Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 8/15/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) US HDPE Hikes Weigh on Sentiment in Europe
Aug 15, 2016 | ICIS
By Linda Naylor
High density polyethylene (HDPE) buyers have been able to get good deals for US imports in 2016, but proposed hikes in the domestic US market for September – based on tight supply – is leading to concern for some buyers, sources said. -
(ACC Mentioned) Trending Tickers: Dynasil Corporation of America (NASDAQ:DYSL)...Calgon Carbon Corporation (NYSE:CCC)
Aug 15, 2016 | Benchmark Monitor
Dynasil Corporation of America (NASDAQ:DYSL) traded 76627 shares on last trading day with closing price of $1.26. Company gross margin stands at 36.80% whereas its return on investment (ROI) is 0.70%. -
NGO Coalition Names Priority Substances for TSCA Risk Evaluation
Aug 15, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
A coalition of more than 60 NGOs has called on the US EPA to include substances such as asbestos, brominated flame retardants and styrene among the first chemicals to be reviewed under the reformed TSCA. -
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Study: More Than 60% of Country Can Recycle Multiple Categories of Plastic
Aug 15, 2016 | Waste Dive
By Cole Rosengren
According to a new study funded by the American Chemistry Council's (ACC) Plastics Division, an estimated 60% of U.S. residents have access to recycling programs for multiple types of plastic. -
Utility Experts Urge State Lawmakers to Continue Planning
Aug 15, 2016 | E&E Power Plays
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
Although leaders in many states have frozen planning around U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, which is held up in court, officials should continue grappling with complex energy issues that could affect compliance, a panel of grid experts told a meeting of state lawmakers last week. -
Natural Gas Dethrones King Coal with Encouraging Results
Aug 15, 2016 | Forbes
By James Taylor
New federal data show coal power is no longer the leading source of America’s electricity generation. The decline of King Coal has occurred at a strikingly rapid pace during the past decade, and natural gas has ascended to the throne. -
Kaine Denies Virginia Fracking, Opposes Atlantic Offshore Drilling in Greens' Video
Aug 15, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine told environmental activists over the weekend that fracking is not taking place in his home state of Virginia — despite records to the contrary — and he firmed up his opposition to drilling off the Atlantic coast. -
(ACC Mentioned) Oil, Chemical Industries Lobby to Avert Tank Car 'Crisis'
Aug 15, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
A coalition of hazardous materials shippers is pushing the Department of Transportation to reassert its authority over tank car standards, bringing longstanding tensions with the rail industry to the fore. -
(ACC Mentioned) Rail Shippers Petition USDOT over Tank-Car Safety Regs
Aug 15, 2016 | Progressive Railroading
A coalition of shippers late last week petitioned the U.S. Department of Transportation(USDOT) to adopt rules that would reinforce its authority to set uniform national tank car standards. -
Feds Tighten Controls on Abandoned Pipelines
Aug 15, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Tim Devaney
Abandoned pipelines are facing new scrutiny from the Obama administration. -
Attorneys General Rip 'Illogical' EPA Regulations
Aug 15, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Proposed changes to U.S. EPA's regional haze program are "illogical" and designed to coerce states into complying with the Clean Power Plan and other illegal regulations, Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge (R) and seven other state attorneys general said... -
CWA Jurisdiction Rule Spurs Questions over Corps' Streamlined Permits
Aug 15, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
States, industry groups and environmentalists are raising questions over whether EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers' Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule -- stayed by a federal appeals court -- should apply to the Corps' recent proposal to reissue... -
DIVIDED AMERICA: Temperatures Rise, US Splits
Aug 15, 2016 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Seth Borenstein
Tempers are rising in America, along with the temperatures. Two decades ago, the issue of climate change wasn’t as contentious. -
Behind the Scenes with Don Cheadle: "Climate Change Is Real and We Must Act."
Aug 15, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Eric Pooley
In the studio of a Los Angeles radio station, host Tina Mastramico was kicking off another edition of her show Celebrity Chat. “We’re here with Don Cheadle,” she said, “to discuss the Environmental Defense Fund, his new movie.”
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) US HDPE Hikes Weigh on Sentiment in Europe
Aug 15, 2016 | ICIS
By Linda Naylor
High density polyethylene (HDPE) buyers have been able to get good deals for US imports in 2016, but proposed hikes in the domestic US market for September – based on tight supply – is leading to concern for some buyers, sources said.
Europe moved into a net importer position in 2015, according to some sources. Following a series of capacity closures, planned when profitability was very low, many buyers now rely on imports to supplement their volumes.
Until relatively recently, it was in the film grade sector that dependency was highest for imports, but blowmoulding has entered that sphere, and the US has been providing good volumes in 2016.
Recent data released by the American Chemistry Council (ACC) revealed a strong upturn in HDPE exports from North America.
HDPE imports into Europe have been strong in the first months of 2016, but sources are waiting for the imminent release of June data to see how the situation is evolving.
June is still predicted to see high import volumes, but many sources expect these to begin to decrease by September as arbitrage opportunities fade.
European HDPE prices are low in global terms and traders are unable to cover fresh sales at a level that would work with today’s prices, they said.
olumes from the US are unlikely to be offered at workable levels, as several US producers are proposing a 5cts/lb hike for September buyers. It is not clear how successful they will be, said sources, but European buyers do not expect HDPE exports to continue as tightness had prompted the proposed hikes.
Several HDPE maintenance outages are planned for the coming weeks in Europe, and because these have been planned, they should not cause too much disruption to the market. Extra supply is not expected to be available.
Some blowmoulding grades have been tight for a while, and some buyers have been changing their buying habits and begun to take spot imports into stock to ensure a continuous supply. This is an option they did not have in 2015 as plant outages exacerbated an already tight market as crude oil and the euro plunged.
This has not been plain sailing, said one large buyer, whose downstream customers are nervous taking in imports.
With Europe as a net importer, however, this is a situation that is likely to become more frequent.
Polyethylene (PE) sellers in the wider market are hoping for an upturn in pricing in September, but there is still a potential hangover from imports to consider, and the fact that higher European prices will inevitably attract more imports.
HDPE is used in packaging and the manufacture of household goods.
http://www.icis.com/resources/news/2016/08/15/10025461/us-hdpe-hikes-weigh-on-sentiment-in-europe/
-
Aug 15, 2016 | Benchmark Monitor
Dynasil Corporation of America (NASDAQ:DYSL) traded 76627 shares on last trading day with closing price of $1.26. Company gross margin stands at 36.80% whereas its return on investment (ROI) is 0.70%. Stock value has moved between $1.17 – 2.86 in last one year. Analyst’s mean target price for Dynasil Corporation of America (NASDAQ:DYSL) is $3.00 while analysts mean recommendation is 1.00. DYSL EPS growth this year is -110.60%.
Dynasil Corporation of America (NASDAQ:DYSL) announced its 2016 nine month year to date revenue is $32.9 million compared to $29.8 million in the same nine month period of 2015. This $3.1 million represents an increase of 11% in 2016 primarily driven by our Optics segment businesses. A substantial increase in revenue from our U.K. subsidiary’s previously announced three-year crystal component supply agreement, as well as the expansion of a product line in our U.S. Optics operations account for the majority of this increase.
MeetMe, Inc. (NASDAQ:MEET) shares moved to $7.34 after starting the day at $7.87 on Friday. MEET market capitalization is 385.23M with 104 employees. Analyst’s mean target price for MeetMe, Inc. (NASDAQ:MEET) is 8.88 while analysts mean recommendation is 1.80. Its weekly performance is -0.81% while year to date (YTD) performance is 105.03%.
MeetMe, Inc. (NASDAQ:MEET) reported financial results for its second quarter ended June 30, 2016. Total revenue increased 48% year over year to $16.4 million. Mobile revenue increased 82% year over year to $15.1 million. Adjusted EBITDA increased 109% year over year to $6.0 million. Adjusted EBITDA margin increased to 37%, up from 26% in the second quarter of 2015. GAAP net income was $29.6 million, or $0.55 per diluted share. GAAP net income included a one-time deferred tax benefit of $27.3 million. Excluding the deferred tax benefit, GAAP net income was $2.3 million, up 94% from the second quarter 2015.
On last trading day Boston Private Financial Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:BPFH) traded 155054 shares and was closed at 12.34. Analyst’s mean target price for BPFH is 12.56 while analysts mean recommendation is 2.80. Company is -2.86% away from its 52 week high and is moving 35.71% ahead of its 52 week low. BPFH return on assets is 0.80%. Boston Private Financial Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:BPFH) quarterly performance is 6.63% while its price to sale ratio is 4.60 and price to book ratio is 1.39.
Boston Private Financial Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:BPFH) announced a quarterly dividend on Wednesday, July 20th. Shareholders of record on Friday, August 5th will be given a dividend of 0.10 per share on Friday, August 19th. This represents a $0.40 dividend on an annualized basis and a dividend yield of 3.26%.
Calgon Carbon Corporation (NYSE:CCC) traded 626360 shares on last trading day with closing price of $13.99. Company gross margin stands at 35.70% whereas its return on investment (ROI) is 8.90%. Stock value has moved between $12.72 – 17.94 in last one year. Analyst’s mean target price for Calgon Carbon Corporation (NYSE:CCC) is $17.40 while analysts mean recommendation is 2.60. CCC EPS growth this year and EPS growth next year is -9.90%, 33.33% respectively.
Calgon Carbon Corporation (NYSE:CCC) released its third Sustainability Report highlighting the environmental stewardship and social responsibility performance and initiatives the company advanced in 2015. The report also places focus on the company’s efforts to achieve Responsible Care 14001®, a formalized environmental, health, safety and security management system established by the American Chemistry Council. “We see this initiative as a large part of the continued success of our operations and also complementary to our sustainability efforts,” said Abby Rubright, EHS Program Leader. “Implementing RC14001® in the U.S. is also the right step toward aligning objectives and targets across the organization, as several of our facilities have already implemented environmental management systems.
http://www.benchmarkmonitor.com/trending-tickers-dynasil-corporation-of-america-nasdaqdysl-meetme-inc-nasdaqmeet-boston-private-financial-holdings-inc-nasdaqbpfh-calgon-carbon-corporation-nyseccc/1882300/
-
NGO Coalition Names Priority Substances for TSCA Risk Evaluation
Aug 15, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
A coalition of more than 60 NGOs has called on the US EPA to include substances such as asbestos, brominated flame retardants and styrene among the first chemicals to be reviewed under the reformed TSCA.
Under the new law, the agency must identify ten substances from its existing list of workplan chemicals and formally initiate a risk evaluation of these by 22 December.
The NGOs say they evaluated the workplan substances against several criteria. Their goal was to identify those substances for which risk evaluation would achieve "the earliest maximum benefit to public health and the environment".
Considered factors included the "relative urgency of the threat the chemical poses", and availability of its hazard and exposure information.
They also say that with "so few regulatory resources available across all levels of government", they are not looking for the EPA to 'double up' on chemicals where states or other federal agencies are taking action.
In light of these considerations, the NGOs are proposing the following list of substances:
· asbestos;
· lead and lead compounds;
· cadmium and cadmium compounds;
· 1-bromopropane;
· 1,4-dioxane;
· styrene;
· cyclic aliphatic bromides cluster of flame retardants (HBCD);
· octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4);
· nonylphenol and nonylphenol ethoxylates (NP/NPEs); and
· tetrachloroethylene (PERC).
Organisations co-signing the letter include the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Greenpeace USA, Center for Environmental Health and Breast Cancer Fund.
https://chemicalwatch.com/49123/ngo-coalition-names-priority-substances-for-tsca-risk-evaluation
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Study: More Than 60% of Country Can Recycle Multiple Categories of Plastic
Aug 15, 2016 | Waste Dive
By Cole Rosengren
Dive Brief:· According to a new study funded by the American Chemistry Council's (ACC) Plastics Division, an estimated 60% of U.S. residents have access to recycling programs for multiple types of plastic.
· HDPE bottles, such as milk jugs, were the most commonly recyclable material at 92%. Bottles made from polyvinyl chloride followed at approximately 80% and bottle caps came in at 76%. Recycling for plastic tubs and buckets was listed at 70%.
· The research was conducted by Resource Recycling Systems and Moore Recycling Associates Inc. across 2,000 communities. Funding stakeholders were convened by the Sustainable Packaging Coalition.
Dive Insight:
This report comes shortly after another ACC-funded study done by Trucost which found the environmental costs of plastics to be less than other materials. According to ACC, this latest report's findings are important because the Federal Trade Commission requires that, for an item for it to be marketed as "recyclable," at least 60% of consumers need access to recycling programs that accept it.
"These latest numbers show that more Americans are able to recycle more plastics than ever before," said Steve Russell, vice president of plastics for ACC, in Recycling Today. "Plastics makers, brand owners, retailers and recyclers are continuing to work together to increase the types of plastics collected for recycling and to strengthen consumers’ awareness of these opportunities."
Another recent study, conducted by the same researchers, looked at recycling for beverage containers and found that residents have access to programs for a wide range of materials. However access is, of course, only one part of the equation. Participation is a key challenge that has eluded many municipalities. This has inspired a number of programs in the hopes that residents can not only buy recyclable materials, but also do the right thing once they're done with them.
Recommended Reading
Recycling Today: Study finds more than 60 percent of US can access recycling programs for many plastics
http://www.wastedive.com/news/acc-study-more-than-60-of-country-can-recycle-multiple-categories-of-plas/424412/
-
Utility Experts Urge State Lawmakers to Continue Planning
Aug 15, 2016 | E&E Power Plays
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
Although leaders in many states have frozen planning around U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, which is held up in court, officials should continue grappling with complex energy issues that could affect compliance, a panel of grid experts told a meeting of state lawmakers last week.
Kari Bennett, the executive director of external affairs for the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, said 12 out of the 15 states where the grid organization operates are challenging the rule and most of them have stopped their official stakeholder processes.
"Maybe we don't need to focus so much on the specifics of the Clean Power Plan, but we know that things are changing in this electric industry anyway," she said. "Maybe we should continue to work through things like long-term infrastructure needs, whether it's transmission planning or thinking through other reliability components or impacts."
Bennett added, "What we hear most often [from states] is 'We don't know where to start with this.'"
But Francisco de la Chesnaye, a technical executive and senior economist who works with utilities at the Electric Power Research Institute, said while the rule is complicated, states need to "do the math."
"The appropriate state agencies need to sit down with different modeling teams in their state, or wherever they choose to work, and you've got to work through at least the four different main scenarios EPA lays out," he said, noting that states are fully responsible for their own compliance approaches.
The experts last week emphasized that costs to consumers will depend on fuel prices, as well as the level of carbon trading that states pursue. Trading decisions will likely involve state legislators.
"If a state wants to try and do a regional trading approach, is one state going to have to implement new laws to enable that, and if it has to do that in coordination with another state, how do you get all the legislative processes and procedures to line up?" de la Chesnaye said. "I imagine it's fairly complicated to do that in your own state. To try to do that across multi states it just brings in a whole new set of challenges."
Christopher Van Atten, senior vice president of the electricity consulting firm M.J. Bradley & Associates, on Thursday presented lawmakers and staff at the summit of the National Conference of State Legislatures with data that shows the country can comply with the Clean Power Plan through the later years of the regulation, as it gets more strict through 2030. But individual states might feel the impacts more than others, and costs will depend largely on state compliance policies.
"To varying degrees, I do see states continuing to plan," Van Atten said. "There is plenty of material here to think through and analyze, so I see an advantage to continuing to think through options that are available to states."
Events this week
On Tuesday, the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions will host a webinar on the effects of market conditions and the Clean Power Plan on states. The event will look at a new working paper on electricity industry trends and Clean Power Plan impacts on the U.S. generation mix, emissions and industry costs. The analysis suggests that industry trends are likely to make Clean Power Plan compliance relatively inexpensive; cost increases are likely to be on the order of 0.1 percent to 1 percent.
On Thursday, grid operator PJM Interconnection will host a Grid 20/20 Forum at its headquarters in Valley Forge, Pa., beginning at 9 a.m. (Click here for the webcast.)
PJM has been in the thick of stakeholder discussions about how to align the grid operator's future investments and rules with the EPA Clean Power Plan's sweeping re-dispatch of generation resources. Panelists through the day will include PJM market monitor Joe Bowring and executives from American Municipal Power, Calpine Corp., NRG Energy Inc., Exelon Generation, and PSEG Energy Resources & Trade LLC.
"We know the market can produce the most efficient and reliable resource investment outcomes," said Andrew Ott, PJM's president and CEO. "We also recognize that that market rules can be designed to accommodate environmental, social and political interests while still performing their paramount mission, which is delivering the most cost-efficient resources needed to serve customers reliably."
In case you missed it:
· The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, an emissions trading program in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, should adopt a number of reforms to set up its nine member states to go above and beyond the targets in U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, a new report by the Acadia Center argued (EnergyWire, Aug. 12).
· A federal appeals court's rejection of an industry challenge to EPA's boiler and solid waste incinerator standards is giving the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers and National Federation of Independent Business hope in their case against the Clean Power Plan (Greenwire, Aug 9).
· A top energy strategist for Citigroup speaking to state lawmakers highlighted the uncertainty they face in writing policies to shape a rapidly changing power sector. Slight changes to EPA's Clean Power Plan could dramatically affect how much coal- or natural gas-fired power stays online in the coming decades, he said (ClimateWire, Aug. 8).
http://www.eenews.net/interactive/clean_power_plan/column_posts/1060041572
-
Natural Gas Dethrones King Coal with Encouraging Results
Aug 15, 2016 | Forbes
By James Taylor
New federal data show coal power is no longer the leading source of America’s electricity generation. The decline of King Coal has occurred at a strikingly rapid pace during the past decade, and natural gas has ascended to the throne.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports natural gas tied coal power last year with each powering 33 percent of the U.S. electricity mix. The decline of coal power during the past few years has been remarkable considering coal powered approximately 50 percent of America’s electricity as recently as 2008. Newly released EIA data indicate coal power is trailing natural gas by a substantial margin this year for the first time in history. So far this year, natural gas has held its 33-percent electricity share while coal power has declined to 27 percent. In less than a decade, coal power has lost nearly half its U.S. electricity market share.
This begs the question, what will the decline of coal power mean for the American economy and our quality of life? So far the answer is surprisingly positive.
Coal powered America for so many decades for one simple reason; it has historically been much more abundant and affordable than any of its competitors. Scientists have long known how to produce electricity from wind, sunlight, wood, oil, natural gas, running water, nuclear fission, shoreline waves, and many other means. Nevertheless, the energy in coal is sufficiently concentrated and economical to extract that coal power remained substantially less expensive than its competitors (with the exception of hydro power, which is regionally limited). Throughout the past century, switching from coal to any other power source would necessarily mean burdening the American economy and American households with significantly higher energy costs.
An obvious downside to coal power has been its environmental impact. People place differing subjective value on whether and to what extent energy costs or environmental impacts should be considered. Regardless of subjective values, however, coal power undeniably came at an environmental cost relative to other power sources. Coal mining decimates natural landscapes, coal miners are subjected to dangerous and unhealthy working conditions, coal power emits more pollutants than any other power source except for wood, and coal transportation presents unique environmental harms that do not apply to other power sources. American policymakers, and presumably most Americans, viewed these environmental harms as unfortunate but worth the tradeoff for lower energy prices. Lower energy prices have enabled Americans to live wealthier lives and keep more income to spend on better housing, better nutrition, better education, better healthcare, and more goods and services that make life more enjoyable.
Two factors have dramatically changed the equation for coal power this past decade, leading to the ascension of natural gas: (1) greater political emphasis on environmental issues and, (2) a significant and likely permanent drop in natural gas prices brought about by the fracking revolution.
On the campaign trail in 2008, Barack Obama promised new regulatory burdens that would “bankrupt” the coal industry. Obama justified this on environmental grounds, pointing out that coal is the most environmentally damaging widely used power source. Obama acknowledged this would come at a steep economic price, conceding that “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket”.
President Obama made good on his vow to impede coal power. New regulations make it impossible to build new coal power plants. Existing coal power plants face stricter environmental requirements that drive up operating costs and force electricity suppliers to consider switching to other power sources. Some of the nation’s largest coal companies are indeed filing for bankruptcy.
Around the time Obama promised to bankrupt the coal industry, energy producers discovered huge natural gas resources trapped in shale rock formations. Recent advances in hydraulic fracturing – the technique for recovering such trapped resources, also known as fracking – and advances in directional drilling technologies made it economically feasible to tap these newly discovered resources. Natural gas production rose dramatically and consumer costs fell precipitously, with natural gas power plants becoming capable of producing electricity for approximately the same price as coal power plants. The spot price for natural gas averaged 8.86 dollars per million Btu (British thermal units) in 2008, but is averaging only 2.18 dollars per million Btu in 2016. That’s a 75-percent decline in less than a decade.
The economic advantages of natural gas, and the growing environmental restrictions on coal power, induced power providers to switch from coal to natural gas at an unprecedented pace. Coal use declined, much of the coal industry went bankrupt, yet electricity prices did not skyrocket. According to the latest EIA data, U.S. electricity prices are nearly identical now to where they were in 2008: an average of 9.81 cents per kilowatt hour in 2008, versus9.96 cents per kilowatt hour in 2016. In inflation adjusted dollars, electricity is less expensive today than when coal powered half our electricity.
The advances in directional drilling also made natural gas fracking more environmentally friendly, allowing producers to drill several wells in different directions from a single well pad. Natural gas drilling and production entails minimal land disruption, and significantly less land disruption than coal mining. Natural gas power also emits 20 percent or less of EPA’s designated principal pollutants compared to coal power.
The end result is natural gas has ascended to the throne long held by King Coal. The American economy is just as strong under natural gas, and our environmental quality has improved. King Coal brought us the living standards we enjoy today, for which we owe a great debt. But our future is even brighter today under natural gas. Long live the new king!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2016/08/15/natural-gas-dethrones-king-coal-with-encouraging-results/#60abe3922cbf
-
Kaine Denies Virginia Fracking, Opposes Atlantic Offshore Drilling in Greens' Video
Aug 15, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine told environmental activists over the weekend that fracking is not taking place in his home state of Virginia — despite records to the contrary — and he firmed up his opposition to drilling off the Atlantic coast.
Kaine's comments, which are in a video released by the green group 350 Action, complete his shift away from his earlier openness to Atlantic offshore drilling that had won him praise from the oil and gas industry.
"I actually am now in that position" of backing a ban on Atlantic coastal development, the Virginia senator said, because the Obama administration has taken the region off the table in light of Pentagon concerns. "I share those objections," he said.
Asked by the 350 activist about how he would aid communities where fracking takes place, Kaine said: "I'd have to sit down and talk about it," adding that "there's no fracking in Virginia, so that's not an issue. In the Marcellus shale, in the far western part of Virginia, that shale comes in, but it's all in the national forest, and they're not doing any fracking there."
Fracking has been used in about 2,100 wells in southwestern Virginia as of 2014, according to the state's Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy. The state's coalbed methane producers also use fracking, with more than 6,000 wells employing the extraction tactic, the DMME reported.
A Kaine spokeswoman did not immediately return a request for comment.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
(ACC Mentioned) Oil, Chemical Industries Lobby to Avert Tank Car 'Crisis'
Aug 15, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
A coalition of hazardous materials shippers is pushing the Department of Transportation to reassert its authority over tank car standards, bringing longstanding tensions with the rail industry to the fore.
In a petition for rulemaking Friday, 10 crude oil and chemical trade groups accused a leading freight rail organization, the Association of American Railroads, of taking unilateral action on tank car safety that "effectively usurps" the role of federal regulators at DOT's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
"Over at least the past two decades, the AAR has asserted itself as the de facto standard-setting body for tank car specifications whenever it disagrees with the DOT standards," wrote the petitioners, who include the American Petroleum Institute, the American Chemistry Council and the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, a refining industry group.
The dispute centers on the Tank Car Committee, an influential standards-setting body that draws the majority of its voting members from the rail industry.
The petitioners argued that the committee's tank car guidance is effectively mandatory, leaving shippers on the hook for any extra costs. Railroads don't typically own or pay for the tank cars that they string together and haul across the country, meaning "they are less concerned with the burdens of complying with their own requirements," according to the petition.
AAR spokesman Ed Greenberg said the group "will have to take a closer look" at the document.
He pointed out that the Tank Car Committee's goal is to bring together safety officials, shipper representatives and railroads to identify "the safest way to transport goods, even if that goes beyond DOT regulations." He cited a steady, decadeslong decline in freight rail accident rates.
Despite such statistics, a string of oil train derailments and fires in recent years, brought on by a surge in North American crude production, has drawn attention to the tank cars commonly used to haul hazardous materials such as crude and ethanol.
PHMSA last year passed a sweeping rule requiring old tank cars be phased out or upgraded and new ones to be built thicker and with added safety features.
In the runup to the final rule, the AAR and API came together to offer rare joint comments on how they thought the new tank car standards should play out.
But the groups drifted apart after the rule took effect, with the AAR, through its Tank Car Committee, advocating for greater thermal protection and tougher top fittings on retrofitted tank cars.
In the latest petition, API and the other shippers point out that PHMSA had "expressly declined to adopt" those protections.
"In other words, having failed to persuade PHMSA on these matters in the rulemaking, AAR threatened to take matters into its own hands by using its 'gatekeeper' status to by-pass PHMSA," the petitioners said.
Friday's filing also cites a 2006 fracas over chlorine tank cars.
"Although both of the foregoing events were resolved through negotiations of interim solutions, these were crisis situations for tank car owners and users in which the rail industry possessed nearly all the negotiating leverage," the groups said, requesting PHMSA to introduce specific language to prevent people from passing tank car rules that differ from federal baselines.
Friday's joint petition was also signed by the Fertilizer Institute, the Chlorine Institute, Sulphur Institute, U.S. Clay Producers Traffic Association, Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates, the National Association of Chemical Distributors and National Industrial Transportation League.
A PHMSA official said the agency had received the petition and would review it.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/stories/1060041573
-
(ACC Mentioned) Rail Shippers Petition USDOT over Tank-Car Safety Regs
Aug 15, 2016 | Progressive Railroading
A coalition of shippers late last week petitioned the U.S. Department of Transportation(USDOT) to adopt rules that would reinforce its authority to set uniform national tank car standards.
If adopted, the petition would prevent the Association of American Railroads (AAR) or other parties from imposing industry-wide requirements that are different from federal regulations, officials said in a press release from the shippers.
Signing the petition were the American Chemistry Council, American Petroleum Institute, The Fertilizer Institute, The Chlorine Institute, The Sulphur Institute, U.S. Clay Producers Traffic Association, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates, National Association of Chemical Distributors and National Industrial Transportation League.
The petition is in response to efforts by the AAR — through its majority control of the Tank Car Committee (TCC) — to try to impost tank car requirements that are different from federal regulations. In some cases, the AAR-recommended requirements have been considered and rejected by USDOT, the press release stated.
"Our petition simply requests that DOT adopt clear rules that ensure that the responsibility for establishing tank car specifications remains in the hands of federal regulators," shipper coalition officials said in the release.The shipper group added the following statement:
"The TCC was created to develop consensus on tank car standards and advise regulators for tank car specifications that meet DOT regulations. Allowing the TCC to set requirements outside of the federal rulemaking process would set a chilling and damaging precedent that would greatly diminish the [USDOT's] authority to regulate safety. Tank car standards must be developed with the due process protection, public interest considerations and support of science-based standards required for DOT safety rules."
The AAR is reviewing the shipper group's petition, said AAR spokesman Ed Greenberg in an email. But for decades, the Tank Car Committee has "worked closely with shippers and other representatives to make tank car transportation in this country even safer," he said.
The USDOT's standards represent the minimum safety level as required by law, Greenberg added.
"The overarching mission of the Tank Car Committee has always been to make tank cars even safer by working together with key stakeholders," he said. "The fact is, through this shared responsibility, there have been dramatic improvements in rail safety in our country over the past several decades."http://www.progressiverailroading.com/federal_legislation_regulation/news/Rail-shippers-petition-USDOT-over-tank-car-safety-regs--49153
-
Feds Tighten Controls on Abandoned Pipelines
Aug 15, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Tim Devaney
Abandoned pipelines are facing new scrutiny from the Obama administration.
The Transportation Department’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued an advisory bulletin Monday that tightens controls on pipeline operators.
"To the extent feasible, owners and operators have a responsibility to assure facilities for which they are responsible or last owned do not present a hazard to people, property or the environment,” the agency wrote.
The new rules target abandoned pipelines that once carried hazardous liquids. Before abandoning a pipeline, operators must “purge all combustibles and seal any facilities left in place,” the agency said.
"Pipelines not currently in operation are sometimes informally referred to as ‘idled,' ‘inactive,' or ‘decommissioned.' These pipelines may be shut down and still contain hazardous liquids or gas,” the PHMSA warned.
"If a pipeline is not properly abandoned and may be used in the future for transportation of hazardous liquid or gas, PHMSA regulations consider it as an active pipeline,” the agency said.
"Owners and operators of pipelines that are not operating but contain hazardous liquids and gas must comply with all applicable safety requirements, including periodic maintenance, integrity management assessments, damage prevention programs, response planning, and public awareness programs."
The advisory bulletin goes into effect immediately.
http://thehill.com/regulation/291455-feds-tighten-controls-on-abandoned-pipelines
-
Attorneys General Rip 'Illogical' EPA Regulations
Aug 15, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Proposed changes to U.S. EPA's regional haze program are "illogical" and designed to coerce states into complying with the Clean Power Plan and other illegal regulations, Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge (R) and seven other state attorneys general said in recently filed comments on the draft.
In a lengthy list of objections, the group accused EPA of seeking to strip states of their traditional role in determining what pollution sources overall may be hurting visibility in national parks and wildlife refuges.
Federal regulators also failed to provide a methodology to account for the impact of foreign sources that spawn hazy conditions, they added.
"The EPA is proposing improper changes to the rules to wrest control from states like Arkansas that approach regional haze in a balanced way," Rutledge said in a news release late last week. "These proposed changes are part of an attempt to force the EPA's political agenda on many states and ignore what is in the best interest of a particular state."
The other attorneys general, all Republicans, are from Alabama, Colorado, Kansas, Michigan, North Dakota, Oklahoma and South Carolina.
The haze program, which dates back to 1999 in its current form, is geared toward restoring visibility in 156 large parks and refuges to natural conditions by 2064. That feel-good goal notwithstanding, the program has led to repeated clashes between EPA and state regulators, accompanied by a wave of lawsuits.
After EPA officials rejected Arkansas' haze reduction plan four years ago, for example, the Sierra Club sued in 2014 to force the agency to issue a federal alternative. Under the terms of a consent decree lodged last year, EPA must release its final plan for the state by the end of this month. Rutledge had opposed the settlement, saying it could lead to higher power rates for consumers.
The proposed changes to the haze program, published in May, seek to involve National Park Service employees and other federal land managers earlier in the planning process and more closely align "reasonable progress" goals with long-term haze reduction strategies. After extending the public comment period through last Wednesday, EPA has been flooded with almost 76,000 comments; the agency hopes to issue the final version of the revised regulations by October.
Perhaps the biggest point of contention, however, has been a provision that would extend the deadline for a new round of state implementation plans from 2018 to 2021. According to EPA, the proposed delay would let states mesh their haze reduction planning with work on meeting other air quality regulations, such as the Clean Power Plan's targets for cutting carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
But the proposal has run into opposition from environmentalists leery of the potential impact on compliance. In their comments, Rutledge and the other attorneys general also raised objections, arguing that those regulations rest on "dubious legal grounds" and noting that the Clean Power Plan has been stayed by the Supreme Court.
"As currently framed, therefore, the proposed amendments are little more than a thinly veiled attempt to pressure the states into complying with those unlawful and unenforceable regulatory programs," they wrote.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/08/15/stories/1060041618
-
CWA Jurisdiction Rule Spurs Questions over Corps' Streamlined Permits
Aug 15, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
States, industry groups and environmentalists are raising questions over whether EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers' Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule -- stayed by a federal appeals court -- should apply to the Corps' recent proposal to reissue a slew of streamlined nationwide permits (NWPs) for a host of activities.
For example, the American Petroleum Institute (API) in Aug. 1 comments on the NWP proposal warns that even though the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit has blocked implementation of the jurisdiction rule pending the end of litigation over it, many "critical definitions" such as "waters of the U.S." appear in the NWP plan.
"NWP users need certainty in being able to utilize these permits for their public and commercial activities," API says, warning that any streamlined permits based on what it calls the "2015 Waters of the U.S. Rule and/or any comments solicited, will cause confusion and potentially be subject to additional costly litigation."
The group instead asks that the Corps renew the current NWPs with limited revisions and hold off on applying any provisions from the CWA jurisdiction rule until the litigation has reached a conclusion, subsequently modifying the NWPs through additional rulemaking if necessary depending on the outcome of the suits.
"The appropriate vehicle for that is a subsequent and separate NWP rulemaking once there is a clear path-forward," API says. "Doing so now as the Corps seems to be indicating with its call for comments on this unsettled issue is premature and, is likely to cause unnecessary confusion," the comments say.
Similarly, in July 26 comments filed on the NWP proposal, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality urges the Corp to withdraw any citations related to the CWA jurisdiction rule, in particular any reference to "ordinary high water mark" that the jurisdiction rule uses in its definition of "tributaries."
DEQ says, "Although the definition of ordinary high water mark' does not change, it is concerning that the Corps would endorse" the rule via reference despite the fact that the rule is nationally stayed, urging the Corps to "withdraw all citations" to the rule.
Further, DEQ says roughly 80 percent of its stream miles are intermittent or ephemeral, and therefore potentially subject to the jurisdiction rule, and that it is expected to cause a significant increase in both NWP and individual permit applications. "The appreciable increase in workload combined with the vague jurisdictional determination process for 'other waters' will very likely lead to inconsistencies in implementation" of the rule, permit delays, and increased costs to regulators and industry.
DEQ adds that it anticipates the greatest impacts of the jurisdiction rule will be on the NWPs for utility lines, linear transportation projects, surface coal mining, residential development, agriculture, mining and land-based renewable energy generation.
Nationwide Permits
NWPs govern actions with limited environmental impacts -- confined to half an acre -- and aim to speed permitting. Activities that the Corps determines would have significant environmental impacts must be authorized under individual CWA section 404 permits. These permits involve a more rigorous, site-specific review of potential adverse effects, give EPA a stronger oversight role and often become the target of environmentalist litigation.
The CWA requires the Corps to reissue its NWPs every five years as a way of streamlining the permitting process for dredge-and-fill operations conducted in "waters of the United States" that are associated with minor impacts to the aquatic environment. The current NWPs expire on March 18, 2017, meaning the draft permits, once final, would immediately take effect for 2017 through March 2022.
The Corps' NWP proposal includes new permits for bank stabilization techniques known as living shorelines, and for removal of low-head dams, and a proposed new "general condition" setting a higher approval threshold for projects that would alter or occupy structures built by the federal government.
The plan would revise a number of existing NWPs, including NWP12, for utility line activities, NWP14, for transportation projects, NWPs for land- and water-based renewable energy generation and other activities.
In its proposal, the Corps solicited comment on a number of issues, including how the CWA jurisdiction rule might affect the efficiency of the proposed NWPs, with energy groups complaining in a July 5 letter to the White House Office of Management & Budget that many of the rule's implications may never materialize because of the litigation.
In the letter, the American Exploration & Production Council and Independent Petroleum Association of America say they appreciate the Corps' call for comment on how the CWA rule may affect the applicability and efficiency of the NWPs, but that "it is irresponsible to burden the public with the task of determining the potential impacts when the outcome is uncertain and possibly year(s) away" given the stay.
Environmentalists' Concerns
Environmentalists are raising legal concerns about the draft NWPs. A spokesman with the Center for Biological Diversity previously told Inside EPA that "The Army Corps is basically guaranteeing litigation if they go down this path," pointing to the Corps' statements that its permits will not have any adverse impacts on endangered species, and that any concerns about potential impacts could be raised with a Corps district office.
A coalition of 27 environmental groups in Aug. 1 comments warns that the NWP12 for utility lines has become a "fast-track permit" for parts of oil and gas pipelines, and that it circumvents "critical laws that are designed to protect the public through informed and participatory agency decisionmaking." The groups include Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Riverkeeper, National Wildlife Federation and others.
In separate Aug. 1 comments filed by Earthjustice, Sierra Club, and Natural Resources Defense Council, advocates say that NWP39 for commercial and institutional development improperly suggests that the Corps may designate a portion of jurisdictional waters as a waste treatment system (WTS) in violation of the CWA.
The groups say that the language improperly interprets an exclusion in regulations for WTS, saying that the "WTS exclusion runs afoul of congressional intent, however, when the agencies apply it to existing waters of the United States or impoundments thereof."
The groups urge EPA and the Corps to promulgate a rulemaking to clearly define what constitutes a valid WTS under the definition of waters of the United States, saying the Corps should not "endorse a policy position that runs counter to the Clean Water Act and has yet to be explained, and it particularly should not do so in a nationwide permit where there is a high risk of inconsistent application."
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/cwa-jurisdiction-rule-spurs-questions-over-corps-streamlined-permits
-
DIVIDED AMERICA: Temperatures Rise, US Splits
Aug 15, 2016 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Seth Borenstein
Tempers are rising in America, along with the temperatures.
Two decades ago, the issue of climate change wasn’t as contentious. The leading U.S. Senate proponent of taking action on global warming was Republican John McCain. George W. Bush wasn’t as zealous on the issue as his Democratic opponent for president in 2000, Al Gore, but he, too, talked of regulating carbon dioxide.
Then the Earth got even hotter , repeatedly breaking temperature records. But instead of drawing closer together, politicians polarized.
Democrats (and scientists) became more convinced that global warming was a real, man-made threat . But Republicans and Tea Party activists became more convinced that it was — to quote the repeated tweets of presidential nominee Donald Trump — a “hoax.”
When it comes to science, there’s more than climate that divides America’s leaders and people, such as evolution, vaccination and genetically modified food.
But nothing beats climate change for divisiveness.
“It’s more politically polarizing than abortion,” says Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. “It’s more politically polarizing than gay marriage.”
Leiserowitz says his surveys show 17 percent of Americans, the fastest-growing group, are alarmed by climate change and want action now, with another 28 percent concerned but viewing it as a more distant threat. But there’s an often-vocal 10 percent who are dismissive, rejecting the concept of warming and the science
Sometimes dismissiveness and desire for action mix in one family.
Rick and Julie Joyner of Fort Mill, South Carolina, are founders of MorningStar ministries. Most of the people they associate with reject climate change. Their 31-year-old daughter, Anna Jane, is a climate change activist.
As part of a documentary a few years ago, Anna Jane introduced Rick to scientists who made the case for climate change. It did not work. He labels himself more skeptical than before.
“They’re both stubborn and equally entrenched in their positions,” says Julie, who is often in the middle. “It doesn’t get ugly too often.”
TRIBALISM
People in the 1960s “had faith in science, had hope in science. Most people thought science was responsible for improving their daily lives,” says Marcia McNutt, president of the National Academy of Sciences.
Now “we see partisan polarization or ideological polarization,” says Matthew Nisbet, a communications professor at Northeastern University. The split with science is most visible and strident when it comes to climate change because the nature of the global problem requires communal joint action, and “for conservatives that’s especially difficult to accept,” Nisbet says.
Climate change is more about tribalism, or who we identify with politically and socially, Nisbet and other experts say. Liberals believe in global warming, conservatives don’t.
Dave Woodard, a Clemson University political science professor and GOP consultant, helped South Carolina Republican Bob Inglis run for the U.S. House (successfully) and the Senate (unsuccessfully). They’d meet monthly at Inglis’ home for Bible study, and were in agreement that global warming wasn’t an issue and probably was not real.
After seeing the effects of warming first-hand in Antarctica and Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, Inglis changed his mind — and was overwhelmingly defeated in a GOP primary in 2010. Woodard helped run the campaign that beat him.
“I was seen as crossing to the other side, as helping the Al Gore tribe, and that could not be forgiven,” Inglis says.
Judy Curry, a Georgia Tech atmospheric scientist and self-described climate gadfly, has experienced ostracism from the other side. She repeatedly clashed with former colleagues after she publicly doubted the extent of global warming and criticized the way mainstream scientists operate. Now she says, no one will even look at her for other jobs in academia.
WHAT CHANGED
In 1997, then-Vice President Gore helped broker an international treaty to reduce heat-trapping gases from the burning of coal, oil and gas.
“And at that moment” says Leiserowitz, “the two parties begin to divide. They begin to split and go farther and farther and farther apart until we reach today’s environment where climate change is now one of the most polarized issues in America.”
Consider lobster scientist Diane Cowan in Friendship, Maine, who expresses dismay.
“I am definitely bearing witness to climate change,” Cowan says. “I read about climate change. I knew sea level was rising but I saw it and, until it impacted me directly, I didn’t feel it the same way.”
Republican Jodi Crosson, a 55-year-old single mother and production and sales manager in Bexley, Ohio, thinks global warming is a serious problem because she’s felt the wrath of extreme weather and rising heat. But to her, it’s not quite as big an issue as the economy.
Scott Tiller, a 59-year-old underground coal miner in West Virginia, has seen mine after mine close, and says coal is getting a bad rap.
“I think we’ve been treated unfairly and kind of looked down upon as polluters,” Tiller says. “They say the climate is changing, but are we doing it? Or is it just a natural thing that the Earth does?”
BRIDGING DIFFERENCES
Overwhelmingly, scientists who study the issue say it is man-made and a real problem. Using basic physics and chemistry and computer simulations, scientists have repeatedly calculated that most of the extra warming comes from humans, instead of nature. Dozens of scientific measurements show Earth is warming. Since 1997, the world has warmed by 0.44 degrees (0.25 degrees Celsius).
Repeatedly explaining science and showing data doesn’t convince some people to change their core beliefs, experts say. So instead some climate activists and even scientists try to build bridges to communities that might doubt that the Earth is warming but are not utterly dismissive.
The more people connect on a human level, the more people can “overcome these tribal attitudes,” Anna Jane Joyner says. “We really do have a lot more in common than we think.”
EDITOR’S NOTE — This story is part of Divided America, AP’s ongoing exploration of the economic, social and political divisions in American society.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/divided-america-global-warming-polarizes-more-than-abortion/2016/08/12/0f388df4-60b1-11e6-84c1-6d27287896b5_story.html
-
Behind the Scenes with Don Cheadle: "Climate Change Is Real and We Must Act."
Aug 15, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Eric Pooley
In the studio of a Los Angeles radio station, host Tina Mastramico was kicking off another edition of her show Celebrity Chat. “We’re here with Don Cheadle,” she said, “to discuss the Environmental Defense Fund, his new movie.”
Cheadle, the actor-director and climate activist, seemed taken aback. “Um, EDF isn’t a movie. It’s an organization that helps protect the planet.”
“Oooh…like an alliance of superheroes?”
Cheadle chuckled. “Sort of. They’ve found ways for both parties in Washington to make our air and water cleaner, and the products in our home safer.”
“Interesting plot,” Mastramico replied.
“It’s not a movie.”
It wasn’t a radio interview, either. Cheadle and Mastramico were taping a public service announcement for EDF at KSWD, a Southern California classic rock station that’s part of the Entercom radio network.
The nation’s fourth-largest radio broadcasting company, Entercom Communications had given us a generous gift of free airtime on its network, which includes 124 stations in 25 markets around the United States. (Our thanks to Entercom and all of the great people there who made this happen!)
The PSAs will begin airing across the network today
A witness to the impacts of climate change
We needed a celebrity voice and reached out to Cheadle who donated his time and talent to help more people learn about our work. (Thank you, Don!)
We’d long admired his own work in films from Boogie Nightsto Miles Ahead, and we also admired his stance on climate change, an issue highlighted in the new radio campaign.
As an on-air correspondent for the television news magazineYears of Living Dangerously, for example, Cheadle exploredwith great sensitivity how the people of Plainview, Texas, were coping with the crippling drought that shut down the town’s biggest employer.
The show’s second season, on the National Geographic channel, begins in October and will include a segment about EDF’s climate work in China.
Cheadle told me that he’d first noticed the impacts of a changing climate during his high school years in Denver, “when we could only water our lawns on certain days because of the water shortage.
“I have been watching the steady increase in the effects of climate change ever since,” he said. “I’m happy to have thrown my lot in with organizations like United Nations Environment Program, EDF and the Citizens Climate Lobby, as well as the people behind Years of Living Dangerously…to wake people up and raise the alarm. Climate change is real and we must act.”
“Hope without action isn’t worth much.”
For Cheadle, there’s a strong connection between acting and taking action.
His Oscar-nominated role in Hotel Rwanda, the true story of a Hutu hotel manager who saved Tutsi refugees from genocide, led Cheadle to become a leader in the campaign to end genocide in Darfur and Sudan.
And his work on Years of Living Dangerously, he said, “expanded my horizons with regard to climate and continues to open my eyes and introduce me to more soldiers in this fight.”
I asked Cheadle how he stays hopeful while chronicling the harsh impacts of climate change.
“I do have hope,” he replied, “but hope without action isn’t worth much. We need leadership and follow-through. EDF is providing a blueprint. Let’s all execute.”
https://www.edf.org/blog/2016/08/15/behind-scenes-don-cheadle-climate-change-real-and-we-must-act
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested