Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 9/19/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Announces Deadline Extension for 2016 TSCA and CDR Submissions
Sep 19, 2016 | National Law Review
By Thomas C. Berger, Martha E. Marrapese, and David G. Sarvadi
EPA has announced that it will be formally extending the deadline for2016 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) submissions -- from September 30 to October 31. The extension is intended to be a one-time action, and will be published in the Federal Register. -
(ACC Mentioned) US EPA Extends CDR Reporting Deadline to 31 October
Sep 19, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has extended the reporting deadline for the 2016 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule from 30 September to 31 October. -
(ACC Blog) Why NIEHS Should Publicly Endorse EPA’s EDSP Program and the WHO/IPCS Definition of an EDC
Sep 18, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By Gregory G. Bond
As with the presidential campaign, serious debate on the subject of chemicals that can interact with the human endocrine system is often sidetracked by a tendency by some to engage in the politics of identity, branding anyone with a different perspective to be in industry’s pockets. -
NIEHS 25 Year Celebration Of Endocrine Research — Some Progress, But An Even Greater Opportunity To Deliver Clarity
Sep 16, 2016 | Science 2.0
By Gregory Bond
In 1991, Theo Colborn convened a group of international scientists to discuss concerns about the trans-generational effects of persistent chemicals on predator species in the Great Lakes. -
EPA Must Overhaul Disinfectant Testing Program — IG
Sep 19, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith
U.S. EPA should implement a risk-based strategy to "assure continued effectiveness" of disinfectants used in hospitals, the agency inspector general's office said in a report released today. -
EPA Says Glyphosate 'Not Likely' Carcinogenic
Sep 19, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
U.S. EPA has concluded that the chemical glyphosate is unlikely to be a human carcinogen. -
Activists Eye Battles Beyond Dakota Access
Sep 19, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
Emboldened by the Obama administration freezing construction on part of the Dakota Access pipeline, activists opposing oil and gas projects are now girding for new battles in the Mid-Atlantic region. -
Dakota Access Work Freeze 'Brief Reprieve' for Opponents
Sep 19, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
In the wake of a federal court's decision Friday to pause construction on part of the Dakota Access pipeline, observers are stressing that the order is only temporary. -
700 Years of N.D. Coal vs. a Climate Rule
Sep 19, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
Cartwheeling wind turbines dot the green prairies outside North Dakota's capital, and as the state's "energy trail" snakes northward, billowing coal plants pop up in the distance. -
Clean Power Plan is Consistent with Law and History
Sep 19, 2016 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Richard L. Revesz, Denise A. Grab, and Jack Lienke
In a critical federal court hearing this month, challengers of the Clean Power Plan, the Obama administration's signature climate change policy, will characterize the Plan as an "enormous and transformative expansion" of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regulatory power. -
Controversial Power Plant Project Gets 2nd Look in Court
Sep 19, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
A California appeals court plans to review a controversial project for a proposed $2.2 billion power plant in Carlsbad. -
Ineos' US Ethane Supplies to Europe Economic at $40/b Oil: Official
Sep 19, 2016 | Platts
By Amar Carmody
Ethane supplies from the US into Europe are economically sound with oil priced at $40/b, Ineos Group director Tom Crotty said Friday. -
Plants Prone to Accidents, Rarely Inspected — Investigation
Sep 19, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
Hundreds of chemical and pesticide storage facilities across the United States do not have adequate safety protections and pose large threats to public health, a yearlong investigation by the Houston Chronicle has unveiled. -
Ala. Leak Sparks Gas Shortages Along East Coast
Sep 19, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
During a routine monthly check of an old coal mine in Shelby County, Ala., on Sept. 9, an inspector with the Alabama Surface Mining Commission could smell "a strong odor of gasoline" in the area of Colonial Pipeline Co.'s Line 1. -
Rail Supplier News from Herzog, Transdev, Hill International and Michael Baker
Sep 19, 2016 | Progressive Rail Roading
Herzog Technologies Inc. has launched a cloud-based positive train control (PTC) solution using Red Hat Inc. technologies. -
EPA 'Exceptional Events' Air Law Waiver Rule Faces Oil Industry Criticism
Sep 19, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA's just-issued final rule on when states can win Clean Air Act regulatory waivers for “exceptional events” such as air pollution associated with wildfires is facing early criticism from the oil sector for making the list of qualified events too narrow and compromising efforts to attain the agency's recently tightened ozone air standard. -
Colo. Will Use Air Data in State Health Assessment
Sep 19, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
Colorado State University scientists last week released their second state-funded study of air emissions from oil and gas operations.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Announces Deadline Extension for 2016 TSCA and CDR Submissions
Sep 19, 2016 | National Law Review
By Thomas C. Berger, Martha E. Marrapese, and David G. Sarvadi
EPA has announced that it will be formally extending the deadline for2016 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) submissions -- from September 30 to October 31. The extension is intended to be a one-time action, and will be published in the Federal Register.
The deadline is being extended in response to comments from the regulated community that raised concerns, in part, about the ability to make timely reports given several aspects of required electronic reporting under EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) system. An August 30, 2016 letter from the American Chemistry Council (ACC) is specifically referenced by EPA.
For the 2016 submission period, companies must report under CDR if at one or more U.S. sites they manufactured or imported at least 25,000 pounds of a reportable chemical substance during any one of the calendar years 2012, 2013, 2014, or 2015. For substances subject to certain regulatory actions, the reporting threshold is 2,500 pounds per year per site. Industry may recall that, for similar reasons, four years ago EPA extended the submission deadline for 2012 CDR reports from June 30, 2012 to August 13, 2012.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-announces-deadline-extension-2016-tsca-and-cdr-submissions
-
(ACC Mentioned) US EPA Extends CDR Reporting Deadline to 31 October
Sep 19, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has extended the reporting deadline for the 2016 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule from 30 September to 31 October.
The agency says it is providing the extension due to "compelling concerns" raised by industry. These include delays in reporting stemming from issues with several aspects of electronic reporting.
The EPA says that it only learned recently of several such issues. And, the "collective significance of these issues was not apparent until the agency completed review of a letter from the American Chemistry Council" from 30 August.
The prepublication version of the rule indicates that it is a one-time extension that will not affect subsequent submission periods. CDR reporting recurs every four years.
The CDR regulations require manufacturers and importers of certain chemicals included on the TSCA inventory to report current data on the manufacturing, processing, and use of those substances.
The final rule will take effect from the date it publishes in the Federal Register.
https://chemicalwatch.com/49721/us-epa-extends-cdr-reporting-deadline-to-31-october
-
Sep 18, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By Gregory G. Bond
As with the presidential campaign, serious debate on the subject of chemicals that can interact with the human endocrine system is often sidetracked by a tendency by some to engage in the politics of identity, branding anyone with a different perspective to be in industry’s pockets. Such ad hominem attacks are a serious impediment to progress and must stop. The question is, how did we get here in the first place?
In 1991, Theo Colborn convened a group of international scientists to discuss concerns about the trans-generational effects of persistent chemicals on predator species in the Great Lakes. During the following 25 years, Colborn’s and her colleagues’ work inspired hundreds of research studies into modes of action and potential health effects of so called endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs).
Even now, scientists are still trying to provide concrete answers to some of the same basic questions about exposures to low doses of chemicals. Do they meet the definition of an EDC? Are there safe levels of exposure? Should certain chemicals be banned, or can they be managed safely?
25 years of endocrine disruptor research
This week, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) is hosting a conference to “celebrate the people and the science” investigating links between chemicals and the human endocrine system. Some participants will undoubtedly highlight what they perceive to be problem chemicals but the big questions still remain: how far has the science truly advanced, and can all stakeholders engage in constructive dialogue so that the science can continue to move forward?
Through the efforts of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), academia and others,considerable progress has already been made to develop methods, tests and data that are answering questions about chemicals’ interaction with the endocrine system. For example, scientists now know that some chemicals can interact with the endocrine system temporarily, but do not illicit harmful effects. They are “endocrine active” but not “endocrine disrupting” chemicals.
Although the development and implementation of EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP)arguably represents the most significant accomplishment in terms of preventing future harm from EDCs, it is not as though EPA was doing nothing before the EDSP’s creation to protect human and wildlife health.
For many years, EPA officials have required for pesticide approval a battery of animal tests designed to detect a chemical’s ability to cause a range of adverse health effects, including cancer and reproductiveand developmental disorders, and they and other regulatory agencies established safe levels of exposure based on the most sensitive endpoint detected.
Defining EDCs
Another significant accomplishment has been the development of a globally agreed upon definition of an EDC. This arose as part of a seminal “state of the science” report issued by the World Health Organizationin 2002. That definition requires that a chemical both “alter the function(s) of the endocrine system and consequently cause adverse effects in an intact organism, or its progeny, or (sub) populations.”
Although there is widespread agreement on this definition, some stakeholders while acknowledging it, are also trying to subvert it. They want to conflate endocrine activity, like that which occurs naturally in response to activities like drinking coffee, with endocrine disruption, without demonstrating a consequentadverse health effect. This is problematic for many reasons, not the least of which it would falsely identify many chemicals as EDCs and confuse the public and marketplace.
Beyond the development of EDSP and the definition of an EDC, agreement on progress in other areas is harder to find, like the confidence in the body of evidence linking chemical exposures to certain health effects, whether safe levels of exposure to EDCs can be established, and the appropriate weight that should be accorded data derived from un-replicated, new novel testing approaches versus those from internationally agreed upon animal testing protocols.
Opportunity for NIEHS on EDCs
Looking forward, it is difficult to be optimistic that many of these differences can be resolved soon, that is, unless stakeholders can engage frankly on the science. At a minimum, the upcoming NIEHS conferencedoes present an opportunity to foster a more objective and inclusive atmosphere for serious discussion of topics that many scientists still regard as unresolved. Setting an appropriate tone will be critical.
Stakeholders, particularly consumers whose health we are all trying to protect, but also industry who is trying to meet society’s growing unmet needs, are best served by a system that is science and risk-based, transparent and that delivers a positive safety evaluation and determination on chemicals – before they come to market.
It would therefore be helpful if NIEHS would publicly endorse EPA’s EDSP program and the WHO/IPCS definition of an EDC and emphasize the importance of having a program that not only detects chemicals that are truly EDCs, but also determines with confidence chemicals that are not EDCs.
That, indeed, would be something to celebrate.
Dr. Gregory G. Bond is an epidemiologist and adjunct professor of environmental health sciences at The University of Michigan. He founded Manitou View Consulting, LLC, a boutique scientific consulting firm, in 2014.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2016/09/why-niehs-should-publicly-endorse-epas-edsp-program-and-the-whoipcs-definition-of-an-edc/
-
Sep 16, 2016 | Science 2.0
By Gregory Bond
In 1991, Theo Colborn convened a group of international scientists to discuss concerns about the trans-generational effects of persistent chemicals on predator species in the Great Lakes. Their report, and a subsequent book authored by Colborn and her colleagues entitled Our Stolen Future, Are We Threatening Our Fertility, Intelligence and Survival?, proposed that many chemicals which display an ability to interact or interfere with the human endocrine system have the ability to elicit adverse health effects at doses far lower than the toxicities caused through other modes of action and required special regulation. The hypothesis proved irresistible to the mass media who soon published a flurry of articles about “gender bending” chemicals and threats to human existence.
Legacy of Scientific Research and Debate
During the following 25 years, Colborn’s and her colleagues’ work inspired hundreds if not thousands of research studies into modes of action and potential health effects of so called endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). And yet, nearly three decades later, scientists are still trying to provide concrete answers to some of the very same basic questions about exposures to low doses of chemicals – Do they meet the definition of an EDC or not? Are there safe levels of exposure to EDCs? Should certain chemicals be banned, or can they be managed safely?
Next week, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), one of 27 institutes and centers that comprise the National Institutes of Health, will host a two-day conference to "celebrate the people and the science" investigating links between chemicals and the human endocrine system. Some of the conference organizers will undoubtedly highlight the dangers of chemicals with some self-congratulatory remarks, but the big questions still remain: how far has the science truly advanced, and where do we go from here?
EPA’s Step-by-Step Science and Risk-Based Processes to Identify and Manage EDCs
Intense public discussion of potential EDC's at the time that Congress was debating amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act and was drafting the Food Quality Protection Act led them to include language requiring the EPA to develop a program to screen for chemicals that have the potential to be EDCs. To their credit, EPA convened a multi-stakeholder process to help them design what became a two tiered screening program. EPA then led an effort to scientifically validate the eleven individual assays which now constitute Tier I of EPA's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). The assays were designed to detect interaction with endocrine systems of humans and wildlife and were chosen to be especially sensitive so as to minimize the chances that a true EDC would be missed at the risk of falsely identifying some chemicals as EDCs which are truly not.
Chemicals that screen positive in EDSP Tier I are then subjected to a weight of evidence (WOE) evaluation to determine whether additional testing is required in Tier II to develop evidence of any adverse health effects caused by an endocrine mode of action. Screening and WOE evaluations were completed for 52 pesticide active and inert chemicals in 2015. EPA recently announced a pivot in the EDSP to introduce high throughput in vitro methods to replace several of the in vivo assays which will greatly accelerate the pace of the program and reduce numbers of animals used.
Through the efforts of EPA, academia and others, considerable progress has been made to develop methods, tests and data that are answering questions about endocrine active and endocrine disrupting chemicals. Although the development and implementation of EDSP arguably represents the most significant accomplishment in terms of preventing future harm from EDC's, it is not as if EPA was doing nothing before to protect the public.
For many years, EPA officials have required for pesticide approval a battery of animal tests designed to detect a chemical's ability to cause a range of adverse health effects, including cancer and reproductive and developmental disorders, and they and other regulatory agencies establish safe levels of exposure based on the most sensitive endpoint detected.
The EDSP adds another layer of protection by exploring the ability of a chemical to act via an endocrine mode of action; however, regulators have never let a lack of knowledge of a chemical's mode of action be a barrier to taking steps to reduce risks. EPA has also contributed their expertise and experience to an international effort, under the auspices of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), to develop recommendations for how to screen chemicals to detect EDCs.
Another significant accomplishment has been the development of a globally agreed upon definition of an EDC. This arose as part of a seminal "state of the science" report issued by the World Health Organization's International Programme on Chemical Safety in 2002. That definition requires that a chemical both "alter the function(s) of the endocrine system and consequently cause adverse effects in an intact organism, or its progeny, or (sub) populations.”
Although there is widespread agreement on this definition, some stakeholders while acknowledging it, are also trying to subvert it. They want to conflate mere transitory endocrine activity, which is a property common to many everyday products human's ingest (e.g., coffee) with endocrine disruption, without demonstrating a consequent adverse health effect. This is problematic for many reasons, not the least of which it would falsely identify many chemicals as EDC’s and confuse the public and marketplace.
Disagreements on the Science Persist
Beyond the development of EDSP and the definition of an EDC, agreement on progress in other areas is harder to find, and strong disagreements persist on important topics.
Paramount among them is the degree of confidence in the existing scientific base to establish causal links between low level chemical exposures in the general population and a range of health conditions purported to be associated with perturbations in the functioning of the endocrine system. Included are neurobehavioral disorders and diseases (including autism and lowered IQ), male and female reproductive disorders, certain types of cancers, obesity and diabetes.
Exposure Levels and Potency Matter
Disagreements also exist on whether safe levels of exposure to EDCs can be established, whether potency matters, and the appropriate weight that should be accorded data derived from un-replicated, new novel testing approaches versus those from internationally agreed upon animal testing protocols using Good Laboratory Practices when evaluating the evidence on a particular chemical.
Unfortunately, just as is the case in the current US presidential campaign, serious debate on these topics is lacking and instead the discussion has been sidetracked by a tendency for proponents of the issue to engage in the politics of identity, branding anyone with a different perspective to be in industry's pockets. Such ad hominem attacks are a serious impediment to progress and must stop.
Looking to the future, it is difficult to be optimistic that many of these differences can be resolved anytime soon. However, at a minimum, the upcoming conference does present the leadership of NIEHS with an opportunity to foster a more objective and inclusive atmosphere for serious discussion of topics that many scientists still regard as unresolved. Setting an appropriate tone will be critical.
Clarity Needed in the Scientific Approach
It would also be helpful if NIEHS would publicly endorse EPA's EDSP program and the WHO/IPCS definition of an EDC and emphasize the importance of having a program that not only detects chemicals that are truly EDC's, but also determines with confidence chemicals that are not EDC's.
Unfortunately, despite 25 years of NIEHS research there still exists much confusion about endocrine disruption among the public. Stakeholders, particularly consumers whose health we are all trying to protect, but also industry who is trying to meet society's growing unmet needs, are best served by a system that is science and risk-based, transparent, predictable and fair and that delivers a positive safety evaluation and determination on chemicals before they come to market. Fortunately, through the recently adopted Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, EPA officials appear committed to deliver such a system, but they are not immune to political pressure or sharp competition for funding, and so we must all remain vigilant.http://www.science20.com/endocrine_policy_perspectives/niehs_25_year_celebration_of_endocrine_research_some_progress_but_an_even_greater_opportunity_to_d
-
EPA Must Overhaul Disinfectant Testing Program — IG
Sep 19, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith
U.S. EPA should implement a risk-based strategy to "assure continued effectiveness" of disinfectants used in hospitals, the agency inspector general's office said in a report released today.
Auditors found that the federal agency did not take risk into account when identifying which disinfectants to test and that EPA's current product-testing regimen did not address some of the most dangerous microorganisms. EPA also failed to test disinfectant products more than once, the report said.
Once the agency tests and greenlights a particular product, it typically does not test the product again. Still, products that have passed testing appear on EPA's website with the label "Agency Confirmed Efficacy."
The IG's report indicated that such holes in the agency's Antimicrobial Testing Program (ATP) could pose a health risk.
"EPA needs to ensure the continued efficacy of these registered products in the marketplace to protect public health," said a summary.
EPA signs off on disinfectants used in health care settings to target viruses, bacteria and other microorganisms. Disinfectant products contain antimicrobial pesticides.
Investigators also found that EPA relied on companies to hand over disinfectant samples for testing on a voluntary basis.
Over the past three years, product manufacturers have turned in only 12 samples to EPA. The agency has yet to test more than 300 registered disinfectants.
EPA is in the process of re-registering all antimicrobial products in an effort that could run through fiscal 2021. Investigators slammed current ATP testing as "redundant" while re-registration is ongoing.
The agency should reform its testing program in a way that "deters and detects noncompliance" on the part of product manufacturers, said the report.
Investigators recommended that EPA shut down the ATP until the re-registration of disinfectants is complete, then implement a new testing apparatus.
"At a minimum, the antimicrobial testing strategy should include a framework for periodic testing, define program scope, identify risk factors and methods for selecting products to test, and designate a date to commence risk-based post-registration testing," the IG's office concluded.
EPA concurred with the recommendations.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/09/19/stories/1060043062
-
EPA Says Glyphosate 'Not Likely' Carcinogenic
Sep 19, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
U.S. EPA has concluded that the chemical glyphosate is unlikely to be a human carcinogen.
Glyphosate is the main ingredient in Monsanto Co.'s popular herbicide Roundup. German chemical giant Bayer AG struck a deal to buy Monsanto last week (Greenwire, Sept. 14).
EPA has been studying glyphosate for decades. It issued a 227-page paper on the chemical Friday.
"The strongest support is for 'not likely to be carcinogenic to humans' at doses relevant to human health risk assessment," the paper read.
Contradictory information on glyphosate abounds. In 2015, a branch of the World Health Organization called the chemical "probably carcinogenic to humans."
But also last year, the European Food Safety Authority said glyphosate is likely not a carcinogen.
Next month, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel will review EPA's findings.
The agency plans to finalize its review of the chemical by the spring.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/09/19/stories/1060043032
-
Activists Eye Battles Beyond Dakota Access
Sep 19, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
Emboldened by the Obama administration freezing construction on part of the Dakota Access pipeline, activists opposing oil and gas projects are now girding for new battles in the Mid-Atlantic region.
"I think the Atlantic Coast and Mountain Valley [pipelines] are cued up to be the next hot spots. They have river crossings, and there are such historic grounds of American history — literally land given by George Washington to families during the wars," Bold Alliance President Jane Kleeb declared in an interview last week. "These are the sleeping dragons."
Kleeb, who led the high-profile fight against the scuttled Keystone XL pipeline and rallied activists against Dakota Access' $3.7 billion Bakken crude project, said she's ready to assist grass-roots foes of more than a dozen oil and gas projects.
Key to her strategy: energizing the far-reaching, diverse political base built by Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders during his presidential run by tapping Our Revolution, the lawmaker's nonprofit, where Kleeb sits on the board. The group, she said, is angling to torpedo the North-Dakota-to-Illinois pipeline and the contentious Trans-Pacific Partnership free-trade agreement.
But with President Obama one foot out the White House door, Kleeb said time is ticking to achieve her ultimate goal of pushing the government to impose a climate test on energy infrastructure and end the use of eminent domain for private gain.
"That, from our perspective," she said, "is how you stop pipeline expansion."
The national strategy has stuck a nerve with the oil and gas industry. In interviews, industry executives called pipeline foes a "vocal minority" spreading "dangerous" rhetoric against fossil fuels that ignores the need for affordable natural gas from projects that meet rigorous environmental, financial and societal standards.
Despite costly delays, industry representatives say, projects are moving forward.
"Every month that Keystone XL dragged on, public support grew," said Andrew Black, president of the Association of Oil Pipe Lines. "In the time Keystone XL was being considered as an industry, we built 12 Keystone XLs."
Robin Rorick, group director of midstream and industry operations at the American Petroleum Institute, accused national environmental groups of taking advantage of the legal fight in North Dakota to advance their platform.
"I don't think the objections are directed at pipelines, per se; I think this is a play to completely and unrealistically get the nation off of fossil fuels," he said.
"Regardless of whether or not it's a gas pipeline, an oil pipeline, a terminal, a refinery or even roads, they want to oppose it all."
'Heavier lift'
While short-term attention will remain focused on the Bakken Shale play, Kleeb said organized landowners and environmental groups are rallying to turn the Atlantic Coast and Mountain Valley pipelines into attention-grabbing battlegrounds.
Dominion Resources Inc.'s 550-mile-long Atlantic Coast pipeline project would ship gas from the Utica and Marcellus shale plays and run from Harrison County, W.Va., to Greensville County, Va., then south into eastern North Carolina.
The 300-mile Mountain Valley pipeline by Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC and Equitrans LP would run from northwestern West Virginia to southern Virginia.
But Kleeb acknowledged that natural gas pipelines are a tougher fight than those carrying crude.
"I do think there's a heavier lift to educate the public about the risk of fracked gas pipelines," she said. "Oil pipelines, we've seen [BP's Deepwater Horizon oil spill], visual destruction, that's an obstacle."
And federal regulators have for years said the same politics that launched the Keystone XL pipeline into the national spotlight cannot be replicated in the gas markets.
Tony Clark, a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, last year pointed to the Natural Gas Act and an independent regulatory model at FERC for interstate gas pipelines, which he said employs a more judicial approach and relies on a record and due process to reach decisions (E&ENews PM, Nov. 10, 2015).
Unlike with Keystone XL, which required approval from the State Department to cross from Canada into the United States, Clark insisted that case law and regulatory precedents insulate gas pipeline permitting from politics. That, he said, is "the right way to handle it."
Developers of the two Appalachian gas projects said protesters are overlooking the companies' extensive outreach to landowners, environmental benefits and widespread support.
Aaron Ruby, a spokesman for Atlantic Coast pipeline developer Dominion, said the gas line will be used to power a new fleet of efficient, clean gas-burning power plant units, allowing Virginia and North Carolina to comply with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan and save consumers $370 million a year.
Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D), North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory (R) and West Virginia Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin (D) support the pipeline, Ruby added.
"The Atlantic Coast Pipeline is not Keystone; Bold Alliance and these other nations groups are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole," Ruby said. "Candidly, for them, this isn't even about the Atlantic Coast pipeline. ACP is just a means to an end. They have a bigger agenda, and it's a radical and extreme agenda."
FERC has been targeted by national environmental protests, with meetings interrupted by members of Beyond Extreme Energy who later made visits to commissioners' homes. And local officials in the Northeast and pipeline opponents are pushing for a comprehensive federal review of large natural gas projects cropping up across the region (Greenwire, Nov. 24, 2015).
FERC and energy analysts have said that work is ongoing at the agency under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA — and that a larger, programmatic environmental review under the law isn't required.
But Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey chapter of the Sierra Club, said the public often doesn't realize the magnitude or scope of proposed natural gas pipelines that can run for hundreds of miles along the East Coast when federal reviews are narrowed on specific sections.
"The reason Dakota and Keystone were able to grab national attention was because people saw how big they are, and how much damage they're going to do because they're so large," Tittel said. "What's happened on the East Coast is they're doing it a 100-mile segment at a time, so people don't realize until it's too late that it's a 1,000-mile pipeline, too, like Keystone, like Dakota."
Companies say gas is not for export
Key to Kleeb's ability to rally opposition to pipeline projects are suspicions that the fuel is headed for export.
"If it's a small, distributed line, those are very difficult to stop, and you almost could argue there's no point in stopping those," Kleeb said. "It's the ones we think are headed for the export market that I think a lot of us are interested in.
"That's a compelling narrative to the public, saying this is actually not about American energy independence; this is about a pipeline company wanting to get their stuff to the export market," she added.
But Dominion's Ruby noted that almost all the gas that would run through the Atlantic Coast pipeline has been secured through 20-year contracts by five public utilities that serve customers in Virginia and North Carolina. Those companies, he said, will use the gas to generate electricity, provide residential home heating and supply power for businesses.
"That is a fact — not an opinion — and it's been demonstrated on the public record," he said. "Any claim to the contrary is nothing more than a cynical attempt to misinform the public."
A spokesman for the Mountain Valley pipeline echoed Ruby's comments.
"Mountain Valley pipeline expressly stated in its formal application to the FERC that it did not design its facilities to transport natural gas to [a liquefied natural gas, or LNG] export terminal," said Natalie Cox. "Additionally, MVP does not intend to seek permission to export natural gas overseas as LNG from either the U.S. Department of Energy or the FERC."
The debate has put a spotlight on federal pipeline permitting and is ratcheting up pressure on Democratic vice presidential candidate Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia to clarify his position.
While warning FERC against fast-tracking its review of the pipeline, Kaine has not said whether he's for or against the project, saying only that federal agencies make that decision. Overall, the senator has a mixed record, voicing support for fast-tracking gas export terminals while earning environmental kudos for battling the Keystone XL oil pipeline (ClimateWire, July 25).
FERC is the lead agency for conducting environmental reviews of proposed interstate gas pipelines and considers whether there is a market need for new pipelines. FERC also has the authority under the Natural Gas Act to grant private corporations the power of eminent domain over local jurisdictions.
Carolyn Elefant, a solo lawyer who represents landowners in pipeline disputes before FERC and in court, said it's important to look at what portion of the gas moving through the pipe is meant for local need (Greenwire, Aug. 22).
FERC, she noted, currently bases its decisions on how much of the pipeline's capacity is under contract, as well as data on general market trends.
"In the energy sector, I think there's a need to decide, when FERC says we find there's a need for a project, what that means," Elefant said. "What if those contracts aren't with a local utility but a company in Japan or a company overseas?"
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/09/19/stories/1060043055
-
Dakota Access Work Freeze 'Brief Reprieve' for Opponents
Sep 19, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
In the wake of a federal court's decision Friday to pause construction on part of the Dakota Access pipeline, observers are stressing that the order is only temporary.
The oil pipeline cannot move forward for now within 20 miles of Lake Oahe, a contested section of the route near tribal land in North Dakota. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which issued the order late Friday, could reopen the area as soon as this week.
While Dakota Access challengers cheered the decision, many emphasized that it was merely a short-term measure.
"The Tribe appreciates this brief reprieve from pipeline construction and will continue to oppose this project, which will severely jeopardize its water and cultural resources," the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, which is leading opposition, said in a statement over the weekend. "We will not rest until our lands, people, waters, and sacred sites are permanently protected from this destructive pipeline."
The 1,172-mile Dakota Access pipeline would carry as much as 570,000 barrels a day of Bakken crude through North and South Dakota, Iowa, and Illinois. The 20-mile area west of Lake Oahe, a dammed section of the Missouri River, is said by tribal representatives to contain at least one burial ground.
The court's order is an administrative injunction, designed to keep construction at bay while the three-judge panel considers the tribe's request for an emergency injunction (Greenwire, Sept. 16).
An emergency measure, if granted, would stay in place while the panel reviews a lower court's recent decision to reject the Sioux's request to freeze work on the length of the pipeline.
In its short order, the court noted that the decision "should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of that motion."
The panel included Judges Janice Rogers Brown and Thomas Griffith, Republican appointees, and Judge Nina Pillard, a Democratic appointee. The order noted that Brown would not have granted the temporary injunction.
'Remain vigilant'
Pipeline challengers praised the decision but urged their ranks not to pull back on opposition efforts.
"This is a major victory but we must remain vigilant in the fight to protect our land, water and people," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said on Twitter.
Bold Alliance President Jane Kleeb, who led opposition against the scuttled Keystone XL pipeline and rallied activists against Dakota Access, urged supporters to focus on the broader battle over pipeline reform.
"The current patchwork quilt of national and state laws is not working for anyone," she said in an email. "Advocates continue to stand up for water, property rights, climate and Sovereign rights against these risky and unnecessary pipelines."
Lake Oahe and its shorelines, meanwhile, remain off-limits to construction while the Army Corps of Engineers decides whether to grant an easement there — a decision that could come in the next few weeks (E&ENews PM, Sept. 16).
ClearView Energy Partners analyst Christine Tezak said the pipeline's prospects hinge on the administration's actions — not the court's.
"The visibility on the construction timeline remains clouded by the incremental federal agency review, a review which is not based on any formal process deadlines or known decision parameters," she said, adding, "which means it doesn't matter what happens in court."
Dakota Access backers say they remain confident that the project will ultimately be allowed to move forward.
"Although disappointing, we respect the process and the court's decision to issue this temporary injunction so it can spend time considering the facts of the case," Craig Stevens, spokesman for the Midwest Alliance for Infrastructure Now, or the MAIN Coalition, said Friday.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/09/19/stories/1060043014
-
700 Years of N.D. Coal vs. a Climate Rule
Sep 19, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
Cartwheeling wind turbines dot the green prairies outside North Dakota's capital, and as the state's "energy trail" snakes northward, billowing coal plants pop up in the distance.
The scenery is a reminder of the challenges ahead for North Dakota, a state whose deep reserves of fossil fuels stand in contrast to federal climate regulations with requirements to decrease the release of greenhouse gases.
North Dakota has one of the toughest goals in the country under U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. And while some of its electricity providers have brought on considerable amounts of cleaner natural gas and wind power, they lag behind the national average and are far from the level the federal government wants.
Among the power companies here are electric cooperatives. They're owned not by Wall Street investors but by the people they serve.
Basin Electric Power Cooperative, based in Bismarck, is one of them. It is fervently opposed to the climate rule drafted 1,500 miles away in Washington, D.C. So is its trade group, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, or NRECA, which claims that the federal government pushed co-ops to use coal years ago when these local power companies were still growing.
Co-ops are not for profit and don't have investors, and NRECA says that means the costs of shifting electricity sources will fall on consumers. Many of them are poor. The trade group also has a technical concern. It worries the transition to other fuels may come too fast, causing problems for the grid.
Basin isn't against cutting greenhouse gas emissions. But the co-op wants to do it on its own terms. CEO Paul Sukut says "time and flexibility" are the two things the co-op needs to reach EPA's goals.
Steve Tomac, a senior legislative representative with Basin, said the company got the message during the debate over a national cap-and-trade system in 2009: no more new coal.
"We understand we're living in a carbon-constrained world. We get that," Tomac said. "The challenge is, how do we address the CO2 in the interim?"
Not all co-ops fit that mold. Some have moved faster toward green power. Others don't oppose the rule at all. Clean energy advocates, meanwhile, argue that co-ops have had years to start preparing for carbon regulation, and that the rule won't cost that much.
Unseen on this open landscape is a complex web of legal maneuvering around the rule in D.C. At the end of this month, lawyers for both its supporters and opponents will bring their arguments to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. They will highlight possible technical faults with the regulation and explore broader legal questions about states' rights.
Far away, in sparsely populated North Dakota and in the conference rooms of co-ops around the country, lies a deeper story of America's uneven progression toward cleaner energy. It is at the root of political and legal battles that could stretch years into the future — with or without the Clean Power Plan — amid disagreement over how quickly the country can transition away from a grid built on coal power.
Best option: Kill the rule
For different reasons, power companies have shifted away from fossil fuels at widely varying rates. That's been because of politics, concerns about coal jobs, state and federal regulations, and cost.
Co-ops, which are owned by customers, historically grew out of poor, rural areas that investor-owned utilities would not serve. They now provide power to 42 million consumers in 47 states, accounting for about 12 percent of total electricity sales in the United States. Generation and transmission co-ops like Basin sell power to distribution co-ops, which provide that power to homes and businesses.
Many co-ops were expanding when Congress passed the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978, which they say prevented them from using cleaner natural gas and pushed them to build coal-fired power plants that now face early retirement under the Clean Power Plan. And because co-ops typically have fewer customers and more land to cover than investor-owned utilities, each customer might have to pay for a bigger portion of the cost of that shift.
Coal represents about one-third of the overall U.S. power mix. Natural gas makes up another third, followed by nuclear power, hydropower, and wind and solar.
Co-ops, in comparison, generate about 65 percent of their power from coal, down from 80 percent in 2000. That's double the national average.
Their reliance on coal is part of why NRECA is suing the federal government, while the investor-owned utility trade group, the Edison Electric Institute, is not.
"We're concerned as an organization that the Clean Power Plan is going to cause increased costs," said Kirk Johnson, senior vice president of government relations for NRECA.
Basin gets 46 percent of its power from coal and 30 percent from non-carbon sources, including wind, hydro and nuclear. Another 19 percent comes from natural gas. Although that profile is much cleaner than the 85 percent share that coal accounted for in 2000, it's not good enough to meet EPA's goals. Basin says compliance costs could reach $5 billion, after counting all the studies, regulatory processes and new plants that would be necessary.
Basin operates in nine states. All of them have among the toughest goals in the Clean Power Plan. That's because those states have more coal than gas-fired power, compared to other states. Unlike the rest of the country, Basin's power needs are growing. That poses another challenge — adding power to the system while bringing down the carbon rate.
Ultimately, Basin is prepping a three-pronged approach to the rule, explained in a PowerPoint slide for visitors that includes 1990s-style clip art.
The first, and preferable, option is to beat the rule by delaying or overturning it in the courts. The fallback plan is to get Congress to change the Clean Power Plan, a long shot denoted with a drawing of a magician's hat.
The third option, if all else fails, is to accept the rule.
Carbon is 'a business problem'
To be sure, some co-ops are greener than others. And co-op political philosophies vary based on the customers they represent. Great River Energy in Minnesota, for example, is neutral on the Clean Power Plan lawsuits. That's despite using coal for 72 percent of its power last year. In terms of Clean Power Plan compliance, GRE will benefit from coal plant closures and upgrades that have made other units more efficient.
Those moves were intentional. Eric Olsen, GRE vice president and general counsel, said about three years ago, the co-op's board of directors saw carbon regulation coming and pivoted.
"We saw we had a business problem to solve there," Olsen said. "We had a heavy reliance on coal. Since then, we've been evolving our portfolio to rely less on coal and more on renewable energy and also, frankly, the market energy, as well."
Rather than fight the standards, GRE has been focused on "solving the business problem of how to achieve them if the Clean Power Plan becomes the law of the land," he said.
Highlighting the political disparities that make national policies difficult to craft, Dave Glatt, the point man on the Clean Power Plan for North Dakota's Department of Health, noted Minnesotans aren't always on the same page as North Dakotans.
"In North Dakota, it's about maintaining cost and reliability and coal in the mix," Glatt said. "When you get into Minnesota, it's a little different attitude in the Minneapolis area."
As of this summer, Glatt was still in occasional talks with Minnesota officials about meeting the rule's requirements, although his state has put the brakes on CPP planning while Minnesota has sped ahead. Studies suggest multistate coordination like carbon trading could help coal states, but North Dakota is skeptical.
"We heard some states were going to hold back or bury some of their credits, which would raise the cost," Glatt said. Not to mention that North Dakota politicians aren't keen on anything that looks like cap and trade.
And there's still heated disagreement among all states about how quickly to transition to clean power in the first place.
Basin says it would need to double its wind portfolio — by adding 1,300 megawatts — between 2018 and 2022 to be ready for the Clean Power Plan. It would also need to bring on 1,700 MW of natural gas, officials said.
Basin and Glatt think that could cause problems. Without significantly advanced battery storage technologies to hold wind power for when it isn't available, they think the grid might be unstable.
"When we have high load days with low wind, that's a problem," Glatt said. "The power plants have to be there. Some kind of continuous source has to be there, whether it's coal or gas."
No one is saying, 'Hell, no'
But renewable power advocates, including the American Wind Energy Association, say other states have easily surpassed North Dakota's wind levels. Buying and selling power on a regional grid helps to even out the system, the group says. And there are other creative ways to balance out a rising supply of wind, AWEA argues.
Some co-ops are already using less coal. In Georgia, co-ops grew later, so they relied more on natural gas and nuclear, explained Jeff Pratt, president of the all-solar Georgia co-op Green Power EMC and director of energy efficiency for another co-op, Oglethorpe Power Corp.
"Coal at the time just didn't seem to pencil out," Pratt said.
Those decisions have put Oglethorpe in a comparatively better position for carbon regulation. Its power in 2015 was 20 percent from coal, 33 percent from natural gas, 42 percent from nuclear and 5 percent from hydropower. Nonetheless, the company opposes the rule.
At Pedernales Electric Cooperative Inc., a distribution co-op in Texas, CEO John Hewa said he doesn't have a ton of choices over what kind of power he gets from the system in Texas. Generation and transmission co-ops ultimately make those calls. So Hewa is laser-focused on the ways he can unilaterally bring down carbon emissions without raising electricity costs. He's looking at redesigning utility bills to encourage conservation and more community solar power.
Still, he worries battery storage isn't ready. And he thinks the Clean Power Plan will push Texas companies to build natural gas pipelines that they will eventually abandon to shift toward renewable power.
Glatt's office in Bismarck has a window that faces the state capitol, which energy nerds are quick to note is one of the tallest structures in North Dakota — along with the Antelope Valley coal plant.
Sitting in front of his desk stacked with paper, Glatt estimated the state needs maybe five or 10 more years to make the Clean Power Plan's carbon levels work. But if everyone took that long, the Obama administration might not have been able to agree to the 2015 Paris deal to curtail emissions.
"I've never heard Basin or other companies say, 'Hell, no, we're not going to do this,'" Glatt said. "They've all said we just need time. We've put a lot of investment in the existing infrastructure. We can't just walk away from that without the major economic impacts."
A couple of hours northwest of Bismarck near Beulah, on the energy trail, the Coteau Properties Co. Freedom Mine, Antelope Valley coal plant and Great Plains Synfuels Plant all exist in symbiosis and employ hundreds. Without either plant online to buy coal, the mine would probably shut down. It wouldn't be worth the money to ship the coal to other areas.
Then there's the matter of rising energy bills, potentially.
"We have members that they have to make a decision whether to pay the utility bill or buy food," Glatt said. "If electricity goes up too high, they're going to be in tough shape. When you look across the state, you're probably looking at every county, 10 to 14 percent population low-income."
Plus, energy is a big industry in North Dakota.
"The state's got 700 years of coal. It's kind of tough to walk away from that," Glatt said.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/09/19/stories/1060043026
-
Clean Power Plan is Consistent with Law and History
Sep 19, 2016 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Richard L. Revesz, Denise A. Grab, and Jack Lienke
In a critical federal court hearing this month, challengers of the Clean Power Plan, the Obama administration's signature climate change policy, will characterize the Plan as an "enormous and transformative expansion" of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regulatory power.
Their legal briefs argue that, in its pursuit of reductions in carbon dioxide emissions from the nation's electric sector, the EPA dramatically exceeded the limits of its Clean Air Act authority and commandeered a regulatory arena — the electricity sector — that has traditionally been managed by the states. They claim there is "no precedent for this invasion of state sovereignty."
But the Clean Power Plan, while certainly a very important rule, is not the boundary-breaking behemoth that the petitioners make it out to be. On the contrary, it explicitly acknowledges and complies with the many constraints that Clean Air Act places on EPA's authority to regulate existing power plants. Furthermore, the plan's basic components have already been used in several prior Clean Air Act regulations, issued under administrations of both parties.
The Clean Power Plan's compliance with statutory limits
The "Clean Power Plan" is EPA's shorthand for a set of "emission guidelines" for power plants that it issued pursuant to Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. The text of Section 111 contains eight significant constraints on EPA's authority to craft such guidelines:
1. The EPA must identify the "best system of emission reduction" and calculate the "degree of emission limitation achievable through the application" of that system. Thus, the agency cannot arbitrarily declare that existing sources in the relevant category must reduce their emissions by a particular amount. Instead, it must survey available systems for reducing emissions and calculate the level of reduction achievable using what it considers the best of those systems.
2. In identifying the best system, the EPA must consider the amount of emission reductions it will yield. It goes without saying that a system of emission reduction is unlikely to be "best" if it does a poor job reducing emissions.
3. In identifying the best system, the EPA must consider the system's cost. As explained in U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit case law, the EPA cannot adopt standards that can be achieved only at "excessive," "exorbitant" or "unreasonable" expense.
4. In identifying the best system, the EPA must consider "nonair quality health and environmental impacts." For example, the use of a "scrubber" to remove sulfur dioxide emissions from a power plant's smokestack produces coal ash, which can, if improperly stored, contaminate groundwater. The EPA cannot adopt a standard that does more harm than good due to such "cross-media environmental impacts."
5. In identifying the best system, EPA must consider "energy requirements." The EPA cannot deem a system "best" if it imperils access to reliable energy sources.
6. The EPA must find that its preferred method of emission reduction has been "adequately demonstrated." Under D.C. Circuit case law, EPA cannot identify a "purely theoretical or experimental means of preventing or controlling air pollution" as the best system of emission reduction.
7.The EPA's guidelines must be translatable into "standards of performance" for individual sources. Ultimately, states must be able to turn the EPA's guidelines into enforceable standards for individual sources of pollution in the relevant category. This does not mean, however, that the source must meet its standard solely through actions taken within the walls of its own facility.
8. The EPA's guidelines must give states flexibility to account for the "remaining useful life" of their existing sources. The application of certain systems of emission reduction might make less economic sense for facilities on the verge of retirement. The EPA must allow states some way to account for this variation in useful life.
As further explained in our recent report, the EPA acknowledged and complied with each of these constraints when it issued the Clean Power Plan. For example, the EPA reviewed the full range of technological and operational reduction techniques available to regulated plants and engaged in extensive cost and energy impact analysis in identifying the "best system of emission reduction" that underlies its emission guidelines. The agency ultimately concluded that its system could be implemented at a reasonable cost — comparable, on a per megawatt-hour basis, to that of past power-plant regulations targeting other types of pollution — and without reducing overall electricity generation.
The Clean Power Plan's consistency with prior regulations
The petitioners' characterization of the Clean Power Plan as a "transformative" exercise of the EPA's legal authority is further belied by the fact that the EPA has used the plan's core elements in a number of prior Clean Air Act rules, issued under administrations of both parties.
Most notably, while petitioners claim that setting emission limits based on "generation shifting" from higher-polluting to low- or non-polluting sources of electricity is "unambiguously foreclosed by ... nearly a half century of consistent administrative practice," this simply isn't true. Two prior power-sector regulations — the Clean Air Mercury Rule, issued by the George W. Bush administration, and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, issued by the Obama administration and upheld by the Supreme Court — took the availability of generating shifting into account when setting emission limits.
Many other rules have been promulgated with the expectation that they would cause generation shifting, even if their emission limits were not set based on that expectation. For example, the 2011 Mercury and Air Toxics Standards were set by reference to reductions that oil- and coal-fired generating units could achieve using on-site controls, but the EPA nevertheless projected that the rule would cause a 1.3 percent decrease in coal-fired generation and a 3.1 percent increase in gas-fired generation between 2009 and 2015.
Similarly, national ambient air quality standards are set solely by reference to pollutants' health impacts, but the EPA has long recognized that they encourage states to increase use of cleaner electricity sources.
Other examples of regulatory precedents for the EPA's approach in the Clean Power Plan abound,as discussed further in our recent article.
The bottom line is this: When crafting the Clean Power Plan, the EPA followed clear statutory protocols and relied on familiar reduction techniques to set achievable emission limits. The result is not, as the challengers claim, an "enormous and transformative" expansion of EPA power, but is instead an eminently reasonable approach to begin addressing one of the most significant public heath threats of our time.
Revesz is dean emeritus and Lawrence King Professor of Law at New York University School of Law and director of the Institute for Policy Integrity. Grab and Lienke are senior attorneys at the Institute for Policy Integrity.
http://origin-nyi.thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/296598-clean-power-plan-is-consistent-with-law-and-history
-
Controversial Power Plant Project Gets 2nd Look in Court
Sep 19, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
A California appeals court plans to review a controversial project for a proposed $2.2 billion power plant in Carlsbad.
The power plant was originally given the green light by the California Public Utilities Commission. Now, opponents of the natural-gas-fired Carlsbad Energy Center are hopeful that the project will be stopped.
"It's the wrong technology in the wrong place at the wrong time," said April Rose Sommer, executive director of the Protect Our Communities Foundation.
Opponents say the project will harm the coastline's environment and that renewable energy growth makes it unnecessary.
"The numbers show we do not need this additional generation," Sommer said.
NRG Energy Inc., which would build the proposed plant, said it is certain that the court will uphold the previous decision.
"The unfortunate thing is any further delay in the construction of the Carlsbad Energy Center, which is a clean-burning natural gas facility, continues to delay the retirement of the region's last costly, inefficient and high-emissions power plant [Encina]," said Stephanie Donovan of San Diego Gas & Electric, which would buy the plant's produced power.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/09/19/stories/1060043044
-
Ineos' US Ethane Supplies to Europe Economic at $40/b Oil: Official
Sep 19, 2016 | Platts
By Amar Carmody
Ethane supplies from the US into Europe are economically sound with oil priced at $40/b, Ineos Group director Tom Crotty said Friday.
"With oil at $20/b we can still make ethane imports work; at $40 we are rock solid," Crotty said on the sidelines of a press trip to one of Ineos' Western Pennsylvanian ethane suppliers.
However, Crotty said the decision to import ethane from the US into Europe had not been completely tied to a cost advantage against derivatives of crude oil.
"The Grangemouth cracker was under-performing on a lack of feed," he said. "We had no alternative but to source ethane for it."
In 2008 the KG ethylene cracker at Grangemouth, Scotland, one of only four gas crackers in Europe, was unable to operate at full capacity because of a lack of ethane, and Ineos was left with no option but to close the second of two manufacturing units.
US ethane will be used as a supplementary feed for the KG ethylene plant at a time when North Sea supplies are dwindling and will allow the plant to run at increased rates.
Questions over the profitability of supplying US ethane to Europe were not solely due to crude price declines but also to higher US ethane prices, which are expected to continue to rise throughout 2017.
"We will be quite protected from [US] ethane price increases in 2017 because of the contracts we have in place," Crotty said. "We had contracts in place before anyone else was interested in them."
Crotty said the terms of pricing for Ineos' supply contracts had been diversified across suppliers, adding a level of protection against movement in either crude or ethane.
"Our ethane sourcing is done in a variety of ways both on contract and spot," he said. "We have some contracts naphtha-related and some that are non-naphtha-related."
Ineos has publicised contracts at three suppliers but more are in place, Crotty said.
Of the suppliers officially announced, two -- Consol Energy and Range Resources -- are based at the northwest US Marcellus field, while another -- Enterprise Products Partners -- is located close to southern reserves in Houston, Texas.
Donald Rush, vice president of Diversified Business Units at Consol Energy, told S&P Global Platts: "We have a number of contracts with many different parties and they are all priced differently. We have diversified on purpose to hedge risk. We sell some on spot, some on contract. Some against naphtha some against Mont Belvieu ethane pricing for example. With Ineos we have done the same."
Ethane exports to Europe and India are expected to boost ethane prices from the northwest US Marcellus field, while more southern reserves would be tapped largely by new ethane crackers currently being built.
Ineos, Austria-based Borealis, Saudi Arabia's Sabic and India's Reliance all have plans to bring in US ethane for cracking over the next few years.
Eight steam crackers are under construction at the US Gulf Coast, all but one of which will take 100% ethane. The eight cracker projects, scheduled to start up between 2017 and 2019, are run by Chevron/Phillips Chemical, ExxonMobil, Dow Chemical, Oxychem/Mexichem, Formosa Plastics, Sasol, Axial/Lotte and Shintech.
Platts Bentek Energy estimates Mont Belvieu ethane prices will rise to 39 cents/gal in 2017 and to 50 cents/gal in 2018.
Platts assessed non-LST Mont Belvieu purity ethane at 20 cents/gal Friday.
http://www.platts.com/latest-news/petrochemicals/pittsburgh/ineos-us-ethane-supplies-to-europe-economic-at-26548672 -
Plants Prone to Accidents, Rarely Inspected — Investigation
Sep 19, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
Hundreds of chemical and pesticide storage facilities across the United States do not have adequate safety protections and pose large threats to public health, a yearlong investigation by the Houston Chronicle has unveiled.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration rarely inspects facilities, and U.S. EPA neglects entire categories of toxic chemicals when determining which facilities to visit, the investigation found.
Further, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board's recommendations are often ignored by environmental officials.
The gaps in federal regulation have already led to public health catastrophes.
In 2010, two young girls died in Utah when fumes from an aluminum phosphide plant invaded their home.
Other sites that store hydrogen fluoride are also disaster-prone. A 2014 gas leak at a DuPont plant in La Porte, Texas, could have easily caused an explosion powerful enough to kill or sicken residents up to 25 miles away. Two million residents could have been afflicted.
Texas and other states regularly restrict the amount of chemical storage information available to the public.
Vast reserves of highly toxic compounds are often stored close to residential or recreational areas.
In Houston, Enduro Composites stores up to 5,000 pounds of highly flammable cumene hydroperoxide.
"There's no safe place," said area resident Walter Dunn. "It's all over this town."
The investigation also found that there are only 267 OSHA inspectors for around 15,000 chemical facilities across the country.
EPA also does not manage risks from reactive chemicals, and fuel retailers are exempt from the agency's Risk Management Program.
Local chemical disaster prevention committees — established after the 1986 Bhopal disaster in India — are left largely unfunded.
And many chemical plants are so secretive that no paper trail exists to ascertain the types and amounts of compounds stored.
Toxic releases forced the evacuation of 200 families living near an MFG Chemical factory in Dalton, Ga., in 2004. Dozens of other fires, spills and accidents have injured and killed workers across the U.S.
One man's ears and eyelids melted off his body in the La Porte explosion in 2014. At the PeroxyChem LLC explosion in Pasadena, Texas, earlier this year, a worker died when his lungs erupted outside his body.
But the United States stopped tracking reactive chemical accidents as far back as 2001.
And fire departments are often left with little training to handle chemical accidents.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/09/19/stories/1060043046
-
Ala. Leak Sparks Gas Shortages Along East Coast
Sep 19, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
During a routine monthly check of an old coal mine in Shelby County, Ala., on Sept. 9, an inspector with the Alabama Surface Mining Commission could smell "a strong odor of gasoline" in the area of Colonial Pipeline Co.'s Line 1.
The pipeline, which usually pumps 1.3 million barrels of gasoline per day, has leaked about 336,000 gallons of gasoline. The leak sparked a state of emergency for Alabama, Georgia and four other states over concerns of oil shortages (Greenwire, Sept. 16).
It has been estimated that the underground pipeline that spans 3 feet in diameter supplies the East Coast with up to 40 percent of its gasoline.
Gasoline is being shipped along alternate routes, but gas stations on the East Coast have reported outages. Over 700 people are working to dig up the pipeline and plug the leak.
Environmental impacts from the leak will not be as severe as they would have been in a more populated area or during a time when rain could carry fuel to the Cahaba River.
"It's really pretty fortunate where it is," said Cahaba Riverkeeper David Butler, who has been working with Colonial and government agencies since the spill. "It's in a pretty contained area, and it's been so dry here that most of the little perennial streams are pretty dry right now so there's not really a lot of potential at this point for it to migrate towards the river".
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/09/19/stories/1060043042
-
Rail Supplier News from Herzog, Transdev, Hill International and Michael Baker
Sep 19, 2016 | Progressive Rail Roading
Herzog Technologies Inc. has launched a cloud-based positive train control (PTC) solution using Red Hat Inc. technologies. Red Hat's Enterprise Linux provides the back-end needed for the "intelligence and dynamism expected of PTC," while the company's CloudForms and Satellite software programs will help Herzog with systems management and compliance, Red Hat officials said in a press release. Combined, Red Hat's open source technologies are designed to help Herzog provide railroads with the ability to adopt PTC technology quickly. Red Hat is a U.S.-based software company.
Transdev North America has selected SmartDrive Rail video system for deployment on the Cincinnati Bell Connector streetcars. The technology is aimed at helping clients manage the "challenging urban operating environment by capturing collisions and identifying operating risks and compliance issues," SmartDrive Systems Inc. officials said in a press release. When an issue occurs, event video is offloaded and management is notified within minutes.
Hill International has received a contract extension from Sound Transit to provide design-build project management services for the next phase of an East Link light-rail extension segment. Hill received its original $1 million contract in January 2015 for pre-construction services. The recent amendment for construction services is estimated at $19 million over the next four years. The E360 Segment of the East Link Extension is stretches 1.8 miles from East Bellevue, Wash., to the main Microsoft campus in Redmond, Wash.
Michael Baker International has named Don Sepulveda vice president and rail and transit practice lead for the firm's West region. Based in Los Angeles, Sepulveda will be charged with building a team that will pursue new rail and transit business opportunities, Michael Baker officials said in a press release. He'll also serve as senior project manager on certain strategic rail projects. For the past five years, Sepulveda was executive officer of regional rail for the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, where he developed a $2.5 billion rail program.http://www.progressiverailroading.com/supplier_spotlight/news/Rail-supplier-news-from-Herzog-Transdev-Hill-International-and-Michael-Baker-Sept-19--49502
-
EPA 'Exceptional Events' Air Law Waiver Rule Faces Oil Industry Criticism
Sep 19, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA's just-issued final rule on when states can win Clean Air Act regulatory waivers for “exceptional events” such as air pollution associated with wildfires is facing early criticism from the oil sector for making the list of qualified events too narrow and compromising efforts to attain the agency's recently tightened ozone air standard.
The rule, released Sept. 16, modifies a 2007 regulation that allows states to exclude air monitoring data gathered during exceptional events from counting toward their compliance demonstrations for national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), including the ozone limit. Excluding such pollution data could make it more likely that areas will be designated in attainment rather than risk the nonattainment status states try to avoid.
Alongside the rule, EPA also issued a fact sheet as well as a separate guidance that specifically outlines how states should craft exceptional events claims for wildfires that contribute to ozone pollution.
EPA has previously said that the regulation could help states in meeting the agency's stricter ozone standard of 70 parts per billion (ppb) that it issued Oct. 1, 2015, tightened from the prior 2008 limit of 75 ppb. Groups representing various industry sectors and some Western states have raised concerns that they might struggle to meet the 70 ppb limit, because levels of naturally occurring “background” ozone that cannot be regulated are close to the standard.
Under the original exceptional events rule, EPA has accepted that air pollution associated with wildfires, dust storms and other events can qualify -- though the program has faced criticism from state air regulators for a complicated process in crafting and submitting the waiver requests to the agency, and delays in EPA deciding on the claims.
The new revised rule makes a series of changes to streamline the rule's functioning, but the final regulation takes a restrictive view of what events should qualify. This will compromise the chances of areas with high background ozone of attaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS, according to the American Petroleum Institute (API).
API Senior Director of Regulatory & Scientific Affairs Howard Feldman in a Sept. 19 statement said the final rule does not correctly attribute ozone precursor emissions that are not man-made. “EPA should delay implementing the 2015 ozone standards until adequate tools are available and existing control programs have been implemented,” said Feldman. “The agency has failed to identify an effective process to identify emission sources outside of state regulatory control -- most specifically, methods of accounting for the many sources of background ozone.”
EPA in the final rule stresses the time-limited nature of “events” that qualify as exceptional. For example, it says, “Stagnation of air masses and meteorological inversions do not directly cause pollutant emissions and are not exceptional events. Meteorological events involving high temperatures or lack of precipitation (i.e., severe, extreme or exceptional drought) also do not directly cause pollutant emissions and are not considered exceptional events.”
However, “events involving high temperatures or lack of precipitation may promote occurrences of particular types of exceptional events, such as wildfires or high wind events, which do directly cause emissions.”
Background Ozone
EPA says while some sources that contribute to background ozone, such as stratospheric intrusions, “may be eligible for treatment as exceptional events,” other sources of background would not meet the “exceptional” criteria. Stratospheric intrusion is the intrusion of high-level ozone to the lower atmosphere, and is a problem at high elevations.
“For example, routine or long-term international manmade emissions are not exceptional events because they are caused by human activity that is likely to recur at a given location; likewise, routine biogenic [volatile organic compound, or VOC] emissions are not exceptional events because they are not deviations from normal or expected conditions. Thus despite being natural, they are not 'events,'” EPA says.
The rule also takes numerous steps to clarify and streamline the process of claiming an exceptional event. These include: removing a requirement for states to demonstrate that an area would have attained the NAAQS “but for” the event; relying on controls in a state, federal or tribal Clean Air Act implementation plan to satisfy that the event was “not reasonably controllable or preventable,” provided EPA has approved this within five years of of the event; and requiring the states notify EPA early in the process of their intent to claim an event as exceptional, allowing for enhanced cooperation with the agency.
EPA also alters some deadlines for states to submit requests to exclude data under the rule in order to assist states in their compliance with the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
“Given the close proximity of the Federal Register publication date of this revised rule, which also serves as the effective date of this action, with the demonstration submittal deadline for data influenced by exceptional events that could be used in the initial area designation decisions for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS, we are intentionally adjusting the deadline for 2013- 2015 demonstrations that would otherwise be due October 1, 2016.” EPA says.
Such requests must now be submitted to EPA by the later of sixty days after the effective date of the final rule or the date that state and tribal recommendations on area attainment designations are due, the agency says.
Regulatory Changes
While the final rule tracks broadly with the November 2015 proposed version of the rule, EPA in a fact sheet says it has made changes in a number of areas.
For example, where federal agencies or federal land managers are themselves submitting exceptional events demonstrations, they must now ask for the concurrence of state or tribal agencies; provisions relating to drought conditions have been altered; expanding the ability of states to rely on state implementation plans to provide measures to ensure that events are not “reasonably controllable or preventable,” by also including tribal implementation plans, or federal implementation plans; and adding new requirements for state air agencies, federal land managers and others to collaborate more closely on the conduct of intentionally-started “prescribed fire.”
States had earlier expressed concern over the ability of federal land managers to declare exceptional events, especially for prescribed fires.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-exceptional-events-air-law-waiver-rule-faces-oil-industry-criticism
-
Colo. Will Use Air Data in State Health Assessment
Sep 19, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
Colorado State University scientists last week released their second state-funded study of air emissions from oil and gas operations.
Jeffrey Collett, professor and head of the university's atmospheric science department, served as principal investigator of the study, which focused on activity in the Denver-Julesburg Basin in Colorado's Front Range. He presented the findings during a meeting of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's Air Quality Control Commission on Thursday.
Over the course of three years, the CSU team conducted 18 experiments measuring emissions from hydraulic fracturing, flowback, production and liquids load out processes. Collett and his colleagues collected upwind background samples and on-site samples at different times during each experiment. Using a technique known as a tracer ratio method, they were able to calculate the rate at which methane, ethane and volatile organic compounds were released from the study wells.
While prior studies have measured the presence of these gases near oil and gas operations, ambient concentrations are subject to other factors, such as sampling location and meteorological conditions, the CSU paper says.
"By characterizing emission rates directly, results from this study can be used to predict downwind concentration fields for any location of interest under a wide range of weather conditions," the scientists wrote.
The study builds on earlier research on air emissions from drilling and well completions in Garfield County, Colo. Collett and his colleagues used the same techniques to determine emission rates from operations in Garfield County's gas-rich Piceance Basin, located on Colorado's Western Slope. They shared their measurements with county commissioners in June.
Emissions from production, a process that can last for many years, were lower than from fracking and flowback, which last a few days to a few weeks, the CSU team found. Front Range wells released slightly less methane, ethane and VOCs than Garfield County sites, but the former contained heavier-weight VOCs. CSU attributed the difference to basin geology.
Data from the two studies will be used for a state health risk assessment, which will be completed by summer 2018. CDPHE is seeking a third-party consulting company to conduct the assessment.
"These studies will provide us with critical information to design a detailed and accurate health risk assessment so we can answer questions related to potential health concerns related to oil and gas operations," Larry Wolk, CDPHE's executive director and chief medical officer, said in a statement last week.
CSU conducted its studies with the cooperation of production companies that offered access to their fields for emission measurements.
"The release of the Front Range air data by researchers at Colorado State University is another great step in understanding air quality," Colorado Oil & Gas Association President and CEO Dan Haley said in a statement. "Along with the earlier West Slope air study, this kind of scientific effort underscores Colorado energy companies' commitment to understanding impacts, improving operations, and responding to public concern."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/09/19/stories/1060042987
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested