments also renew calls for the agency to "move forward expeditiously to establish comprehensive existing source emission guidelines under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, and to use the agency's expansive authority under section 114 of the statute to issue a highly-leveraged ICR that ensures EPA's final guidelines are comprehensive, stringent, and durable."
The groups say that EPA should initiate work on an existing source standard immediately using currently available data, while "moving ahead expeditiously with the ICR to ensure that its eventual rule proposal comprehensively covers key sources of methane and is based on the best emission reduction strategies available."
But the American Petroleum Institute said in its Aug. 2 comments that targeting the ICR in this manner will limit the resource demands on various-sized companies and seek information from the existing source operations that are likely underrepresented.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/advocates-ask-epa-expand-methane-icr-gather-haps-efficiency-data
-
Aug 11, 2016 | The Sacramento Bee
By Severin Borenstein
Gov. Jerry Brown and legislators are negotiating whether and how to extend California’s cap-and-trade program. They might ask themselves why.
To date, California’s cap-and-trade program has been a disappointment. Allowance prices in state auctions trade at the price floor, and and the program has delivered little reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
Some state leaders argue the outcome so far demonstrates that other policies – such as increased auto fuel efficiency and requiring more electricity from renewable sources – have reduced emissions without much help from a price on carbon.
That view is partially right. But a study three colleagues and I have completed shows the main driver of variation in greenhouse gas emissions is the economy. Emissions aren’t perfectly linked to economic output. But more jobs and more output requires generating more electricity and burning more fuel, the largest drivers of emissions in California.
Because it is extremely difficult to predict future economic growth, there is uncertainty about how much greenhouse gases an economy will spew, even in the absence of any climate policies – what climate wonks call the business-as-usual scenario.
If the economy grows more slowly than anticipated, business-as-usual emissions will be low and attaining a prescribed reduction will be much easier than expected. If the economy takes off, emissions will be much more difficult to restrain.
The impact of variation in economic growth on emissions is much greater than any predictable response to a price on emissions, at least to a price that is within the bounds of political acceptability.
Our finding has important implications for extending California’s program beyond 2020. If the state’s economy grows slowly, the price in a cap-and-trade market will be very low. In that case, however, the program will do little to reduce greenhouse gases, because business-as-usual emissions will be below the cap.
If the economy does well, the cap will be constrained and allowance prices could skyrocket, leading to calls for raising the emissions cap or shutting down the cap-and-trade program entirely.
The probability of hitting a middle ground – where allowance prices are not so low as to be ineffective, but not so high as to trigger a backlash – is very low. It’s like trying to guess how many miles you will drive over the next decade without knowing what job you’ll have or where you will live.
California’s cap-and-trade program can be saved. But it will require moderating the view that there is one single emissions target that the state must hit. Instead, the program should be revised to have a price floor that is substantially higher than the current level, which is so low that it does not significantly change the behavior of emitters.
And the program should have a credible price ceiling at a level that won’t trigger a political crisis. The current program has a small buffer of allowances that can be released at high prices, but would still have risked skyrocketing prices if California’s economy had grown at faster pace.
Essentially, the floor and ceiling would be a recognition that if the cost of reducing emissions is low, we should do more reductions, rather than just letting the price fall to zero. If the cost is high, we should do less, rather than let the price shoot to unacceptable levels.
My first choice would be to replace cap and trade with a tax on greenhouse gas emissions, setting a reliable price that would make it easier for businesses to plan and invest. But cap and trade is the law in California. With a credible price floor and ceiling, it can still be an effective part of the state’s climate plan.
Putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions creates incentives for new technology, and might motivate large-scale switching to low-carbon energy sources as their relative costs change. The magnitude of these effects could be large, but they are extremely uncertain, which is why price ceilings and floors are so important in a cap-and-trade program.
http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/article95232892.html#storylink=cpy
-
Delaware Ozone Transport Petition May Pressure EPA For Stricter CSAPR
Aug 11, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Delaware has filed a fresh petition for EPA to force emissions cuts from a West Virginia power plant in order to help reduce interstate pollution preventing the First State from attaining agency ozone standards, a move sources say may build pressure on EPA to issue a strict update to its cross-border air trading rule to further reduce the pollutant.
One industry source claims that East Coast states have historically used Clean Air Act section 126 petitions to try and persuade EPA to issue national or regional rules to curb interstate pollution, and that the new petition is likely part of that push. Section 126 gives states authority to petition the agency to regulate emissions sources in neighboring states that are hindering the petitioner's ability to meet federal air standards but that the petitioner cannot regulate.
EPA is working on an update to its existing Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) emissions trading rule that created a cap-and-trade program for ozone-forming nitrogen oxides (NOx) and also sulfur dioxide (SO2) that leads to particulate matter (PM) formation, in an attempt to help states meet federal ozone and PM standards.
But the rule applied to the 1997 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) expressed as 84 parts per billion (ppb) and the 2006 PM NAAQS. The update will focus on revising the rule's NOx caps to help states meet EPA's stricter 2008 ozone standard of 75 ppb. However, it will not address the agency's even-stricter ozone limit of 70 ppb issued Oct. 1, and states are already seeking an EPA rule to help meet that standard.
Until stricter national rules are in place to reduce upwind states' adverse air pollution impacts on downwind states, observers expect an increase in the petitions that Delaware and other states are pursuing with EPA, as evidenced by a threat from Delaware to file further petitions.
Delaware on Aug. 8 filed its petition with the agency seeking controls on NOx from the coal-fired Harrison Power Station near Haywood, WV, which the state blames for contributing to high ozone readings in Delaware. The First State previously filed a similar section 126 action against the coal-fired Brunner Island power plant in York County, PA, which is also the target of a separate petition filed by Connecticut.
“Computer modeling, using EPA-approved methods, has confirmed that both the Brunner Island and Harrison power plants produce air pollution that carries into Delaware, resulting in exceedances of the health-based ozone air quality standard,” says the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation (DNREC) in an Aug. 9 statement. The state says the NOx contributes to violations of the 2008 and 2015 ozone limit.
DNREC adds that the state “is continuing to assess the impact of other electric generating facilities in the upwind states and that additional Clean Air Act 126 petitions may be developed in the near future.”
The petitions over the two plants differ because while Brunner Island lacks adequate NOx controls, critics say, Harrison has modern controls but sometimes neglects to run them. The Harrison plant, for example, is equipped with selective catalytic reduction (SCR), a highly-effective NOx control technology.
Interstate Pollution
States in the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) area, which comprises all or part of 12 Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states, have for some time been investigating the issue of upwind coal plants equipped with NOx controls not using them. Running controls increases the costs of generation, creating a disincentive to use them.
Under CSAPR, NOx allowances -- compliance credits power plants can buy instead of installing pollution controls -- are cheaper than running controls would be, OTC-area officials say, allowing upwind polluters to buy allowances and switch their controls off, which contributes to spikes in ozone on the East Coast.
EPA took comment on a proposed update to CSAPR and sent the final version of the rule for White House pre-publication review July 12, ahead of the rule's expected release this fall.
Under the proposed modification, EPA intends to revise CSAPR to apply tougher NOx limits, in 23 states, while leaving the SO2 trading program unchanged, in order to help states attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb.
The revision would not, however, address the tougher-still 2015 ozone NAAQS of 70 ppb, although EPA is pledging to work with states on technical analysis of their contribution to downwind NAAQS attainment problems, so that they can craft state implementation plans (SIPs) to mitigate interstate emissions.
The industry source says that Delaware's section 126 petitions could pressure EPA to tighten the CSAPR update. The source also notes that some OTC states have petitioned EPA under air law section 176A to massively expand the OTC area, where pollution controls are tougher than elsewhere, to mitigate ozone problems on the coast.
Delaware and other OTC-area states “ have a rich history of filing 'political' petitions with EPA to advance their interests in other EPA rulemakings. Viz., the 126 petitions filed in advance of EPA's 1998 SIP Call, which were withdrawn in light of that rule. Or the 176A petition filed with EPA just before the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the CSAPR decision,” the source says. The SIP Call reduced NOx emissions in OTC and other eastern states.
Pollution Petition
Addressing Delaware's latest petition, the source doubts that a single West Virginia plant could have the claimed meaningful impact on interstate pollution. The plant “cannot have a significant impact on Delaware air quality given the small amount of NOx at issue and the [estimated] 400 mile distance,” the source says.
The source cites modeling done in 2015 by the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium -- representing air regulators in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin -- that assumed that all eastern coal plants equipped with SCRs operated those controls “at an emission rate . . . consistent with a 'good operating practice' level of control” allowing less pollution than currently. “The results indicated reductions of northeast ozone of circa 0.1 to 0.3 ppb.”
Further, the source believes that OTC's own modeling “shows similar minimal impacts with even [tougher] emission control assumptions,” the source says. “Any and all 126 petitions filed in advance of the CSAPR Update rule are likely to be denied or withdrawn in light of the rule, assuming it looks anything like the proposed rule.”
The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection [DEP] tells Inside EPA that it “is aware of the transport issue and has been working with the Harrison County Power Station for more than a year to reduce its NOx emissions. In May, the DEP put a more stringent NOx emissions limit in the plant's permit.
“This limit should decrease those emissions approximately 40 percent compared to the plant's recent performance. If the plant doesn't comply with this new limit, it could face enforcement action. We believe the plant has the ability to comply by running its scrubbers more often and more efficiently.”
However, DNREC in its Aug. 9 statement says that West Virginia's proposed limits are not adequate. “DNREC's Division of Air Quality reviewed the proposed NOx emission rate limitations and determined that, even if implemented, the new rate limits will not mitigate the Harrison plant's significant impact on Delaware's air quality.”
West Virginia officials say they cannot comment on the accuracy of this claim, as “we haven't seen the modeling done to support the petition filing.”
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/delaware-ozone-transport-petition-may-pressure-epa-stricter-csapr
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested