Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 8/31/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Activity Continues To Increase
Aug 31, 2016 | Seeking Alpha
By Calafia Beach Pundit
Two months ago, I noted in a post that chemical activity was pointing to a stronger economy. That continues to be the case. The Chemical Activity Barometer, published monthly by the American Chemistry Council since 1919, is up a solid 3.9% in the past year. -
(ACC Mentioned) Specter of Future Lawsuits Arises in EPA Risk Rule Comments
Aug 31, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency must stipulate and follow fair procedures in rules it is developing to implement the amended Toxic Substances Control Act or risk lawsuits, a fragrance makers trade association said. -
After Months of Anger in Hoosick Falls, Hearings on Tainted Water Begin
Aug 31, 2016 | The New York Times
By Jesse Mckinley
It did not take long for Michael Hickey to find a connection between his father’s cancer and a toxic chemical in this riverside village. -
New York Officials: EPA ‘Counterproductive’ In Water Crisis
Aug 30, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
New York state officials claim the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been “counterproductive” in its response to a drinking water contamination crisis in an upstate town. -
(ACC Mentioned) New Heavy-Duty Engine Oil Categories Are Driven By Regulation
Aug 30, 2016 | Fleet Equipment
By Seth Skydel
When the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced regulations in 2010 designed to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and mandate fuel economy improvements for heavy-duty engines and vehicles, it set in motion a change to engine oil specifications. -
Oil, NatGas Liquids Pipelines Approved in North Dakota
Aug 30, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
North Dakota officials recently approved in-state pipelines to move Bakken crude oil and natural gas liquids (NGL) to market.he quiet approvals are in contrast to protests by Native Americans and others against a nearby oil pipeline. -
Dakota Access Spat Heats Up
Aug 30, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
The burgeoning battle over the Dakota Access pipeline got fiercer today as both sides traded jabs over the $3.7 billion North Dakota-to-Illinois project that environmentalists hope to make into a Keystone XL sequel. -
Shell Says While Gas Is the Future, It Won’t Be Traded Like Oil
Aug 30, 2016 | Bloomberg Markets
By Kelly Gilblom and Rakteem Katakey
Natural gas is rapidly becoming one of the most traded global commodities, but that doesn’t mean it will have a global price, according to Royal Dutch Shell Plc. -
Briefing in EPA Power Plan Case Extended to February
Aug 31, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Briefing in challenges to the Environmental Protection Agency's carbon dioxide standards for new and modified power plants now will extend through February 2017 under a revised schedule (North Dakota v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1381, 8/30/16). -
Governors, Premiers Weigh ‘Erasing' Border on Energy Issues
Aug 31, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Martha W. Kessler
Regional leaders addressed climate, energy and ecological issues facing New England and the Eastern Canadian provinces, with some suggesting that ignoring the border would boost coordination in achieving regional goals. -
The $8 Trillion Fight Over How to Rid America of Fossil Fuel
Aug 30, 2016 | Bloomberg
By Eric Roston
... What isn’t so funny is its application to the biggest challenge of the 21st century: How to shed a fossil-fuel energy infrastructure that seems hell-bent on destroying us. -
Chemical Safety Board Heads to Florida Explosion Site
Aug 31, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
Federal investigators will probe a Florida nitrous oxide plant where a worker was killed in an explosion Aug. 28 but not a West Virginia chlorine plant where a leaking railcar sent a cloud of toxic fumes through several towns Aug. 27. -
FERC's Cheryl LaFleur: Need to Stay Ahead of Cyber Threats
Aug 31, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
Cheryl LaFleur, who's serving her sixth year as a commissioner on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, says one of the hottest issues at FERC today is cyber threats to the U.S. electric grid, which individual hackers and nations attempt to attack on a daily basis. -
Wash. Refineries to Give Real-Time Info on Crude-by-Rail
Aug 31, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Refineries in Washington state will have to provide advance notice of crude-by-rail movements beginning Oct. 1, which will give first responders around the state their first real-time information on the shipments to assist operations. -
(ACC Mentiuoned) Plastic Packaging Scores An Environmental Win
Aug 31, 2016 | Packaging Digest
By Chandler Slavin
What’s the net environmental cost of plastic packaging and how does it compare to other packaging? New research explores the material’s “natural capital” value and concludes that its eco-efficiencies make good business sense. -
EPA Gets Time to Fix Legal Flaws in Ozone Requirements Rule
Aug 31, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency will have an opportunity to address legal flaws in a regulation that set implementation requirements for the 2008 national ozone standards (South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1115, 8/29/16). -
Rule Would Exempt Some Facilities From Greenhouse Gas Permits
Aug 31, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Industrial facilities that emit less than 75,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent annually won't be required to obtain permits for those emissions, under an Environmental Protection Agency proposal. -
Advocates Defend EPA's 'SIP Call' Scrapping Emissions Limit Exemptions
Aug 31, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Environmentalists are defending EPA's rule forcing states to remove language from their Clean Air Act state implementation plans (SIPs) exempting some facilities' excess emissions from air law limits during periods of startup, shutdown or malfunction (SSM), saying the waivers violate air law mandates for continuous air controls.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Activity Continues To Increase
Aug 31, 2016 | Seeking Alpha
By Calafia Beach Pundit
Two months ago, I noted in a post that chemical activity was pointing to a stronger economy. That continues to be the case.
The Chemical Activity Barometer, published monthly by the American Chemistry Council since 1919, is up a solid 3.9% in the past year. This strongly suggests that industrial production - which has been quite weak for the past year or so (due in large part to the big slowdown in oil drilling and exploration) - will pick up in coming months. This should go hand in hand with stronger GDP numbers over the course of the year.
The chart above shows the Chemical Barometer Activity index for the past 8 years. This year's uptick is significant, suggesting at the very least that the underlying trend of economic growth (which has been a little over 2% per year since mid-2009) remains intact.
The chart above shows the Chemical Activity index going back to 1960.
As the above chart shows, the index does a good job of leading the growth in industrial production and, by inference, the overall economy. It continues to suggest that industrial production should enjoy a healthy rebound. For more detailed information, see Calculated Risk.
And as the chart above shows, it indeed looks like Industrial Production is beginning to turn up after almost 18 months of decline.
Two months ago, I noted that truck tonnage (above chart) had also picked up. However, it has since dropped back down to where it started the year. Although it's not weak enough to suggest a budding recession, neither is it strong enough to suggest any fundamental improvement in the economy's growth trend. So, there's not enough here to get excited about a fundamentally stronger economy. More likely, we will just see a continuation of a growth trend somewhat in excess of 2% per year - a disappointing, sub-par economy, but at least an economy that continues to grow.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/4003251-chemical-activity-continues-increase
-
(ACC Mentioned) Specter of Future Lawsuits Arises in EPA Risk Rule Comments
Aug 31, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency must stipulate and follow fair procedures in rules it is developing to implement the amended Toxic Substances Control Act or risk lawsuits, a fragrance makers trade association said.
“EPA should efficiently use its resources to develop fair processes at the outset, rather than revising rules after losing lawsuits,” the International Fragrance Association North America (IFRA North America) said in comments it submitted to the agency regarding two rules the EPA must develop under the amended law.
Central to those fair procedures will be the agency's regulatory definitions of the amended law's science policy mandates and information about how the agency will comply with those mandates, several industry commenters said.
But the Environmental Defense Fund said both rules the EPA is crafting are procedural. “The specifics of science policy issues should be left to guidance documents and policy statements,” it said.
The first rule the EPA is developing, called its prioritization rule, will set out how the agency will determine that a chemical is a low priority, meaning no further scrutiny would be warranted, and how it would determine a chemical is a high priority, which must have its human health and environmental risks evaluated. The second rule would describe how the agency would evaluate those risks. The EPA intends to propose both rules in December. Comments were due Aug. 24.
The mandate to develop these and other rules is included in the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Pub. Law No. 114-182), which amended TSCA effective June 22.
Chemical, Petroleum Companies Focus on Science Principles
The American Chemistry Council , the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute, the Dow Chemical Co., IFRA North America, and the Shell Oil Co. were among the trade associations and companies that told the EPA the sound science principles described in Section 26 of the amended TSCA are fundamental to the effective implementation of the law.
The EPA must explain in its regulations how it will apply the law's scientific principles to both chemical prioritization and risk evaluation rules, the trade associations and companies said. The greater focus was on the agency's risk evaluation rule.
Incorporating definitions of scientific principles laid out in the law, such as its mandate that the EPA use “best available science” and a “weight of evidence” approach to reach conclusions about risk “creates a better platform for clean and consistent articulation of the agency's understanding of statutory requirements, and will better support consistent and uniform application of the elements of risk evaluation,” the American Chemistry Council said.
Groups Disagree on Tiered Approach
The council and other trade associations urged the EPA to use a tiered approach in its risk evaluations.
Under that approach, after the agency has designated a chemical to be a high priority for risk evaluation, the agency would begin a fairly quick screening evaluation with readily available toxicity and exposure information or modeled predictions, the chemistry council said.
The quantitative screening level assessment would occur during the six months the law provides the EPA to scope out its risk evaluation, the council said. Quantitative means the assessment would assign numerical values to the risk of injuries that could occur. Scoping includes determining issues such as health or ecological risks the evaluation would examine, exposures it would consider, and potentially exposed and susceptible populations.
If the screening level assessment concluded a chemical could pose risks, the agency would refine its risk evaluation with more realistic and representative data and more sophisticated analytic approaches, the council said.
Single Risk Evaluation Envisioned
But a coalition of environmental and health groups called Safer Chemicals Healthy Families told EPA: “This tiered approach has no basis in the law--Congress clearly envisioned a single risk evaluation, not multiple evaluations of varying stringency.”
It is “simply not feasible within the six month scoping process” for the EPA to carry out a quantitative analysis of hazards and exposure data, Safer Chemicals said in comments approved by two dozen groups. The scoping analysis will typically need to be qualitative, the environmental coalition said.
Nor can the EPA be expected to obtain the needed toxicity and exposure data to complete the rigorous, precise risk evaluations of multiple hazards, uses and exposure pathways for each chemical that industry comments call for, Safer Chemicals said. The amended law requires the agency to complete assessments within three years.
“In practice, a risk evaluation will necessarily be based mainly on the information in hand when EPA begins the evaluation process. Where this information is incomplete, EPA should apply default values and/or make worst case assumptions,” the environmental coalition said.
“If industry wishes to avoid this outcome, it will have ample motivation to develop information it deems necessary for a rigorous risk evaluation before the chemical enters the evaluation process,” Safer Chemicals said.
EPA Urged to Clarify Terms
Clarifying the EPA's risk evaluation rule should make explicit how the agency will protect vulnerable populations from unreasonable risks, the Safer Chemicals coalition and Environmental Defense Fund said.
The term “potentially exposed” or “susceptible subpopulation” appears 20 times in the law, demonstrating Congress’ clear intent that the EPA protect such subpopulations explicitly through the evaluation and regulation of chemicals, the defense fund said.
The law provides some examples of potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations such as infants, children, pregnant women and workers, but the list isn't exhaustive, the defense fund said.
Other examples of subpopulations that the defense fund urged EPA to consider include: fence line communities, indigenous populations and individuals who have greater susceptibility due to preexisting disease or genetic factors.
The chemistry council urged the EPA, in its risk evaluation rule, to clarify the meaning of terms used in the amended TSCA such as “potentially exposed” and “greater susceptibility.”
“We do not believe Congress intended ‘potentially exposed subpopulation ‘ to mean any subpopulation, without boundaries, for which potential exposure could be conceived,” the chemistry council said.
If the agency defines potentially exposed too broadly that would “make risk evaluations difficult to scope, would defeat the purposes of disciplined and methodical risk evaluation, and would impede their timely completion,” the council said.
Risk Shifting, Exposure, Other Issues Raised
Some commenters warned against “risk shifting,” offered tips on exposure models that could be useful, and urged the agency to improve toxicity tests while reducing, and ultimately eliminating, the use of experimental animals.
The University of Massachusetts at Lowell's Toxics Use Reduction Institute discussed its work with industries to reduce their use of toxic chemicals.
The institute strives as it carries out this work to avoid risk shifting, it said. “When addressing a chemical hazard, it is important not to shift risk from one environmental medium to another or from one population to another. It is also important not to shift risk from human health to environmental impacts, or vice versa,” the institute said.
The EPA should consider the full range of effects a chemical could have, including ecological, occupational and general human health impacts, to avoid risk shifting, the university's institute said.
The chemistry council listed exposure models developed in Europe to help companies and European Union member states comply with the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals, or REACH, regulation. The council urged the agency to consider these and other modeling tools.
The Humane Society described high throughput toxicity tests, exposure prediction methods and other tools that it said could improve the information the agency receives while using fewer, if any, animals.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=96555711&vname=dennotallissues&wsn=499504000&searchid=28313141&doctypeid=1&type=date&mode=doc&split=0&scm=DELNWB&pg=0
-
After Months of Anger in Hoosick Falls, Hearings on Tainted Water Begin
Aug 31, 2016 | The New York Times
By Jesse Mckinley
It did not take long for Michael Hickey to find a connection between his father’s cancer and a toxic chemical in this riverside village.
“All I typed in was Teflon and cancer, because that’s what was in the factory that was in Hoosick Falls where my father worked,” said Mr. Hickey, an insurance underwriter and lifelong resident here.
“It took about five minutes,” he said.
It took far longer for government officials to take notice, let alone action, which came partially in response to Mr. Hickey’s efforts to bring attention to the village’s polluted water. On Tuesday, a State Senate committee held a daylong hearing here, after months in which residents have repeatedly expressed frustration with local, state and federal reaction to the contamination.
Mr. Hickey, who was one of the first speakers on Tuesday, talked in halting and emotional terms about the death of his father from kidney cancer, which led him to investigate, in a Google search, a possible link between Teflon and the diseases that seemed to plague his town and his family.
In recent months, Hoosick Falls, about 30 miles northeast of Albany, has become the epicenter of a sprawling public health crisis after researchers discovered that the public water supply was tainted with high levels of perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA. Since then, several nearby towns in New York and across the border in Vermont have also reported unsafe levels of PFOA, which was used in a variety of commercial and industrial products and in the production of Teflon.
The chemical has been deemed hazardous by the state and has been linked in some studies to an increased risk for cancer, thyroid disease and other serious ailments. In May, the Environmental Protection Agency established a lifetime standard for PFOA exposure in drinking water at 70 parts per trillion, far below what was found in several samples in Hoosick Falls’ water.
More than 2,000 residents of Hoosick Falls or areas nearby have had their blood tested, with a result that is nearly 15 times the national median for those 12 or older. Hundreds were reported to be above the new E.P.A. long-term level, including some children.Continue reading the main story
Chilling discoveries continue: On Monday, the State Department of Environmental Conservation announced that it had declared municipal landfills in three towns and villages — Hoosick Falls, Petersburgh and Berlin — to be potential state Superfund sites after high levels of the chemical were discovered. In the case of the Hoosick Falls site, the results were particularly alarming, with samples showing 21,000 parts per trillion.
The state’s Health Department did not warn against drinking the water here until after a federal warning was made public in December. And on Tuesday, State Senator Kemp Hannon, a Nassau County Republican who is the chairman of the Health Committee, criticized a December fact sheetfrom the Health Department — which did not warn against drinking the water, but did note possible health problems associated with PFOA — as “the most inconsistent letter I’ve ever seen.”
“This is an example of what has led to the folks in this community being so disturbed,” Mr. Hannon said.
In response, New York’s health commissioner, Dr. Howard Zucker, noted that such contamination was “an emerging issue, and a national issue.”
Indeed, even as the hearing continued, the state stepped up its contention that the E.P.A. was confusing and inconsistent in its handling of PFOA contamination, while the E.P.A. suggested that the state was being disingenuous about its performance during the crisis, the worst environmental scare of Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s tenure.
In a letter sent on Tuesday from state officials to the E.P.A.’s top official,Administrator Gina McCarthy, the state accused the federal agency of bungling the response to PFOA, and demanding that it cover at least $75 million in expenses, accrued already and estimated in the future, that cannot be clawed back from polluters.
“We believe the E.P.A.’s handling of this matter aggravated the situation, causing undue expense to our agencies,” read the letter, which was signed by Dr. Zucker and Basil Seggos, the state’s environmental commissioner.
In particular, Dr. Zucker and Mr. Seggos suggested that the E.P.A. had taken “no less than three different positions regarding PFOA,” causing “great public concern, frustration and anxiety.”
Judith A. Enck, the agency’s administrator with responsibility for New York, defended the E.P.A.’s performance, noting that it had acted first to warn residents of Hoosick Falls about high levels of PFOA, and advising residents to avoid cooking with or drinking the water. “There was no confusion between the E.P.A. and the Health Department” about warnings to residents, she said in an interview. “There was disagreement.”
Moreover, Ms. Enck said, the agency’s adjustment of the acceptable level of PFOA in water from 400 parts per trillion to 100 parts to its current long-term level of 70 was not hard to understand. “The State Health Department are distinguished professionals,” she said. “They can follow the number of 400 to 70.”
State officials have identified the source of the contamination as the Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics plant, a bland structure on the edge of the Hoosic River, not far from the municipal wells that provide Hoosick Falls with its drinking water.
Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat, has been criticized for what some saw as a lax response to the crisis, visiting the village only months after the water was confirmed to be poisoned; lawmakers in Albany, meanwhile, were also initially noncommittal about hearings on the contamination, beforeeventually assenting.
Dr. Marcus Martinez, a local physician and another lifelong resident who testified alongside Mr. Hickey, said that he had long noted what he believed to be unusually high rates of cancer in the village. He said that he and Mr. Hickey had brought their concerns, as well as test results, to the attention of village and state officials in 2014, but had been frustrated by a lack of action.
“I do believe our citizens were advised incorrectly to consume water that was unsafe for at least for 12 months,” Dr. Martinez said.
Representatives of Saint-Gobain did not attend the hearing, but Dina Silver Pokedoff, a spokeswoman for the company, said it had submitted statements, noting that it had paid for a new water filtration system as well as bottled water for the residents, even as the state has declared it to be a Superfund site.
“Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics remains fully committed to working closely with local, state and federal officials, with a shared focus on ensuring that the people of Hoosick Falls have drinking water that meets or exceeds current advisories set by E.P.A. and New York,” the one-page statement said. “And in the investigation of the source and/or sources that is just getting underway.”
That statement — and the sentiment that the job is unfinished — seemed evident on Tuesday as Mr. Hickey spoke about what he had hoped to accomplish in trying to discover why his father, who had driven a school bus as a second job, had died.
“I think it goes back to kids on the bus,” Mr. Hickey said, pausing to compose himself. “Because for him, that was his family as well. And I think that what he would have wanted was to protect them.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/31/nyregion/hoosick-falls-tainted-water-hearings.html?_r=0
-
New York Officials: EPA ‘Counterproductive’ In Water Crisis
Aug 30, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
New York state officials claim the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been “counterproductive” in its response to a drinking water contamination crisis in an upstate town.
In a Tuesday letter, a pair of officials appointed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) accused the EPA of causing confusion in its guidances regarding perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), which has been found in elevated levels in the Hoosick Falls drinking water and has been linked to cancer and other serious illnesses.
“While we always try to work in partnership with the federal government, the [EPA’s] role in the Hoosick Falls situation was certainly not helpful, and was, at times, counterproductive,” Health Commissioner Howard Zucker and Environmental Commissioner Basil Seggos wrote to EPA head Gina McCarthy.
The commissioners claimed that the EPA's shifting guidance on the point at which PFOE levels become dangerous aggravated the situation.
“The statements and guidance from the EPA’s regional office inexplicably differed from town to town in New York — not to mention from state to state. To further compound this confusion, the guidance from the EPA’s regional office differed from the EPA’s headquarters,” they said.
Judith Enck, the EPA administrator for the region that includes New York, pushed back against the accusations.
“That’s not accurate. There was no confusion, there was disagreement,” Enck told The Hill.
She went on to say that the EPA changed its PFOA guidelines this year, but the process was very transparent, and state officials were well aware.
The EPA set a provisional level of safe lifetime exposure to PFOA in drinking water at 400 parts per trillion in 2009, according to the New York Times. In May of this year, the agency set a lifetime standard at 70 parts per trillion. The commissioners say in their letter that in January of this year, the EPA issued local guidance setting the level at 100 parts per trillion.
On Tuesday, the New York state Senate held a hearing in Hoosick Falls to investigate state and federal responses to PFOA, an industrial chemical used in nearby plants that manufacture products such as Teflon.
The crisis developed around the same time as the lead contamination crisis in Flint, Mich., which spurred new national attention on drinking water safety.
The state officials repeated their arguments in their testimony, with Seggos saying the EPA “made the situation worse,” according to the Albany Times-Union.
But the Cuomo administration has also been under fire, particularly for what some local and state leaders saw as a slow response to the crisis, the Times-Union said. The administration frequently pushed back against the EPA’s recommendations to take stronger action to protect the town’s residents.
In their Tuesday letter, the New York officials asked the EPA to reimburse the state for the at least $50 million it expects to spend due to the EPA’s “mishandling” of the crisis.
Enck said that’s not a proper role for the EPA and that all of the pollution clean-up costs should be incurred by the parties who are deemed responsible for the pollution.
“We expect the polluter to pick up these costs, and not federal taxpayers,” she said. “I’m a little surprised that New York State may be throwing in the towel so early in trying to get the polluter to cover these costs.”
Senators were disappointed that the EPA did not send a representative to the Tuesday hearing.
Instead, Enck submitted written testimony, defending the EPA’s actions and promising to stick with the state and Hoosick Falls throughout the process.
In addition to New York’s state legislature, the United States House Oversight Committee isinvestigating the Hoosick Falls crisis and the responses of state and federal officials.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/293880-new-york-officials-epa-counterproductive-in-water-crisis
-
(ACC Mentioned) New Heavy-Duty Engine Oil Categories Are Driven By Regulation
Aug 30, 2016 | Fleet Equipment
By Seth Skydel
When the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced regulations in 2010 designed to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and mandate fuel economy improvements for heavy-duty engines and vehicles, it set in motion a change to engine oil specifications. In turn, the Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) requested that the American Petroleum Institute (API) develop a new engine oil performance category to address the requirements of new engines.
“Diesel engine design is undergoing a period of significant change to meet the new requirements,” said Shawn Whitacre, senior staff engineer of technology at Chevron, who is responsible for product formulation of the company’s Delo brand of heavy-duty engine oils. “In particular, the new regulations for 2017 impose fuel efficiency targets, so the various committees that developed the new Proposed Category 11 [PC-11] oil specs spent significant time agreeing on how to meet the needs of engine manufacturers while also providing backward compatibility for older engines.”
The nearly five-year engine oil category development process was long and complex, according to Dan Arcy, global OEM technical manager at Shell Lubricants. “The process defined by API for the development of the new category,” he explained, “began with the formation of a New Category Evaluation Team [NCET] consisting of engine manufacturers, oil marketers and additive companies to review the request and evaluate the need for a new specification.
“The next phase was the formation of a New Category Development Team [NCDT] to oversee the specification and test method development, and to agree to any additional guidelines,” continued Arcy, who served as chairman of the NCDT. “The NCDT was structured with four functional work groups with specific responsibilities consisting of API, ASTM [the international standards organization], American Chemistry Council (ACC) and EMA representatives. In addition, ad hoc work groups from Society of Automotive Engineers(SAE) and engine test laboratories were asked to participate.”
“All of the industry stakeholders worked closely and through a consensus process developed the new engine oil category,” said Rodney Walker, vice president of technology for oil re-refining at Safety Kleen. “API, oil company marketers, engine and truck manufacturers and additive companies worked to understand the new category and its intended benefits to end-users. There are many considerations when developing a new oil. Fleet managers need to be assured they are buying an oil that has been field-proven and meets the needs of all of their equipment, new and old.”
Mark Betner, manager of heavy-duty products at Citgo, noted that diesel engine developments, including hardware and operational changes, were especially challenging.
“New heavy-duty diesel engines are required to maintain durability while also contributing to improving fuel efficiency,” he related. “One of the most significant changes to engines includes continuous operation at higher internal temperatures caused by higher horsepower and torque, creating more stress on the engine and engine oil.”
The development effort led to the creation of two new API categories, CK-4 (formerly PC-11A) and FA-4 (formerly PC-11B). The first licenses for the new oils are set to be issued on Dec. 1, 2016. The new oils will eventually replace CJ-4 products that have been in use for about ten years.
The two subcategories of new oils each address specific engines. API CK-4 oils will be backward compatible with previous generation oils and will meet the needs of new and older engines in both on- and off-highway applications. The CK-4 multi-grade oils will include 15W-40, 10W-40, 15W-30, 10W-30, 5W-40 and 5W-30 viscosity grades. API CK-4 oils will have a minimum high temperature-high shear (HTHS) viscosity (the viscosity as the oil flows at high temperature and under load in various engine components) of 3.5 or greater.
API FA-4 oils are designed for some heavy-duty on-highway diesel engines scheduled for introduction in late 2016 or early 2017. These oils will have a considerably lower viscosity, meaning less friction in the engine and a reduction in fuel consumption, while still offering increased levels of wear protection.
API FA-4 will only apply to XW-30 viscosity grades such as 10W-30 and 5W-30 and these oils will have a HTHS of less than 3.5.
“It is crucial that fleet managers understand which oils will be most suitable for their vehicles,” said Barnaby Ngai, category portfolio manager at Petro-Canada Lubricants, Suncor. “Historically, identifying the SAE viscosity grade alone was all you needed to specify viscosity. API CK-4 and FA-4 oils change that by adding another viscometric property difference called HTHS (High Temperature-High Shear) to the SAE XW-30 grades.
“PC-11 will not affect every fleet in the same way, and some operations may only see a small impact,” Ngai continued. “For example, a fleet that operates older equipment and different engine types may simply need to transition from current API CJ-4 oils to CK-4 oils. For fleets with a mix of older and newer equipment, both API CK-4 and FA-4 products may be the best solution.”Considerable research
Ngai also pointed out that the new API CK-4 and FA-4 engine oil products are the culmination of considerable research into lowering viscosity while maintaining the ability to withstand a high-shear engine environment.
“That means that although they are thinner, they are also stronger,” he said, “offering the opportunity for less extended drains, and can provide engine protection for longer periods.”
Both API CK-4 and API FA-4 oils will provide significant improvements in wear protection, deposit control, and shear stability and oil aeration control, noted Citgo’s Betner. “A modest price differential for the new oils is expected. However, the price increase may be offset by fuel savings and by longer drain intervals compared to CJ-4 oils.”“Performance tests for the new category of oils reflect the industry’s focus on meeting the new challenges engine manufacturers and users face,” Chevron’s Whitacre explained. “Along with seven stringent tests used for current oils, the new oils also must pass two additional, very demanding tests.
“Developing an oil that can maximize protection against oxidation was crucial,” Whitacre continued, “so oxidation stability in the new PC-11 oils is intended to address that issue. It is also a key factor allowing OEMs to consider extending recommended oil drain intervals. In fact, Chevron recently added an oxidation indicator to its recommendations for used oil analysis.”
Addressing wear protection for maintaining the durability and reliability of engines is critical to keeping vehicles on the road, he noted. “PC-11 products have been developed to enhance engine longevity, measured as the time between overhauls. This is critical for first owners of new engines as they plan for a predetermined service life that eliminates the need to rebuild engines. It could also help boost the resale value of used equipment and make it more attractive to buyers,” he said.
“[New category] oils also address piston deposits that can be especially troublesome in engines because they can have a snowball effect,” Whitacre continued. “They cause a loss of oil consumption control, which requires more make-up oil refills between changes. That adds costs, not only for extra oil, but also for the labor to replenish it, and as engine oil is consumed it can accumulate in the emissions control system, driving more frequent diesel particulate filter regeneration cycles, which in turn means more frequent DPF cleaning intervals. Additional regeneration cycles have a fuel economy penalty as well.”Circumstances
Overall, Whitacre pointed out, the impact of improper oil selection depends on many circumstances, but it is unlikely that a one-time use of the incorrect oil would cause immediate damage or failure. More commonly, the use of an oil with a lower viscosity than the engine was designed for would cause a low oil pressure light, which in some cases triggers additional safeguards, including an engine de-rate to limit potential damage.
“Prolonged use,” Whitacre added, “could lead to premature wear or engine failure. It is important to consult your OEM for specific guidance related to the proper oil viscosity grade and performance specifications that apply to a specific engine and vehicle.”
“Using the wrong oil can lead to a range of consequences from sub optimal performance to the extreme of complete engine failure,” Safety Kleen’s Walker said. “The wrong oil may also harm the exhaust system and negatively impact vehicle emissions.
“End-users want to use oils that protect their engines, and help deliver maximum fuel economy and optimal engine performance,” Walker added. “This will not only protect the engine and maintain the warranty but also help ensure the lowest operating costs.”
“Using the correct engine oil is critical to maximizing engine performance,” Shell’s Arcy said. “A CJ-4 oil in an engine that needs CK-4 could result in engine wear, performance issues and possible warranty concerns, because CK-4 oils are designed to provide high temperature oxidation control, aeration control and improved shear stability compared to CJ-4.Good value
“In addition,” Arcy continued, “while some API FA-4 oils will be an acceptable option engine manufacturers will determine which engines will use FA-4 and CK-4 products. In general, considering premium engine oils from a reliable supplier that exceed the minimum standards required is a good value. Fleets should also choose a viscosity grade that meets manufacturer recommendations for the ambient temperature range in which their equipment operates.”
API CK-4 and FA-4 products are the culmination of considerable research into lowering engine oil viscosity while maintaining the ability to withstand a high-shear engine environment, meaning they are stronger, offer the opportunity for extended drain potential and can provide engine protection for longer periods, noted Petro-Canada Lubricants’ Ngai.
“Our primary recommendation is to use what is approved and suggested by an engine manufacturer,” he related. “We know that many OEMs are still evaluating how their engines will respond to these new oils and have yet to make decisions. Fleet operators will need to consult their engine OEM for specific guidance regarding the recommended viscosity grade for their engines and which subcategory of PC-11 oils will be best suited for their equipment.”Raising standards
The challenge by EPA and NHTSA to heavy-duty truck and engine manufacturers to create a new generation of fuel-efficient and cleaner diesel engines required higher-performing engine oils. “The standards for new heavy-duty engine oils have been raised significantly and offer potential long-term cost saving benefits,” said Whitacre, who is also the chairman of the ASTM Heavy-Duty Engine Oil Classification Panel, which is tasked with the final development of the new engine oil categories.
“The common thread is that both FA-4 and CK-4 oils will deliver superior performance over the current CJ-4 category, especially when it comes to new challenges for manufacturers and equipment users,” Whitacre added. “These oils won’t sacrifice performance to meet emissions or fuel economy standards, and their advanced properties will provide vehicle and equipment operators with improved engine durability.”
“We see this as not only an opportunity to improve the efficiency and carbon footprint of fleets, but also a chance to recognize the potential to cut costs and increase the profitability of fleet operations,” concluded Ngai. “As with all business decisions, a clear understanding of the new oils and early adoption could result in a genuine competitive edge.” S
http://www.fleetequipmentmag.com/heavy-duty-engine-oil-categories-driven-emissions-fuel-economy-regulation/2/
-
Oil, NatGas Liquids Pipelines Approved in North Dakota
Aug 30, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
North Dakota officials recently approved in-state pipelines to move Bakken crude oil and natural gas liquids (NGL) to market.
The quiet approvals are in contrast to protests by Native Americans and others against a nearby oil pipeline (see Shale Daily, Aug. 26). No one is calling for a standoff against a ONEOK Partners LP 16-inch diameter NGL pipeline in McKenzie County in the heart of the Bakken Shale play. Nor was there any opposition to the North Dakota Public Service Commission (PSC) also approving BOE Pipeline LLC’s and Plains Terminals' separate 16-inch diameter oil pipelines in Dunn/McKenzie and McKenzie counties, respectively.
Siting permits for the three gathering projects were approved in mid-August by the PSC. The smallest of the three projects, an interconnection for the Energy Transfer Partners' four-state Dakota Access Pipeline, has drawn no interest from opponents of the $3.7 billion, four-state pipeline project elsewhere.
"These three pipeline projects were examined carefully by our staff experts, were discussed thoroughly at public meetings in the communities near to each project, and they meet the requirements established under state law for permits to construct," said Julie Fedorchak, PSC chairman. From Fedorchak's perspective, the projects are not just important to North Dakota, but also to the region and the nation overall.
ONEOK's Bakken Pipeline LLC plans to build and operate the $19.5 million Garden Creek Loop NGL project, a 14.4-mile pipeline and related facilities to transport Y-grade NGLs, consisting of ethane, propane, butanes, iso-butane mix, pentanes, and natural gasoline.
Garden Creek plants and pipelines were part of a $785 million expansion program that ONEOK announced two years ago for the Williston Basin (see Shale Daily, July 31, 2014). The new pipeline will parallel and interconnect with the existing Garden Creek NGL pipeline to expand its capacity from 74,000 b/d to 93,000 b/d. The existing line starts at the ONEOK Rockies Midstream Garden Creek Gas Plants near Watford City, proceeding generally west and south through McKenzie County.
Among the two new approved oil pipelines, BOE's project is the largest, stretching 41.8 miles in Dunn and McKenzie counties, carrying Bakken crude from an Area Custody Transfer meter near Johnson's Corner to the BOE terminal near Killdeer, which is connected by an existing pipeline to the BOE rail hub southwest of Dickinson, ND.
BOE has indicated to the PSC that the proposed new pipeline will have a 165,000 b/d capacity and cost an estimated $55 million.
Plains Terminals North Dakota LLC's oil line is a new 3.5-mile pipeline to construct and operate a Johnson's Corner-to-Dakota Access Pipeline Project connection. The project will allow crude to flow in either direction. It will have a maximum capacity of 150,000 b/d and a "normal" throughput of about 50,000 b/d. The estimated cost is $5 million.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/107578-oil-natgas-liquids-pipelines-approved-in-north-dakota
-
Aug 30, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
The burgeoning battle over the Dakota Access pipeline got fiercer today as both sides traded jabs over the $3.7 billion North Dakota-to-Illinois project that environmentalists hope to make into a Keystone XL sequel.
While American Petroleum Institute CEO Jack Gerard slammed activists for prioritizing fights against individual infrastructure projects as little more than "sideshows," Nebraska Democratic Party Chair-elect and anti-pipeline activist Jane Kleeb urged Hillary Clinton's campaign to speak out publicly about the protests against Dakota Access.
In an email to Clinton advisers given to POLITICO, Kleeb said that the Democratic presidential nominee need not necessarily declare a yes-or-no stance on the pipeline — which Clinton declined to do earlier this year when challenged to oppose it by primary opponent Bernie Sanders. Instead, Kleeb suggested, Clinton's campaign could reiterate her promise to "streamline an inefficient and patchwork permitting process" for energy infrastructure.
Gerard, by contrast, downplayed the Dakota Access spat in a briefing with reporters. "This is a relatively small group of people who have outsized voices and a fundamental agenda that’s inconsistent with where the American voter is," the API chief said.
A federal judge is expected to rule by next week on the Standing Rock Sioux's request for a temporary injunction halting construction on the pipeline while the tribe proceeds with a challenge to its federal permits. The pipeline's backers have filed a separate challenge against protesters on the ground in North Dakota.
Clinton's campaign did not immediately return a request for comment on the protests.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Shell Says While Gas Is the Future, It Won’t Be Traded Like Oil
Aug 30, 2016 | Bloomberg Markets
By Kelly Gilblom and Rakteem Katakey
Natural gas is rapidly becoming one of the most traded global commodities, but that doesn’t mean it will have a global price, according to Royal Dutch Shell Plc.
While the fuel can be transported anywhere on liquefied natural gas carriers, it will probably remain regionally priced for the time being, with some contracts continuing to track oil, said Roger Bounds, senior vice president for global gas at Shell. Prices will depend on location, regulation and infrastructure, as some countries replace coal in electricity generation to cut carbon emissions.
“I shouldn’t say it’s not possible, but what would it take for such a price to be possible?” Bounds said in an interview in Stavanger, Norway. “We have some way to go.”
For a global gas price to emerge, pipelines would need to shed some interstate regulations like in the U.S., trade data would need to be more transparent and widely available and buyers and sellers would need more confidence their contracts will be respected, he said. Europe is partly on that path with some hub pricing, he said.
“We’re somewhere back from that in a number of other markets,” Bounds said. “We’re not that close to that in India, we’re not close to that in China.”Interchangeable Sources
Until then, there will be many two-party gas trades. Additionally, conventional contracts that link the price of gas to the price of oil will remain, partly because the two will become increasingly interchangeable as energy sources.
Those changes to the global gas market structure will come amid a renaissance for the fuel, Shell says. It will probably be used more because when transitioning to a lower-carbon economy, gas complements renewable energy sources, which aren’t yet able to consistently provide uninterrupted electricity to customers during peak periods.
Additionally, some European countries may introduce a floor on the price of carbonthat could hasten a switch to gas-fired power.
“There’s been a period of weakness in carbon prices in Europe but in the near future we’re likely to see that starting to bite,” Bounds said. When that happens, “we think more gas will get drawn into the system,” he said.LNG Consumption
European Union carbon has dropped 85 percent from its peak in 2006 as lawmakers struggle to deal with a glut. The price hasn’t been high enough to rid Europe of coal use.
Bounds expects global LNG consumption to climb by 5 percent to 7 percent a year. A trend of declining usage in Europe may also reverse due to the higher demand, with supply coming from U.S. export terminals and fields in Russia and North Africa. Shell CEO Ben Van Beurden said on Monday that he expects gas demand to grow at twice the pace of oil.
At the moment, there is a global glut of natural gas as producers scramble to gain a foothold in the expanding market. That will probably balance out in the early 2020s, said Bounds.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-30/shell-says-while-gas-is-the-future-it-won-t-be-traded-like-oil
-
Briefing in EPA Power Plan Case Extended to February
Aug 31, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Briefing in challenges to the Environmental Protection Agency's carbon dioxide standards for new and modified power plants now will extend through February 2017 under a revised schedule (North Dakota v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1381, 8/30/16).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued the revised briefing schedule Aug. 30 after it had agreed to set aside the prior schedule to allow additional lawsuits to be consolidated with the ongoing litigation over the EPA's carbon dioxide new source performance standards (RIN:2060-AQ91) for new and modified power plants.
Parties in the lawsuit had agreed to the new briefing schedule earlier this month. The new format requires petitioners, including states and utilities, to file their opening briefs by Oct. 13, with an EPA response due by Dec. 14. Final briefs are due Feb. 6, 2017.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=96555702&vname=dennotallissues&fn=96555702&jd=96555702
-
Governors, Premiers Weigh ‘Erasing' Border on Energy Issues
Aug 31, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Martha W. Kessler
Regional leaders addressed climate, energy and ecological issues facing New England and the Eastern Canadian provinces, with some suggesting that ignoring the border would boost coordination in achieving regional goals.
While the governors and premiers took time during plenary sessions Aug. 29 to highlight their energy efforts as well as a tri-state procurement effort in southern New England, the governors of six states and five provinces discussed the development of a joint strategy on climate change which is expected to be proposed for adoption during a meeting scheduled for 2017, Prince Edward Island Premier Wade MacLauchlan said.
That effort is a follow up to a resolution approved by the conference in 2015 that called for the adoption of 2030 and 2050 regional greenhouse gas reduction markers and targets and for the group to identify strategies and policies through which the region could reach those targets.
Several of the governors and premiers in their discussions underscored the need to find ways to ease energy transmission throughout the region.
“We have world class hydro power in Quebec and Newfoundland, we are adjacent to some of the most prolific natural gas in the world in the Pennsylvania area, but still we are not competitive with energy,” Maine Gov. Paul LePage (R) said, telling participants they must consider needed infrastructure to bring in alternative forms of energy.
Call Made to ‘Erase' Border
“Let's erase the border,” Nova Scotia Premier Stephen McNeil told fellow conference members. “If we continue to look at this in isolation, we are going to continue to spin our wheels.”
“It is my belief that if we build that transmission system... dollars will come and we will get that energy to market,” and it will drive further development, McNeil said. “Let's erase the border between our respective provinces, states and countries and look at North America in its totality and look at what we can do.”
Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker (R) said in a response to McNeil's comment that most of the governors have many legislative issues that need to be considered when trying to forge energy policy.
Baker said that states are seeking collaborative ways to work together. He cited a procurement agreement between Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island as a model for the types of agreement that could advance the region's clean energy goals and said that an additional state has requested to join that agreement.
Three States Collaborating
Electric distribution companies within Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island are collaborating with their respective state agencies to issue a draft Request for Proposal for clean energy resources and are currently involved in discussions that would lead to procurement of hydropower and wind energy from Canada and New York.
The governors and premiers also approved a resolution on ecological connectivity, climate adaptation and biodiversity that encourages the states and provinces to consider those issues in making land use, transportation management and other development decisions.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=96555708&vname=dennotallissues&fn=96555708&jd=96555708
-
The $8 Trillion Fight Over How to Rid America of Fossil Fuel
Aug 30, 2016 | Bloomberg
By Eric Roston
For every economist, there exists an equal and opposite economist, and they’re both wrong.
Like many jokes, this one is funny (to economists, anyway) because it’s true. What isn’t so funny is its application to the biggest challenge of the 21st century: How to shed a fossil-fuel energy infrastructure that seems hell-bent on destroying us. There are several camps trying to decide how much we must spend to avoid environmental disaster. Consensus on a grand total is a matter of degree, with estimates varying by as much as $8 trillion.
Geoffrey Heal, an economist at Columbia Business School, recently published a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper that asks what would it take—over the next three-and-a-half decades—to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below their 2005 level? That’s not a made-up target: It’s the goal the Obama administration submitted (PDF) to the UN. It’s also the long-term goal the U.S. will bring to G20 negotiations next week. And it shows up in the 2016 Democratic Party Platform (PDF) upon which Hillary Clinton is running for president. (Republican candidate Donald Trump has rejected the science of global warming. Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson recognizes climate change and is “open to” a carbon tax.)
Among scientists, however, there is agreement. Two Harvard economists, after trawling through voluminous, authoritative research, said last year that the odds of an utterly catastrophic finale to humanity’s atmospheric experiment is about 10 percent. That’s a conclusion that can focus minds pretty quickly—and perhaps turn the expenditure of trillions of dollars over three decades into only a tough, but manageable, problem.Doing the math
Heal’s main goal is to figure out, in a policy-agnostic, nonpolitical way, the economics of replacing 66 percent of U.S. energy output—the coal and gas used for electricity generation—with renewable energy or a combination of renewables and nuclear power. “I wanted a way of doing it that was transparent,” Heal said, “in which anybody who was interested in it can understand, and—if they disagreed—they can go back and do it their own way.”
His thinking goes like this:Split the 66 percent into half-solar and half-wind generation, and then price out the panels and turbines.Assume that the U.S. will need to boost its transmission grid by 25 percent, which won't come cheap since high-voltage lines run as much as $3 million a mile, plus substations and interconnections.Subtract the cost savings from never having to buy fuel because sunshine and wind come gratis.Also deduct what we're expected to invest to upgrade the old energy infrastructure.
That much is straightforward, and Heal excels at giving caveats for why he's dismissing certain topics. (For example, agricultural and cement-making emissions are largely canceled out by forest growth). His biggest problem is the disappearing-reappearing nemesis of solar and wind advocates. It's called “intermittency,” or the fact that the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow all the time. It's a problem that's front-of-mind in the young battery industry, which is trying to make electricity storage so inexpensive that utilities, businesses, and homes can store excess power for calm, cloudy days.
Heal is up against a wall in his estimates on this count because, he writes, nobody knows how much storage the country needs, and nobody knows how much it would cost (other than a lot), He is confident the cost will be lower than the $350 a kilowatt-hour PowerWall battery introduced by Tesla last year. Battery prices are dropping as demand increases.
His conclusions pivot on the price of—and estimated need for—nationwide electricity storage. Assume that the U.S. needs enough backup for just one day: Then renewables and batteries are already cheaper than carbon-free nuclear reactors. Posit two days worth of storage, or, as others have argued, a week: In that case, nuclear, which is economically prohibitive today, becomes far and away the cheaper option, Heal says.
That leaves a range of answers to his main question. The investment to make sufficient electricity to power America, with an 80 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, would cost anywhere from $1.28 trillion to $5.28 trillion.
“So in the best case, we are on track,” Heal writes. “In the worst, we are scaling up the U.S.’s level of expenditure on new generating capacity by a factor of about four.”The missing emissions
Heal's paper “is interesting in the sense of ‘OK, let’s look at one pathway and do the math,’” said John Larsen, a director of the research firm Rhodium Group. Recent,seminal work (PDF) has come up with a number of other pathways, but no definitive answers.
“It sets up a nice framework for thinking about some of these issues,” said Ethan Zindler, head of Americas at Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Ray Kopp, co-director of the Center for Energy and Climate Economics at the research group Resources for the Future (RFF), also praised Heal: “He did a very careful job.”
That praise, however, doesn't necessarily translate into agreement with his methodology, or conclusions.
“I think he has made a major mistake in the numbers,” said Mark Z. Jacobson, a Stanford University professor of civil and environmental engineering. “When the mistake is corrected, the result encompasses our previous calculation results.”
Jacobson researches how states (PDF) and countries can achieve 100 percent renewable energy systems—even more ambitious than the cuts President Barack Obama wants by 2050 and which informed Heal's study. What Jacobson calls a mistake in his colleague's paper concerns the overall estimate, which accounts only for reductions from electricity generation, transmission, and storage.
But electricity makes up only 30 percent of U.S. carbon emissions. To account for the other two-thirds of energy use—transportation, industry, and residential and commercial use—that total should be much higher, Jacobson said.
By his measure, that would leave an economy-wide, 100 percent renewable price range of between $5.3 trillion and $22 trillion by 2050, closer to Jacobson's own central estimate of about $14.6 trillion, he said.
Once Jacobson expanded Heal's estimate so that it covered 100 percent of greenhouse gas emissions from all key sectors, their approaches stood about $8 trillion apart.
Heal did estimate that electrifying American transportation—cars, trucks, trains—would require approximately $620 billion in additional generation capacity. Beyond that, he didn't go into non-electricity costs because the numbers would be smaller (billions, not trillions). “These costs will be small relative to the massive numbers associated with energy production and storage,” he said.
Also, the costs are already expected to be covered by consumers or businesses—he doesn't consider it additional investment: “People replacing their current car will buy an electric one. People renovating a home will install electric, rather than gas/oil water, and space heating.” Heal set for himself a challenging but limited task: What, as an order-of-magnitude estimate, does the U.S. need to spend to hit its goal? Many criticisms of the paper concern fine tuning.What we don’t know
Feeding his work through the meat-grinder of expert review led to many unaddressed variables, according to Larsen, Zindler, and Kopp. Despite their questions regarding the study, they agree with Heal that the overall challenge must be addressed soon, lest it all become an academic exercise. Some of the variables are:Won't electricity demand grow more slowly than gross domestic product because we'll need less power as we get smarter about using it?What about unaccounted-for economic benefits of putting a new national energy system in place? There will be cost risks to the economy of not phasing out fossil fuels—including that 10 percent risk of cataclysm.Heal's calculations hinge on utilities installing all wind and solar. But what if ubiquitous small-scale power becomes the norm and the utilities die? What if houses are powered by batteries in the basement or vehicles in the garage?What about technologies other than battery storage? Toyota Motor Corp. is still making bets on storing power in hydrogen fuel cells as well as batteries. And what about nuclear? (“One of the reasons I steered away from nuclear as the main solution is just the sense that it’s very politically controversial and just probably couldn't sell,” Heal said.)Local opposition to the nationwide revamp of infrastructure required to make Heal's optimal America a reality could be massive. Siting power lines, nuclear plants, and wind farms will be “a huge challenge, and that alone drives costs up,” Kopp said.
The utility of Heal's paper isn't its conclusions (unless you agree with him on everything). It's that he sat down and thought about it and did some arithmetic. No National Energy Modeling System. Just a curious question seeking a fuzzy answer—an answer to a question that, if you believe those Harvard economists, has a 1 in 10 chance of ending civilization as we know it.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-30/the-8-trillion-fight-over-how-to-rid-america-of-fossil-fuel
-
Chemical Safety Board Heads to Florida Explosion Site
Aug 31, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
Federal investigators will probe a Florida nitrous oxide plant where a worker was killed in an explosion Aug. 28 but not a West Virginia chlorine plant where a leaking railcar sent a cloud of toxic fumes through several towns Aug. 27.
The Cantonment, Fla., plant is operated by Airgas, a subsidiary of Air Liquide S.A., while Axiall Corp. runs the site near Proctor, W.Va.
U.S. Chemical Safety Board member Kristen Kulinowski announced the decision in a series of Twitter posts Aug. 30.
It's not clear if the deployment will lead to a formal investigation of the Florida explosion. CSB works to determine the root cause of an incident but doesn't issue fines or write regulations.
Kulinowski on Aug. 29 posted on Twitter that the board's legal staff was reviewing if it had jurisdiction over the Axiall site in West Virginia.
Airgas spokeswoman Sarah Boxler said the company was “deeply saddened” by the worker's death. The company said the incident took place around 1:10 p.m. Aug. 28.
In a statement Aug. 27, Axiall said a rail tanker containing liquid chlorine leaked inside the company's Natrium facility, located near Proctor, W.Va., around 8:40 a.m. that day.
The chlorine formed a gas cloud that drifted south of the plant before dissipating.
Jurisdictional Dispute Remains Unclear
The presence of a railcar “complicates it,” Kulinowski wrote, suggesting the incident may not qualify for CSB review.
CSB spokeswoman Hillary Cohen confirmed the decisions but didn't explain how the jurisdictional issue was resolved or whether any board members dissented.
The Federal Railroad Administration, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Coast Guard and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration also are investigating, railroad administration spokeswoman Tiffany Lindemann said in an e-mail Aug. 30. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration will not investigate.
Terry Williams, a spokesman for the National Transportation Safety Board, said the incident wasn't serious enough to warrant an investigation.
Axiall said residents in Proctor as well as Kent, Ohio, and part of New Martinsville, W.Va., were evacuated. Area highways and the Ohio River were shut down while workers at chemical plants nearby were ordered to shelter in place.
Size of Release Not Yet Known
Though the size of the release isn't yet known, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection said the railcar could hold as much as 30,000 gallons of the chemical.
Exposure to chlorine gas can cause breathing problems, sneezing, throat irritation and chemical burns, among other serious respiratory effects.
Westlake Chemical Corp. agreed to purchase Axiall for $3.8 billion June 10 in a deal expected to be completed later this year.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=96555716&vname=dennotallissues&fn=96555716&jd=96555716
-
FERC's Cheryl LaFleur: Need to Stay Ahead of Cyber Threats
Aug 31, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
Cheryl LaFleur, who's serving her sixth year as a commissioner on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, says one of the hottest issues at FERC today is cyber threats to the U.S. electric grid, which individual hackers and nations attempt to attack on a daily basis.
LaFleur also highlighted the importance of ensuring the reliability of the grid with the addition of more intermittent renewables during a sit-down interview with Bloomberg BNA's Rebecca Kern. She described some of the challenges FERC will face as it shrinks to three commissioners who are all Democrats—a first for the agency—because Republican Commissioner Tony Clark is expected to leave at the end of September. This interview was edited for clarity and length.
Bloomberg BNA:
What are some of the actions FERC is taking to address the growing number of cyber threats against the nation's electric grid?
Cheryl LaFleur:
We are on the sixth generation of the mandatory cybersecurity standards, which are basic protections to make sure cybersecurity is sustained across the grid. The fifth generation was really the first standard that requires some level of cybersecurity for all parts of the bulk electric system, tiered by risk.
What we're looking to is defense in depth, so that if something goes wrong, it won't cascade. It can be localized in some way. So I think we have a strong set of standards in place, which has been a major accomplishment.
The difficulty is that the threats are evolving very, very rapidly. I don't think I knew what ransomware was six months ago, and now it's all over the press. There seem to be constant new words of new types of cyber incursions, and the standards process is not nimble enough to continually adapt to all of the new cyber threats. So I think we have to work beyond the standards to communicate between the government and industry and other parts of government to make sure threat information is shared and responses can adapt rapidly.
I think the law that Congress passed last year—[Fixing America's Surface Transportation] Act—to facilitate sharing of cyber-threat information was very positive.
Bloomberg BNA:
One of the most recent actions FERC has taken on cybersecurity is ordering the development of a reliability standard for supply chain cyber controls. You filed a dissent against this order. Can you explain your reasoning behind this?
LaFleur:
The commission voted to require the North American Electric Reliability Corp. [NERC] and the industry to develop standards around supply chain management for cyber—how hardware, software are purchased and how cyber protections are taken into account in the process. I think this is a very important issue, but I dissented because I thought we should have carried out more of process of consideration to give more guidance before we required them to come up with a standard.
When we had our technical conference on this, it was quite clear the tremendous complexity of the issue because of the levels of supply chain. I don't think it's a straight forward thing to figure out how to structure a standard within our authority, and I think we would have been better served to do more work to be able to give clearer direction about what we wanted. I think we would have ended up with a better standard more quickly if we took that step.
Bloomberg BNA:
As there are more intermittent renewables like wind and solar, do you have concerns about reliability of the grid?
LaFleur:
I think they'll change the challenge. Right now, the commission and NERC are looking at what are the ways in which you need to change the operation of the grid to ensue reliability at a time when a growing number of the resources are not controllable with a switch, but are controlled by the natural forces—the wind and the sun. I'm confident that we can keep the lights on, but it's a different structure in which we'll be working than when we had the baseload as the primary sources of energy.
I also think that right now natural gas is the primary way that grid operators are balancing variable renewables. There are other technologies—emerging storage technologies, demand side technologies—that can help renewables, but they're less mature than some of the gas technologies.
Bloomberg BNA:
Can you discuss some of the challenges that have arisen now that we're relying more on natural gas as a resource?
LaFleur:
We as a nation are becoming more and more dependent on natural gas. Obviously, we've seen a tremendous amount of coal-to-gas substitution, with all the retirements of the coal plants because of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. We don't see coal being built and we don't see very much nuclear being built in the country, so gas is being looked at as the primary central station technology.
I've been in energy for 30 years, but it's never been easy to build things. Building out energy infrastructure, just like transportation infrastructure, is a difficult enterprise, but I think the level of difficulty around gas infrastructure right now is more than I have seen in the past.
Bloomberg BNA:
Is there more FERC can do to streamline the gas infrastructure build out?
LaFleur:
We have the responsibility to consider pipeline applications under the Natural Gas Act. We have been trying to do it as carefully and as promptly as we can consistent with doing it right, and making sure we consider all of the comments in the dockets, and all of the issues that are raised by a pipeline.
I think how we do our environmental review, like many other aspects of our work, is something that we're constantly trying to improve. Right now we've seen some guidance on the National Environmental Policy Act come out from the Council of Environmental Quality that we'll be following. And like other aspects of our work, we can continue to do it as well as we can.
Bloomberg BNA:
How do you address the impacts that distributed energy resources, like rooftop solar, which are regulated at a state level, are having on the wholesale energy market rates, which are regulated by FERC?
LaFleur:
We're seeing more and more distributed technologies on the distribution level behind the meter that collectively can contribute in the way that a central station technology at the wholesale level could. And so the wholesale markets are appropriately trying to compensate and take into account those distributed technologies, yet they're state-regulated but the wholesale market consequences are federally regulated. So there is that line between that I think is primarily driven by new technology.
Our responsibility is to make sure that the wholesale tariffs properly compensate the reliability of power attributes, whether they're old fashioned resources or whether they're new, distributed resources. So we've done a lot work. I would say the demand response rule [Order 745], our frequency regulation work, and work on distributed solar make sure that those resources are properly valued in the markets. And that's been one of the ways in which markets have had to adjust.
Bloomberg BNA:
Likely at the end of September, Tony Clark—the one remaining Republican commissioner at FERC—will leave the agency following the expiration of his term. This will be the first time FERC will have a panel made up totally of Democrats, and you will be shrinking to three members. What are the limitations this places on FERC and how will you work to overcome them?
LaFleur:
This will be the first time since I've been at the commission that we'll be down to three. We have been at four several times. I think the commission is strongest with a full complement of members. It's five for a reason. I think we can make the best decisions when we have can have the most insights on a topic, ideally from people from different geographies, different professional backgrounds, and different ideologies.
However, I'm confident the vast majority of work will go forward and we will vote out our orders. Where we might have an issue is where a commissioner might have to recuse by law on any matter and we didn't have a quorum of three.
Most of the matters we consider are not that partisan and don't break along partisan lines. So I do think that for the vast majority of things, I would not be concerned about the perception.
But I think having a bipartisan commission would be better, and I look forward to getting the nominations of non-Democrats, be they independents or Republicans, as soon as possible so we can fill out the ranks.
Bloomberg BNA:
What qualities that are important to have as a candidate for FERC commissioner now that you have two openings that are awaiting White House nominations?
LaFleur:
I think the strongest group is a diverse group. When I first came, I came from a private sector background—legal and operating. We had somebody with a Hill background, a state commissioner, someone with a consumer background, and a state commissioner but also who had previously been a state representative. So I thought that diversity of professional background was very positive. There's no one path to get here, I think having different backgrounds is good.
I think what's important, no matter who you are, you're going to have a tremendous amount to learn when you get here. I thought I knew a lot, and the longer I'm here, the more I think I have to learn because nobody knows about all aspects of our work and all regions of our country.
So what's important is someone with an open mind, who will put in the time to fill out his or her background and understand the parts of our work that he or she might not have had. Of course, all of us strive to decide the cases based on the record and the law.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=96555719&vname=dennotallissues&fn=96555719&jd=96555719
-
Wash. Refineries to Give Real-Time Info on Crude-by-Rail
Aug 31, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Refineries in Washington state will have to provide advance notice of crude-by-rail movements beginning Oct. 1, which will give first responders around the state their first real-time information on the shipments to assist operations.
The Washington Department of Ecology adopted a rule spelling out the requirement Aug. 24. It applies to the refineries operated by BP Plc, Cherry Point; Phillips 66 Co., Ferndale; Tesoro Corp., Anacortes; and U.S. Oil in Tacoma.
The Royal Dutch Shell refinery in Anacortes plans to build a crude-by-rail facility, which would also be required to comply with the rule. BNSF Railway is the predominant crude-by-rail carrier in the state.
“Local first responders and state agencies that are responders can access the information on a secure, web-based platform,” spills program supervisor Robert Dengel of the ecology department told Bloomberg BNA Aug. 30 in a telephone interview.
State Rep. Jessyn Farrell (D)—prime sponsor of the bill requiring the adoption of the rule—told Bloomberg BNA after its passage in May 2015 that it was carefully crafted to place the burden on refineries rather than railroads to avoid claims that it intrudes on federal regulatory prerogatives.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=96555698&vname=dennotallissues&fn=96555698&jd=96555698
-
(ACC Mentiuoned) Plastic Packaging Scores An Environmental Win
Aug 31, 2016 | Packaging Digest
By Chandler Slavin
What’s the net environmental cost of plastic packaging and how does it compare to other packaging? New research explores the material’s “natural capital” value and concludes that its eco-efficiencies make good business sense.
Natural capital is “the finite stock of natural assets (air, water, land) from which goods and services flow to benefit society and the economy. It is made up of ecosystems, and non-renewable deposits of fossil fuels and minerals.” It was coined by British economist E.F. Schumacher in his 1973 book “Small Is Beautiful: A Study of Economics As If People Mattered.”
Natural capital is used by the global economy to produce goods and services: Oil is extracted from the ground to power industry; trees are harvested for pulp and wood; cattle is bred and raised for human consumption. What are the social and environmental costs associated with natural capital consumption, like greenhouse gas emissions and waste management—and who is to pay the price?
The natural capital costs of almost every product and service our economy produces and consumes is not accounted for in corporate finance, nor is it factored into the market price for a consumer product good or service. Trucost—a company working to change that—applies natural capital valuation techniques to business operations to allow corporate entities measure environmental impacts in monetary terms. The intent is that these environmental costs can be factored into business decision-making and investment, policy setting and in weighing the tradeoffs between implied costs and benefits of economic activity.
Trucost developed a methodology for valuing the environmental cost of plastic used in the consumer goods sector for the United Nations Environment Program in 2014. TitledValuing Plastic,Trucost identified $75 billion in annual natural capital costs associated with plastic use by the consumer goods sector.
Is $75 billion in natural capital costs associated with plastic use in the consumer goods sector a lot? Trucost’s 2016 report for the American Chemistry Council, Plastics and Sustainability, works to place this valuation within a larger context by analyzing the natural capital costs associated with the consumer goods sector if plastics were replaced with alternative materials.
Trucost finds—in accordance with recent studies by Franklin Associates and Denstatt—that a move away from plastics comes at an even higher net environmental cost, due primarily to the material efficiency of plastics versus the alternative materials intended to replace it.
Specifically, Trucost’s natural capital valuation of plastics versus its alternatives in the consumer goods sector demonstrates that substituting plastics with other materials that perform the same function comes at a net environmental cost of about 4 to 1. While plastics consume a lot of natural capital during production and transport to market compared to alternatives, the inherent material efficiency of plastic allows it to perform the same function with less mass. Trucost provides insight into the environmental hot spots of plastic use in the consumer goods sector, demonstrating that the largest return on investment for natural capital consumption occurs upstream during resin processing and transport.
Among the key questions the report explores are:
• What is the global environmental cost of plastic use in the consumer goods sector and how would this change if plastic were replaced with alternatives?
• What is the impact on oceans for plastics and its alternatives?
• Which sectors have the greatest environmental cost?
• What are the most important environmental costs and where are they concentrated in the value chain?
Consult the free report for a full analysis.
http://www.packagingdigest.com/sustainable-packaging/plastic-packaging-scores-an-environmental-win-2016-08-30
-
EPA Gets Time to Fix Legal Flaws in Ozone Requirements Rule
Aug 31, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency will have an opportunity to address legal flaws in a regulation that set implementation requirements for the 2008 national ozone standards (South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1115, 8/29/16).
The implementation rule, which revoked the 1997 ozone standard and established various requirements for state plans intended to bring nonattainment areas into compliance with the 75 parts per billion ozone standards, is being challenged by the South Coast Air Quality Management District and a coalition of environmental advocates. A federal appeals court Aug. 29 decided to allow the EPA to go back and address legal vulnerabilities with some provisions of the implementation rule, while allowing litigation over the remainder of the rule to continue.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated and remanded the implementation rule's “anti-backsliding” measures for the 1979 one-hour ozone standard in areas that meet the 2008 standards. Those measures are intended to ensure air quality does not deteriorate. The EPA in July conceded that that provision in its implementation rule was not sufficiently supported by the record and requested a voluntary remand.
Briefing over the other issues in the litigation, which include opposition to a provision that allows states to include area-wide emissions averaging programs in their plans to address pollution from major sources in certain areas, will continue. EPA's response brief is due Sept. 7 and briefing will continue until Dec. 1.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=96555714&vname=dennotallissues&fn=96555714&jd=96555714
-
Rule Would Exempt Some Facilities From Greenhouse Gas Permits
Aug 31, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Industrial facilities that emit less than 75,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent annually won't be required to obtain permits for those emissions, under an Environmental Protection Agency proposal.
The 75,000 tons per year limit, known as de minimis level, comes in response to a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held that only those industrial facilities that are already required to permit emissions of conventional pollutants such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides must also permit their greenhouse gases. As part of that decision, the Supreme Court also ordered the EPA to make the de minimis determination, excluding smaller sources of greenhouse gas emissions from the permitting requirements as well (Util. Air Regulatory Grp. v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427, 2014 BL 172973, 78 ERC 1585 (2014)).
The proposed rule (RIN:2060-AS62), signed Aug. 26 and posted to the agency's website, would apply to prevention of significant deterioration and Title V permitting requirements. Prevention of significant deterioration requires new or modified industrial facilities to install updated pollution controls known as best available control technology to avoid further degrading air quality.
As part of the proposed rule, the EPA would revise its “major stationary source” and “major modification” to add an exception clause for greenhouse gases that exclude them from triggering the prevention of significant deterioration permitting requirements. The proposal also would make revisions to the plantwide applicability limit program, which are sitewide emissions caps for some industrial facilities, to make those provisions consistent with the Supreme Court's decision as well.
The EPA will accept comments on the proposed rule for 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. Comment can be made at https://www.regulations.gov/ and should reference docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0355
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=96555723&vname=dennotallissues&fn=96555723&jd=96555723
-
Advocates Defend EPA's 'SIP Call' Scrapping Emissions Limit Exemptions
Aug 31, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Environmentalists are defending EPA's rule forcing states to remove language from their Clean Air Act state implementation plans (SIPs) exempting some facilities' excess emissions from air law limits during periods of startup, shutdown or malfunction (SSM), saying the waivers violate air law mandates for continuous air controls.
Sierra Club, Environmental Integrity Project, the Natural Resources Defense Council and other advocacy groups filedan Aug. 29 intervenor brief on EPA's behalf with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the case Walter Coke, et al. v. EPA, et al. saying that air pollution from SSM events hurts public health. They argue that these events release “staggering” amounts of pollution resulting in “severe and disproportionate impacts on communities adjacent to the plants.”
“Exemptions prevent community members from exercising their statutory right to protect themselves against unlawful emissions by seeking judicial remedies for massive and frequent pollution events from neighboring facilities,” the groups say, urging the court to reject challenges to EPA's “SIP Call” rule to end the waivers.
Several states and groups representing major industries filed challenges in the D.C. Circuit over EPA's June 2015 rule setting a Nov. 22 deadline for 36 states to remove the air law waivers from their SIPs. The plans detail how states intend to comply with Clean Air Act mandates such as federal ambient air standards.
EPA says the rule is necessary to comply with prior D.C. Circuit rulings that said the SSM exemptions are unlawful, and that also vacated as illegal a related “affirmative defense” allowing some exemptions.
The coalition of environmentalists in its new brief echoes the agency's claims that the SIP Call is necessary due to the “unlawful” provisions. “Because EPA found the SIP provisions at issue conflict with the [Clean Air] Act’s fundamental requirements that emission limits be enforceable and continuous, that citizens have the right to sue polluters who violate emission limits, and that courts have jurisdiction to decide the amount, if any, of penalties for violations, the Act’s SIP-call provision mandated that EPA require states to revise the unlawful provisions,” the brief says.
They say EPA’s interpretation of its duty under the air law to require revisions when SIPs are “substantially inadequate” to meet the law's requirements is “sound and consistent with the structure and history” of the statute.
Industry groups and states are, however, defending the SSM exemptions as essential to allow industry to function, rejecting as false claims that emissions limits must apply continuously. The SIP Call's critics in the case argue that such exemptions are permissible under states' “general duty” obligations.
But environmentalists in their brief say, “Petitioners’ argument that exemptions are lawful because vague 'general duty' provisions provide continuous control is wrong. Such provisions cannot satisfy applicable stringency requirements, like the Act’s mandate for 'best available control technology,'” a level of emissions control required for new and modified “major” pollution sources in areas attaining national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Major sources are those producing more than 100 tons per year (tpy) or 250 tpy of NAAQS-regulated emissionsm depending on the pollutant.
“General duty” provisions also fail air law requirements that control measures be enforceable, and “Citizens can enforce only specific and quantifiable SIP provisions,” the groups say.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/advocates-defend-epas-sip-call-scrapping-emissions-limit-exemptions
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested