Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 10/04/16
-
2017 "Reset" of TSCA Inventory Will Affect All Chemical Users
Oct 4, 2016 | Lexology
By James G. Votaw
The cornerstone of the new Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is EPA's Section 6(b)(4) mandate to review the risk of each existing chemical in commerce and to regulate its use where unreasonable risks are found. -
There's A Federal Budget Extension, But What Does That Mean For Plastics?
Oct 4, 2016 | Plastics News
By Gayle S. Putrich
The federal government will have enough funds to function through Dec. 9, thanks to a budget extension package passed Sept. 29 which also includes add-ons of interested to the plastics industry — and a few items of interest that didn’t make it into the bill. -
California Prop 65 BPA Proposal Comes Under Fire
Oct 4, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Industry groups and NGOs have criticised California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s proposal to extend Proposition 65 regulations on BPA exposure warnings. -
(ACC Blog) Spray Foam Insulation Brings Ambitious Sustainability Goals Within Reach
Oct 4, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By Justin Koscher
In September, California Governor Jerry Brown signed ambitious climate change legislation that set an even higher bar than previous laws – California would now have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. -
Crowd Roars As Trump Vows To Boost Fracking, Conserve Land
Oct 4, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Jennifer Yachnin
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump last night rallied the capacity crowd at the Budweiser Events Center here to sometimes deafening cheers — vowing to support hydraulic fracturing, conserve public lands and bring back mining. -
Next ‘Renewable Energy’: Burning Forests, if Senators Get Their Way
Oct 4, 2016 | The New York Times
By Eduardo Porter
President Obama’s Clean Power Plan — the central plank in his strategy to combat climate change — is in danger. -
Final EPA Report On Water Impacts To Be Released By Year's End
Oct 4, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
U.S. EPA plans to finish its long-awaited report on hydraulic fracturing and water pollution by the end of the year, wrapping up a six-year process that has drawn fire from both environmentalists and the oil industry. -
Texas Activists Look To Stop Pipeline
Oct 4, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
Before the Dakota Access pipeline sparked a national debate, a group of activists in West Texas waged a battle against Energy Transfer Partners LP — the company behind Dakota Access — when it tried to run a 143-mile natural gas pipeline through Texas to Mexico. -
Dakota Access Oil Pipeline Review Approaches Another Juncture
Oct 4, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Labor unions on Monday alerted President Obama to what they consider to be a gross error by his administration in interfering last month with the construction of the $3.8 billion Dakota Access oil pipeline at a time when the courts are still sorting out lawsuits by the backers and opponents. -
North Dakota Sheriff Slams Dakota Access Protesters As Armed 'Rioters
Oct 4, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
A county sheriff helping to investigate a clash between Dakota Access pipeline protesters and private security guards blasted federal officials on Monday for declining to assist local law enforcement officials dealing with what he called armed "rioters" demonstrating against the project. -
Pipeline Safety Regulator Releases Interim Final Rule On Emergency Orders
Oct 4, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration today released an interim final rule that codifies authority given to it by Congress in this year's bipartisan reauthorization law to impose emergency orders on multiple oil and gas line operators. -
FRA Directs Owners To Inspect, Repair Potentially Defective Tank Cars
Oct 4, 2016 | American Shipper
By Ben Meyer
The U.S. Federal Railroad Administration last week issued a new railworthiness directive to owners of certain DOT-111 tank cars built between 2009 and 2015 that may have “substantial weld defects.” -
USDOT Awards Grants For Hazmat Preparation
Oct 4, 2016 | Progressive Railroading
The U.S. Department of Transportation's (USDOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration yesterday announced $20.4 million in grants to help states, territories and Native American tribes respond to transportation incidents involving hazardous materials. -
100 Sites Contribute 33% Of Industrial GHGs — Report
Oct 4, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
A select group of facilities are responsible for a large chunk of industrial air pollution in the United States. -
Election Brings Uncertainty To Climate Policy
Oct 4, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
The next American president could hugely influence the direction of climate policy. -
Obama, Prodded By A Star, Says Carbon Tax Is 'A Ways Away'
Oct 4, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Brittany Patterson
President Obama sang his swan song to climate change last night on the South Lawn of the White House.
Industry and Association News -There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News -There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
-
2017 "Reset" of TSCA Inventory Will Affect All Chemical Users
Oct 4, 2016 | Lexology
By James G. Votaw
The cornerstone of the new Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is EPA's Section 6(b)(4) mandate to review the risk of each existing chemical in commerce and to regulate its use where unreasonable risks are found. With approximately 86,000 different substances on EPA's TSCA Inventory, completing these risk evaluations will require significant effort over many years. The new screening and risk evaluation prioritization process required by Section 6(b)(1) provides one means for EPA to focus its resources on the chemicals in this pool presenting the most significant current risks (e.g., identifying and deferring action indefinitely on particular "low-priority" chemicals unlikely to present an unreasonable risk). A second means to keep EPA concentrated on significant current risks rests in the new TSCA Inventory "reset" process in Sections 8(b)(4)-(6).
As described further below, the reset will relieve EPA from the need to prioritize or potentially evaluate any "inactive" chemical not manufactured, imported, or processed in the United States in the past ten years (June 2006). Given that, as of 2012, only approximately 7,700 chemicals from the TSCA Inventory were reported to be in active use in quantities greater than 25,000 lbs/year at any location, there is good reason to believe that the Inventory reset will dramatically reduce the number of chemicals to be prioritized. Companies that in the future wish to manufacture, import, or process a chemical designated as "inactive" for a nonexempt commercial purpose, however, will be required to first notify EPA. This presents potential new regulatory compliance risks for all chemical users, which all companies should anticipate and plan for. The new TSCA implements the Inventory reset by directing EPA to issue a rule requiring each chemical manufacturer and importer (and potentially processors) to notify EPA of each chemical on the TSCA Inventory that it has manufactured, imported, or processed in the past ten years. TSCA Section 8(b)(4)(A). Chemicals reported in this way will be designated as "Active Substances." As a start, EPA will designate all chemicals reported in the 2012 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) period (40 C.F.R. Part 711) as Active Substances. TSCA Section 8(b)(6). Chemical substances listed on the TSCA Inventory but not reported as "active" (manufactured or processed in the prior ten years) will be deemed "Inactive Substances" and, once designated, it will be illegal to manufacture, import, or process them until after notice is given to EPA. TSCA Section 8(b)(5)(B). Records documenting rule compliance will be required to be maintained for five years.
EPA is required to promulgate a final rule implementing the Inventory reset by no later than June 2017. The rule will require all Active Substance notices to be submitted within six months thereafter (i.e., by approximately December 2017). EPA will then publish an updated TSCA Inventory identifying each substance as either "active" or "inactive." Submitters will be allowed to claim that the particular chemical identity of an Active Substance is confidential business information (CBI) to prevent public disclosure; however, the claim will be honored only if the identity is already confidential on the current TSCA Inventory and if the CBI claim can be adequately substantiated.
EPA currently plans to issue a proposed Inventory reset rule for public comment in December 2016. EPA has the option to include chemical processors in the mandatory reporting program, but may also make their participation optional. It is currently uncertain what measures the proposal may include to avoid unnecessary or duplicative reporting (e.g., coordinated reporting through trade associations or phased reporting to minimize duplicative protective submissions) or whether the initial Inventory reset rule will include provisions addressing procedures for keeping active/inactive status designations current into the future as required by TSCA Section 8(b)(5)(A) (e.g., requiring periodic updates).
It is also unclear whether the initial Inventory reset rule will include specific procedures for providing notice to EPA to "reactivate" substances initially designated inactive. Beyond the general intent to start manufacturing or processing and any chemical identity CBI claims, the statute does not require any particular content for the notices and EPA does not approve them. Rather, the Agency is required to update a substance's status to "active" after a notice is received. TSCA Section 8(b)(5)(B)(iii). EPA has broad information collection rulemaking authority under Section 8, however, and it is possible that, as part of the "reactivation" process, EPA might, by rule, seek to require submission of reasonably ascertainable health and safety information concerning the Inactive Substance and its intended use to help the Agency screen the particular risks of these existing chemicals reentering the marketplace. If notice information provides cause for concern, it may be far simpler and faster for EPA to implement reasonable control measures for the Inactive Substance at this early stage, before the new use begins (e.g., proposing a significant new use rule under TSCA Section 5(a)(2)(ii)) and perhaps avoid or further defer formal prioritization or risk evaluation, which are much more burdensome processes for the Agency.
The Inventory reset is a useful tool to focus EPA risk evaluation resources on the most significant, current potential chemical risks; however, the initial reset process and compliance with notice obligations prior to manufacturing or processing chemicals deemed "inactive" present their own costs and risks. Given the potential due diligence and reporting burden, all companies should pay attention to the Inventory reset rulemaking as it evolves. Companies should start now to investigate and inventory their current and past nonexempt chemical manufacturing and processing. A complete listing of these substances will ensure compliance with the anticipated reporting obligation, and will also ensure that companies can continue to manufacture and use all chemical substances important to their operations without entering the currently uncertain "reactivation" notice process for any overlooked chemical or inadvertently violating the premanufacture notice obligation for substances designated "inactive." Downstream processors and users should do the same. Even if they technically are not required to report, they should take steps to ensure that all substances important to their operations are designated as "active," either reporting themselves (if the final rule allows) or ensuring that their suppliers have reported the substances. Starting internal chemical reviews now also will surface any practical difficulties that can arise in the process and evaluation of potential solutions and can provide the basis for targeted, effective, and timely participation in the Inventory reset rulemaking proceeding to shape the rule to avoid or minimize those problems.
This may be a particularly auspicious time to start an internal "active" chemical identification review as it coincides with the 2016 CDR reporting period and involves a similar investigation process and will raise many of the same technical, legal, and practical issues (e.g., identifying which byproduct and inadvertently manufactured substances must be reported, nomenclature uncertainties, and chemical identity uncertainties in imported mixtures). Given that EPA will include automatically all 2012 CDR chemicals on the Active Substance list, the focus for future Active Substance notifications can be on those substances manufactured, imported, or processed in quantities below the applicable CDR reporting thresholds (25,000 or 2,500 lbs/site) or subject to other CDR reporting exemptions.
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6e59c004-1b03-4b28-b74f-422585d7364d
-
There's A Federal Budget Extension, But What Does That Mean For Plastics?
Oct 4, 2016 | Plastics News
By Gayle S. Putrich
Washington — The federal government will have enough funds to function through Dec. 9, thanks to a budget extension package passed Sept. 29 which also includes add-ons of interested to the plastics industry — and a few items of interest that didn’t make it into the bill.
The deal includes $3 million for implementing the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) but did not restore full lending capability to the Export-Import Bank.
The stopgap spending bill had been held up over debate about financing for a new water system in lead-tainted Flint, Mich., where lead service lines continue to plague city residents and the plastic pipe industry continues preaching the benefits of polyethylene over copper.
In addition to maintaining government spending levels until after the election, the continuing resolution — which was approved by the Senate 72 to 26 and later by the house 342 to 85 — authorizes aid to Flint in separate legislation for water infrastructure projects.
Businesses and trade groups, including the plastics industry, long supported the TSCA update, which became law in June and was dubbed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. It marked the first update since 1976 to the law that regulates the manufacture, transportation, sale and use of thousands of chemicals, from resins to flame retardants.
But once the celebrations dissipated, quiet concern that the implementation of the new law would be adequately funded began to grow.
Under the new law, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has six months to begin safety evaluations of 10 from the list of 90 chemicals the agency has deemed of high priority for review under the new “worst first” methodology, among them bisphenol A, styrene and a handful of flame retardants.
The agency’s chemical review and management budget is about $56 million in fiscal year 2016, which ended Oct. 1.
The additional $3 million in the budget extension to EPA for TSCA reform implementation means the opening salvo of 10 chemical evaluations under the new law will continue.
Lawmakers will still have to hash out a final fiscal 2017 spending package in a post-election, lame-duck session. Congress is expected to provide $65 million for the first year of reformed TSCA implementation, about a 16 percent increase over previous spending levels.
There was a hope that the continuing resolution would include language that would allow the Export-Import Bank of the United States to resume approving large deals.Currently, the Ex-Im bank is barred from making loans of more than $10 million if the board does not have a quorum. And since three of the board’s five seats stand vacant, the export credit agency’s hands are tied in many cases, even with reauthorization.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20161004/BLOG11/161009950/theres-a-federal-budget-extension-but-what-does-that-mean-for
-
California Prop 65 BPA Proposal Comes Under Fire
Oct 4, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Industry groups and NGOs have criticised California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s proposal to extend Proposition 65 regulations on BPA exposure warnings.
These have been required since 11 May. But Oehha enacted an emergency regulation on 19 April to temporarily allow canned and bottled food and drink products to comply through uniform point-of-sale signs, in lieu of traditional on-product labels.
This summer, the agency initiated a regular rulemaking process to extend this until 30 December 2017. But the proposal also included a new provision, requiring manufacturers to provide Oehha with a list of products in which BPA is intentionally used in the manufacture of the can lining, jar or bottle seal. These would be published on the agency’s lead agency website.
In comments to Oehha, packaging industry groups backed extending the point-of-sale warnings until the end of 2017. But they criticised the requirement to submit information for the agency’s website.
The Can Manufacturing Institute (CMI) said the website is “not needed, inconsistent with the Prop 65 mandate, imposes unnecessary resource burdens on industry and the government, and will not achieve the stated policy goal.”
And the North American Metal Packaging Alliance (Nampa) said the information is already available on a website, maintained by industry. Thus there is “no compelling reason”, it said, for Oehha to pursue a secondary list.
Nampa also questioned whether the agency had sufficient resources to manage the database, including making appropriate changes to the list as manufacturers phase out BPA through 2017.
Several groups, meanwhile, said they would support the development by Oehha of a voluntarily submitted list of products not containing BPA.‘Bad public policy’
A coalition of nine NGOs, including the Center for Environmental Health and Clean Water Action, also raised concerns with the website.
“It is not reasonable to expect consumers to find and interpret online information about BPA in canned food, while they are standing at the cash register in a grocery store,” said the coalition. “Any information provided online should be in addition to, not in place of, product specific warnings.”
It also attacked the effort to extend the point-of-sale warning signs, calling it “bad public policy” that directly conflicts with the intent of Prop 65.
Six California legislators also criticised the plans. They recommended that instead, Oehha follow the precedent established with the shampoo ingredient cocamide DEA, where existing stock was addressed via the distribution of warning stickers to retailers.
US Senator Dianne Feinstein (D–California) urged the agency to require on-package labelling, calling point-of-sale signage “non-specific” and “easily overlooked”.Emergency regulation extension
In parallel to the regular rulemaking, the agency has submitted a proposal to the Office of Administrative Law to extend the existing emergency regulation – set to expire in mid-October – for another 90 days. Under California law, the latter can be in effect for no more than 180 days, unless renewed. Renewals cannot exceed two 90-day periods.
Oehha plans to adopt the formal rulemaking before the emergency regulation expires. This would supercede the stopgap measure.
It hopes to adopt an oral exposure safe harbour level, by the time the proposed regular rule would expire on 30 December 2017. But it is waiting for federal studies to be completed, before establishing this oral maximum allowable dose level (MADL).
https://chemicalwatch.com/50046/california-prop-65-bpa-proposal-comes-under-fire
-
(ACC Blog) Spray Foam Insulation Brings Ambitious Sustainability Goals Within Reach
Oct 4, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By Justin Koscher
In September, California Governor Jerry Brown signed ambitious climate change legislation that set an even higher bar than previous laws – California would now have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. This integrated plan to address climate change includes doubling energy efficiency savings at existing buildings. Along with other state efforts, including the California Public Utilities Commission’s announcement in 2007 to make all new homes in California zero net energy (ZNE) by 2020, California’s push to meet such lofty goals will require quick implementation of innovative building product solutions.
Spray polyurethane foam (SPF) insulation is an effective product solution that can increase the energy efficiency of buildings and reduce the carbon footprint of existing homes.* The Spray Foam Coalition will exhibit atGreenbuild 2016 in Los Angeles. At Greenbuild – the world’s largest conference and expo dedicated to green building – the Spray Foam Coalition will showcase how SPF insulation can help builders, architects and contractors achieve sustainability goals.
In the United States, residential and commercial buildings account for about 40 percent of total energy consumption, more than either the industrial or transportation sectors. SPF insulation can help increase the energy efficiency of buildings by sealing cracks and gaps in the walls and roofs and minimizing energy loss. The resulting reduction in building energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions could be significant. As California endeavors to double the energy efficiency savings of existing buildings, SPF insulation should be considered in builders’ and architects’ product selection process.
In addition to existing buildings, SPF insulation is a vital component for ZNE homes meeting new insulation requirements. A ZNE home produces as much energy as it consumes through energy efficient designs and on-site renewable energy sources. New ZNE homes will require builders to increase insulation R-values and decrease air leakage for maximum energy efficiency. Installed as a single product to provide a layer of insulation in walls, floors and ceilings, SPF can significantly reduce heating and cooling loads and minimize energy loss.
To learn more about spray foam insulation and its energy efficiency benefits, drop by the Spray Foam Coalition’s Booth #2705 at Greenbuild from October 5-6!
* Savings vary. Find out why in the seller’s fact sheet on R-values. Higher R-values mean greater insulating power.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2016/10/spray-foam-insulation-brings-ambitious-sustainability-goals-within-reach/
-
Crowd Roars As Trump Vows To Boost Fracking, Conserve Land
Oct 4, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Jennifer Yachnin
LOVELAND, Colo. — Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump last night rallied the capacity crowd at the Budweiser Events Center here to sometimes deafening cheers — vowing to support hydraulic fracturing, conserve public lands and bring back mining.
But his comments left at least one voter unmoved.
"The speech was predictable but had very good points," said Loveland resident Randy Fellure, sporting a plaid shirt, shorts and long gray beard. "He didn't make me a Trump supporter, but I'm already not a Hillary supporter."
Fellure said that if he had to mail in his vote today — Colorado begins distributing its mail-in ballots Oct. 17 — he might not vote in the hotly contested presidential contest.
"I'm a none-of-the-above guy, and I have been for a long time," Fellure added. "It pacifies people to think that their vote is important."
But other voters in the crowd — who waited in snaking lines to enter the arena located an hour north of Denver — praised Trump's speech or said they'd already made up their minds before coming to support the GOP nominee.
During his hourlong address, which mirrored the one he gave in Pueblo earlier in the day, Trump hit on key portions of his stump speech: vowing to expand domestic energy production, criticizing Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server during her time as secretary of State and vowing to build a massive wall along the U.S. border with Mexico.
Trump also added a new line to his repertoire, vowing to conserve public lands for sportsmen and anglers.
"Another great Colorado legacy is hunting and fishing. My sons love that. They're here all the time," Trump said in reference to sons Eric and Donald Jr., the latter of whom has served as the campaign's surrogate on those issues.
During a recent campaign stop in Grand Junction, Donald Trump Jr. said that if elected, his father would buck conservative GOP calls to transfer federal public lands to the control of states (E&ENews PM, Sept. 23).
"We are going to conserve your land for future generations, and we are going to save the 2nd Amendment, which is under siege," Trump added, one of his strongest applause lines in the speech.
Trump also briefly touched on his energy platform, which calls for expanded production of domestic oil and gas, as well as renewed coal production on federal lands.
"One other issue of such great importance to Colorado is energy. Hillary Clinton wants to shut down the mines," Trump said, referring to Clinton's statements that she would continue a federal moratorium on new coal leases on public lands.
"She also wants to shut down shale energy production, denying you billions of dollars in wealth and of course billions and hundreds of millions of jobs," Trump added. "We can't let that happen."
He then quoted Clinton's comments at a February debate, in which she refused to rule out a federal ban on hydraulic fracturing but said her administration would support strict rules on methane leaks and water contamination, effectively curtailing fracturing through regulation (E&E Daily, March 7). That prompted boos from the crowd.
"It's a lot of jobs. And when we want to compete with other countries, we better not think that way, because we are losing out big league," Trump said. "She also wants to shut down oil and natural gas production. Her anti-energy policies will take millions of jobs from Colorado, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida and so many other states."
He added: "We are going to end Hillary Clinton's war on Colorado energy, and we're going to put our miners back to work. Our miners are going back to work."
The former reality TV star and real estate mogul also spent time defending himself against a recent New York Times investigative report that found he may not have paid federal taxes for nearly two decades beginning in the 1990s.
While Trump did not reveal whether the 1995 tax returns cited by the newspaper were in fact his — referring instead to an "alleged filing" — he did compare the nearly $1 billion in losses he reportedly claimed to that of investor Warren Buffett and Democratic donor George Soros.Trump backers
Ahead of Trump's speech, voters who said they planned to support the Republican nominee praised him in part for his energy platform.
"He's for oil and gas, and he's pro-gun and small business," Berthoud resident John Holliday said as he waited in line to enter the arena.
Holliday, who said he owns a small business in the mining industry, pointed to Clinton's promises to create new regulations governing hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as fracking.
"Here in Colorado, there's been a lot of problems with fracking," Holliday said, referring to repeated attempts to put restrictions into the state constitution or local bans that have been struck down by the state Supreme Court.
Holliday, wearing a dark-blue T-shirt with Trump's campaign logo on it, said he has seen many friends lose jobs in the oil and gas industry's downturn in the state, adding of Trump: "His policies have the best chance of bringing that back."
Greeley resident Darrin Morse, dressed in a blue Western-style shirt and black 10-gallon hat, conceded he didn't know the details of Trump's platform but said he would support the GOP nominee.
"I'm not real sure what his energy policy is, but I know it's not the Democratic policy. I've seen too many friends lose their jobs," Morse said.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/10/04/stories/1060043799
-
Next ‘Renewable Energy’: Burning Forests, if Senators Get Their Way
Oct 4, 2016 | The New York Times
By Eduardo Porter
President Obama’s Clean Power Plan — the central plank in his strategy to combat climate change — is in danger.
It’s not just that it is under attack in court, where its legality was challenged last week by a coalition of 28 states and scores of companies and industry groups. Or that fossil fuel interests and Republicans in Congress will keep trying to block it, whatever the courts decide.
The president’s plan to reduce emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide from the nation’s power sector could be undone within a matter of weeks by an unlikely bipartisan collection of senators that includes staunch Republican climate change deniers as well as Democrats who support the administration’s strategy.
What’s the problem? They want to force the government to assume that burning forests to generate electricity does not add carbon dioxide to the air but is instead “carbon neutral.” As long as forests that have been cleared are regrown rather than turned into, say, subdivisions, language proposed by the senators argues that the Environmental Protection Agency and the Agriculture Department should recognize the wood and other organic matter pulled from a forest “as a renewable energy source.”
If they succeed, from next year to 2030 they will have added a cumulative total of at least 830 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the air,according to calculations by the Partnership for Public Integrity, an energy policy analysis group, based on a model used by the government’s Energy Information Administration to assess the impact of the Clean Power Plan.
That amounts to 64 million additional tons of carbon dioxide a year, on average, about the same amount that was produced by forest fires in the lower 48 states in 2013. It makes for a big hole in a plan that is supposed to cut annual emissions from the power sector by some 250 million tons between now and 2030.
The proposal not to count carbon from biomass is the work of Maine’s two senators — Susan Collins, a Republican, and Angus King, an independent — who introduced it into the Senate version of the energy bill passed earlier this year. It has broad support, and passed by a unanimous voice vote, according to those speaking for the chairman and ranking member of the Senate’s energy committee.
The Senate has strongly supported the benefits that biomass utilization can have, including instances in which it is a carbon-neutral source of energy,” they wrote in a statement. “Conversations about the amendment are expected to continue among the bill conferees, the amendment sponsors and other congressional colleagues as the energy bill moves through the conference process.”
While it is hard to handicap its chances, the biomass proposal could become law within weeks. Members of Congress are now working to reconcile the Senate’s bill with the one that passed in the House, which does not include this provision. Even if it fails to make it through, similar language has been attached to appropriations bills for the Interior Department, passed by both chambers and now undergoing reconciliation.
Forest and climate scientists, environmental groups and even doctors are scared. “The cost of getting biomass policy wrong is high,” Sami Yassa of theNatural Resources Defense Council said in a statement. “Burning biomass as a ‘zero-carbon’ fuel to comply could seriously erode the climate gains projected under the Clean Power Plan.”
The strongest proponents of “biomass neutrality” are, unsurprisingly, in heavily forested states where biomass industry groups have substantial sway. But those lawmakers believe they have a legitimate environmental argument: It makes sense not to count carbon dioxide from burning trees when the trees will grow back and recapture all the carbon released when they were burned.
There are a few problems with this thinking. Wood is not very efficient. In fact, burning trees to generate electricity generates more carbon per unit of power than using coal. Power companies would produce fewer emissions if they burned coal and left the forest alone to keep sucking carbon out of the air.
And there is the problem of timing. Sure forests regrow. But it takes many decades for seedlings to grow into trees and recapture all the carbon emitted.
“It’s a double whammy, because you remove an active sink that was sucking carbon out of the air,” said Mary S. Booth, director of the Partnership for Policy Integrity, which opposes the assumption that biomass is carbon neutral. “Under the most conservative assumptions you are worse off for 40 to 50 years.”
The world simply does not have that kind of time.
It is not surprising that power companies would rush to build more biomass generators if they were allowed to consider biomass carbon neutral. Meeting the Energy Information Administration’s estimate of demand for biomass power under this scenario from now to 2030 would require clear-cutting six million to eight million acres of forest, according to the partnership’s analysis.
Biomass proponents say more forests would be planted if timber were considered carbon neutral. Still, that is perhaps too speculative a proposition on which to base such a critical decision.
Indeed, according to the Energy Information Administration’s modeling, one of the core claims of biomass’s champions — that wood would take out coal — is wrong. It would replace solar energy instead: By 2030, installedphotovoltaic capacity would be some 20 percent higher in a scenario in which biomass carbon is counted than in one in which it is assumed to be carbon-free. Coal-fired generation, by contrast, does not change.
The White House is worried about the prospect of turning forests into sources of electricity. Earlier this year it objected to legislation that would stop the Environmental Protection Agency from making its own call on biomass based on its understanding of the science. Still, it is mostly staying out of the fray.
It is not crazy that members of Congress from states with big forestry industries would try in a big way to draw wood into the nation’s efforts to combat climate change. They must worry, too, about economic development and jobs. And yet creating the fiction that burning forests won’t contribute to climate change would defeat the purpose of climate policy.
If Mr. Obama thinks climate change is the most important challenge of our time, he might want to take a more muscular approach. According to scientists at the Energy Department’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the United States might end up 330 million tons short of the promise it made in Paris last year to cut greenhouse gas emissions in 2025 by 26 to 28 percent compared with 2005.
Burning forests won’t help recover the lost ground.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/05/business/economy/next-renewable-energy-burning-forests-if-senators-get-their-way.html
-
Final EPA Report On Water Impacts To Be Released By Year's End
Oct 4, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — U.S. EPA plans to finish its long-awaited report on hydraulic fracturing and water pollution by the end of the year, wrapping up a six-year process that has drawn fire from both environmentalists and the oil industry.
The agency is working through more than 100,000 comments it received on the draft version of the study and coordinating with the Executive Office of the President, said Mark Rupp, EPA's deputy associate administrator for congressional and intergovernmental relations, during a meeting of state oil and gas regulators here.
The timing of the final report means any action will, effectively, fall to the next administration.
The state agencies, gathered for a meeting of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, are concerned how the report will portray hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, a key process that has helped boost oil and gas production around the country.
"You guys are going to get the first phone call; we're going to get the second phone call," Mike Teague, Oklahoma's secretary of energy and environment, said during the meeting.
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, has been a flashpoint between state oil and gas regulators and EPA.
Fracking is typically used on deeper, denser rock formations that cannot be produced with conventional methods. In a typical "frack job," companies pump millions of gallons of water, mixed with sand and chemicals, into a well to break up the formation and release oil and gas.
Hydraulic fracturing has been around since the 1940s, but it took off in the early 2000s when companies combined it with horizontal drilling to open up new fields around the country. The boom pushed the oil industry into urban and suburban areas in Texas and Colorado, and into areas of Ohio and Pennsylvania that hadn't seen large-scale drilling in the modern era.
State agencies have contended that they are better positioned to regulate fracking and other aspects of oil development than EPA.
Green groups and landowners have complained that fracking — and the uptick in drilling overall — has led to water pollution around the country (EnergyWire, Sept. 27).
Congressional Democrats ordered EPA to study the impacts of fracking in 2009, and EPA began working on the study in 2010. A draft of the report released in 2015 found no "widespread, systematic" link between fracking and water contamination.
But the agency's own Science Advisory Board questioned that conclusion, saying the final report needs to do more to explain documented contamination in Dimock, Pa.; Pavillion, Wyo.; and Parker County, Texas (EnergyWire, Jan. 7).
Rupp didn't indicate at yesterday's meeting whether the final version of the report would change substantially from the draft.
Some of the state oil and gas regulators also questioned the age of the data used in the discussion and whether the study will discuss any gaps in the data or the need for further study. Regulations on drilling have evolved since the report was commissioned in 2010, and most of the major oil-producing states began requiring disclosure of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing between 2011 and 2013.
Rupp said the study will effectively be a snapshot of fracking's impact from a few years ago. The report won't discuss the health impacts of hydraulic fracturing, and it won't contain any policy recommendations, he said.
"We followed direction from Congress. They were looking for an analysis; that's what we provided them," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/10/04/stories/1060043789
-
Texas Activists Look To Stop Pipeline
Oct 4, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
Before the Dakota Access pipeline sparked a national debate, a group of activists in West Texas waged a battle against Energy Transfer Partners LP — the company behind Dakota Access — when it tried to run a 143-mile natural gas pipeline through Texas to Mexico.
These same activists held a march in solidarity with the Dakota Access protesters south of El Paso.
"This has really opened a lot of people's eyes &mdash pipelines everywhere &mdash and has brought to life the number of pipelines that are bursting or leaking throughout the United States," said Yolanda Bluehorse of the the American Indian Movement of Central Texas.
The group was not successful in stopping the construction of the Trans-Pecos pipeline, which is expected to be finished next year.
"If you look at a map of the United States and all the pipelines, it's crazy," said Lori Glover, an organizer of the recent march.
"Pipelines cover our country, and they're just making more and more, and it's at a frantic pace. And I don't think that they can do that safely, to be in such a rush to get all the natural resources out and then do that in a way that guarantees the safety of the community and the environment" (Tom Dart, London Guardian, Oct. 1). — AS
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/10/04/stories/1060043801
-
Dakota Access Oil Pipeline Review Approaches Another Juncture
Oct 4, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Labor unions on Monday alerted President Obama to what they consider to be a gross error by his administration in interfering last month with the construction of the $3.8 billion Dakota Access oil pipeline at a time when the courts are still sorting out lawsuits by the backers and opponents.
On Wednesday oral arguments are to be heard in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The heads of five unions, including the Laborers International Union of North America (LiUNA), urged Obama to "adhere to the well-established regulatory process" that applies to private-sector infrastructure projects. In this case, Dakota Access needs a previously approved federal easement for a water crossing issued "without delay."
Claiming to represent nearly 3.5 million workers, 8,000 of which are working on the four-state construction of Dakota Access, the union heads raised concerns about the future of infrastructure development in the United States if the Obama administration continues to hold up a major project that is more than half built and for which its federal permits were issued in July.
The project was "lawfully permitted and approved earlier this year after more than two years of review by the states of North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa and Illinois, as well as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE]," the union heads said. "It obtained more than 200 required permits and hundreds of easements for private and public lands."
Oral arguments will be heard in the U.S Appeals Court in Washington, DC, Wednesday as part of a review of a 58-page ruling last month by U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg, who concluded that the USACE "has likely complied" with the National Historic Preservation Act to assess the impact the oil pipeline's construction could have on cultural sites in North Dakota (see Shale Daily, Sept. 9).
A coalition of pipeline supporters, the Midwest Alliance for Infrastructure Now (MAIN), on Monday cited a NYU law professor's assessment that opponents of the pipeline are unlikely to win in the U.S. appeals court.
The union heads called Judge Boasberg's decision "thorough" and expressed deep concerns at the decision of the Departments of Justice and Interior, along with USACE, to intervene subsequently and delay the project. They asked Obama to "stand up for American workers, American infrastructure, and the federal civil servants who completed the thorough and thoughtful analysis" of the pipeline over a two-year period.
Signing the letter were LiUNA's Terry O'Sullivan; James Callahan with the International Union of Operating Engineers; James Hoffa with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters; William Hite of the United Association; and Lonnie Stephenson with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.
According to MAIN, the current focus is on an already-approved 1,000-foot portion of the nearly 1,200-mile pipeline route. Dakota Access is 70% completed and more than $2.6 billion has been spent. The effort is supported by more than 8,000 union jobs.
"MAIN continues to believe that as long as the final [Obama] administration and judicial decisions are based on the facts, science, engineering and the rule of law, Dakota Access pipeline will be allowed to become operational without additional delay."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/107970-dakota-access-oil-pipeline-review-approaches-another-juncture
-
North Dakota Sheriff Slams Dakota Access Protesters As Armed 'Rioters
Oct 4, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
A county sheriff helping to investigate a clash between Dakota Access pipeline protesters and private security guards blasted federal officials on Monday for declining to assist local law enforcement officials dealing with what he called armed "rioters" demonstrating against the project.
In a letter to the Department of Justice, Interior Department, and Army Corps of Engineers provided to POLITICO by a pipeline supporter, Mercer County Sheriff Dean Danzeisen warned that the federal agencies "should share responsibility if anyone is hurt" in the ongoing protests against the $3.7 billion, North Dakota-to-Illinois pipeline.
"Lest you think otherwise, these are not peaceful protesters," Danzeisen wrote. "They are armed, hostile, and engaged in training exercises which can only be intended to promote violence, whether on Corps property or elsewhere."
Environmental and tribal groups supporting the weeks-long protests against Dakota Access have repeatedly countered that their gathering is nonviolent. The Army Corps last month granted a permit to allow the anti-pipeline protest camp to legally operate on lands under its jurisdiction.
The Mercer County sheriff's office, alongside the Morton County sheriff, North Dakota state officials, and the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs, is part of a joint task force investigating a Sept. 3 skirmish between private security personnel and protesters.
The Interior Department, Army Corps, and Department of Justice did not immediately return a request for comment on the Mercer County sheriff's letter.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Pipeline Safety Regulator Releases Interim Final Rule On Emergency Orders
Oct 4, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration today released an interim final rule that codifies authority given to it by Congress in this year's bipartisan reauthorization law to impose emergency orders on multiple oil and gas line operators.
The interim rule may be changed after PHMSA receives public comments, but must be finalized within 270 days of enactment of its reauthorization law, which President Barack Obama signed in June.
The agency noted in its release that the new rule would not burden the industry with any additional costs because it "solely affects agency enforcement procedures to implement the emergency order provisions of the law."
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard -
FRA Directs Owners To Inspect, Repair Potentially Defective Tank Cars
Oct 4, 2016 | American Shipper
By Ben Meyer
The U.S. Federal Railroad Administration last week issued a new railworthiness directive to owners of certain DOT-111 tank cars built between 2009 and 2015 that may have “substantial weld defects.”
The U.S. Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is directing owners of certain Department of Transportation specification 111 (DOT-111) general purpose tank cars built between 2009 and 2015 to identify, inspect and repair potential defects.
FRA last week issued a new railworthiness directive to owners of DOT-111 tank cars built by American Railcar Industries, Inc. and ACF Industries, LLC during that timeframe that may have “substantial weld defects.”
The welding defects, which appear at the bottom of the tank car where two components allow for products to be offloaded, could affect the cars’ ability to retain its contents during travel, according to the directive. As such, the DOT-111s in question “may be in an unsafe operating condition and could result in the release of hazardous materials,” and continued use of the tank cars violates the requirements of Federal Hazardous Materials regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180), the administration said.
Regulators and industry advocates in the United States have pushed to retrofit or replace older DOT-111 and CPC-1232 tank cars as they are thinner and more likely to puncture than the newer DOT-117 models. Trains carrying flammable liquid in those older tank cars are, as a result, at a higher risk of leaking and/or catching fire in the event of a derailment.
Canadian Transport Minister Marc Garneau in July moved up the the country’s deadline for phasing out the older, less reliable tank cars for crude-by-rail transport to Nov. 1, 2016. The deadline for DOT-111s to be removed from service entirely for all flammable liquids remains April 30, 2025.
FRA said it issued the latest directive to “ensure public safety, ensure compliance with the applicable Federal regulations governing the safe movement of hazardous materials by rail, and ensure the railworthiness of the tank cars.”
According to Federal Railroad Administrator Sarah Feinberg, the directive requires owners to identify potentially affected tank cars in their fleet within 30 days and report any findings to the FRA; visually inspect cars to ensure there is no visible leak; and perform ultrasonic and surface inspections on identified cars to ensure no flaws exist that could result in the loss of tank integrity. If flaws are detected in the welds of the tank cars at any time during the inspection process, those cars must immediately be removed from service and repaired, Feinberg said in a recent DOT Fast Lane blog post.
“Tank cars with confirmed flaws that carry hazmat must be tested and repaired faster than cars that carry other products,” she added.
The good news, according to Feinberg, is that inspectors so far have found only a “small portion” of the tank cars manufactured by American Railcar and ACF between 2009 and 2015 to contain these flawed welds.
She said FRA was still in the process of determining what enforcement actions-if any-will be taken against the tank car manufacturers.http://www.americanshipper.com/main/news/fra-directs-owners-to-inspect-repair-potentially-d-65573.aspx?source=Little4
-
USDOT Awards Grants For Hazmat Preparation
Oct 4, 2016 | Progressive Railroading
The U.S. Department of Transportation's (USDOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration yesterday announced $20.4 million in grants to help states, territories and Native American tribes respond to transportation incidents involving hazardous materials.
The Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness (HMEP) grants are part of the USDOT's effort to improve the safe transportation of crude oil and other hazardous materials across the country. The grants are used to enable emergency response personnel to maintain the safety of themselves and the public when responding to emergencies involving hazardous materials.
"These grants are important tools for communities to plan and stay prepared for transportation incidents involving hazardous materials, including those involving high-hazard flammable trains," said U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx in a press release.
For this grant cycle, HMEP applicants were encouraged to allocate funding toward:
• developing or revising emergency plans and training activities to account for bulk transportation of energy product by rail and over the road;
• conducting commodity flow studies to determine the frequency and quantity of hazardous materials shipments being transported through local communities; and
• training emergency responders to respond appropriately to incidents involving hazardous materials.
Recipients will have up to three years for grant-funded projects to be completed.
For a list of the recipients and their grant amounts, click here.http://www.progressiverailroading.com/federal_legislation_regulation/news/USDOT-awards-grants-for-hazmat-preparation--49661
-
100 Sites Contribute 33% Of Industrial GHGs — Report
Oct 4, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
A select group of facilities are responsible for a large chunk of industrial air pollution in the United States.
A recent study from the Center for Public Integrity identified 22 sites, including Exxon Mobil Corp.'s facility in Baytown, Texas, that are releasing large amounts of emissions. The study compared two data sets and found that 100 facilities were responsible for around 33 percent of toxic air emissions in 2014; another 100 were responsible for a third of greenhouse gas emissions from industrial sites.
It found 22 sites that were on both lists. The owners of those sites reported 2014 profits of over $58 billion.
U.S. EPA has indicated it is trying to address this issue, stating that its policies have caused a significant reduction in power plant emissions since 1990. However, several states are resisting these efforts.
For instance, Indiana — the southwest region of which has four large polluters — has sued the agency over the Clean Power Plan along with 26 other states.
The center's study also found that those who lived within a 3-mile radius of the top 100 polluters tended to be poorer than the national average (Jamie Smith Hopkins, Center for Public Integrity, Sept. 29). — KB
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/10/04/stories/1060043779
-
Election Brings Uncertainty To Climate Policy
Oct 4, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
The next American president could hugely influence the direction of climate policy.
Although the topic hasn't been center stage in this election, some argue that it should be — 2016 is probably going to be the hottest year on record, and carbon dioxide levels have crossed the 400 parts per million threshold, which is the highest level in the last 800,000 years.
"When it comes to energy emissions that cause global warming, presidential choices strongly influence not only domestic U.S. actions, but also the degree to which these are leveraged by actions in other countries through international diplomacy," said Richard Newell, president and CEO of Resources for the Future.
Within this context, a White House inhabited by Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton or Republican nominee Donald Trump could have wildly different influences on climate policy. Trump has said he would cancel the Paris Agreement, and he's called climate change a hoax.
Clinton is focused on renewable energy, and her climate policies align with those of the Obama administration, though she has stopped short of supporting a price on carbon (Eric Roston,Bloomberg, Oct. 3). — KB
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/10/04/stories/1060043774
-
Obama, Prodded By A Star, Says Carbon Tax Is 'A Ways Away'
Oct 4, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Brittany Patterson
President Obama sang his swan song to climate change last night on the South Lawn of the White House.
Speaking at the first South By South Lawn festival, the president extolled how far the world has come in implementing climate solutions during his two terms but also acknowledged how far there is to go.
America must be a leader, he said, and everyone must take responsibility for communicating better about the threat of climate change.
"I think having an understanding that we're not going to complete this transition overnight — that there are going to be some compromises along the way — that's frustrating because science tells us we don't have time to compromise," Obama said. "On the other hand, if we want to get something done, we have to take people's current views into account."
In what may have been the first time the South Lawn was dotted with black and red flannel picnic blankets, hundreds of mostly young professionals listened to Obama and Texas Tech University climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe chat about the warming Earth and how to fix it. Their discussion lasted for more than an hour.
Actor Leonardo DiCaprio, who served as the moderator, set the tenor for the conversation early by proclaiming, "If you do not believe in climate change, you do not believe in science or facts or empirical truths, and in my opinion should not be allowed to hold public office."
The president's remarks carried a pragmatic overtone, and he acknowledged that his audience was fairly sympathetic. He noted, for example, that he sees natural gas and nuclear power as bridges to a cleaner energy future, despite the ire those fuels sometimes draw from environmental groups. Technological innovations, despite the time they take to mature, must be a part of the equation, he said.
Obama held up his administration's embattled Clean Power Plan — a U.S. EPA regulation that cuts carbon emissions from the power sector 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 but has been stayed by the Supreme Court as court battles play out — as an example of a regulatory policy that allows businesses to choose how to respond to a tumultuous energy landscape. That type of flexibility spurs innovation, Obama argued, and he held up environmental policies that reduced smog in Los Angeles and eliminated acid rain as success stories.
DiCaprio prodded both Obama and Hayhoe on the likelihood of America adopting a carbon tax in his lifetime. He said most scientists he spoke with while producing his climate change documentary "Before the Flood" — which debuted after the conversation — believe a carbon tax would be a "silver bullet."
On that matter, the crowd broke into applause, but Obama acknowledged that a carbon tax remains "a ways away."
The president also stressed the importance of not dismissing the concerns of ordinary Americans who worry that climate action could threaten their livelihoods. Instead, all Americans must do a better job of educating themselves, he said, so that those in Congress who deny the science eventually find that their constituencies won't stand for it.
"Climate change is almost perversely designed to be really hard to solve politically. It is a problem that creeps up on you," Obama said.
With that, he seemed to acknowledge the limits of his effort to fix the problem. But he also said that he reassures his staff, and perhaps himself, that "better is good."
"Better is not always enough," Obama added. "Better is not always ideal, and, in the case of climate change, better is not going to save the planet, but if we get enough better — each year we're doing something that's making more progress, moving us forward, increasing clean energy — then that's ultimately how we end up solving this problem."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/10/04/stories/1060043794
Industry and Association News -There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News -There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested