Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 10/25/2016
-
EPA Announces First Chemicals for “Fast-Track” Under New Chemical Law – Selection Highlights Law’s Limitations and Continuing Role for States
Oct 24, 2016 | Science Blogs
By Elizabeth Grossman
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced the first five chemicals it will “fast-track” under the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act for the 21st Century (LCSA). -
(ACC Mentioned) Three Limited-Use Pesticides More Carcinogenic, WHO Says
Oct 25, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Three restricted-use pesticides pose a greater potential to cause human cancer than previously estimated, a United Nations World Health Organization agency said Oct. 24. -
Plastic Bag Ban, Legal Marijuana on California Ballot
Oct 25, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
The fate of the nation's first-ever statewide ban on single-use plastic carry-out bags is in the hands of California voters. -
4-Tert-OPnEO Authorisation Would ‘Risk Patient Safety’, Bayer Says
Oct 25, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Echa’s proposal for authorisation for the substance 4-tert-OPnEO would put patient safety and the supply of live-saving drugs at risk, chemical company Bayer says. -
Petitioners Seek To Consolidate, Bifurcate Oil & Gas NSPS Suits
Oct 25, 2016 | Inside EPA
State and industry petitioners challenging EPA's new source performance standards (NSPS) for the oil and gas sector's methane emissions are asking an appellate court to consolidate their litigation with suits already pending in the circuit over the agency's 2012 NSPS rules that seek to curb volatile organic compounds (VOCs). -
Texas Leads US in Use of Renewable Energy
Oct 25, 2016 | Voice of America
By Greg Flakus
Texas, a state known for oil production, has become a leader in the development and use of renewable energy, especially wind power. -
Enterprise's Seaway Crude Pipeline System Shut After Cushing, Oklahoma Spill
Oct 24, 2016 | Reuters
By Devika Krishna Kumar and Liz Hampton
A leak late on Sunday prompted Enterprise Products Partners to shut its Seaway Crude Pipeline system, the largest conduit for moving oil from the major storage hub in Cushing, Oklahoma to Gulf coast refineries. -
Chemical Safety Board Says Multiple Errors Led To Fatal Accident
Oct 24, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jeff Johnson
Errors in process management and equipment led to a 2013 fatal explosion at the Williams Olefins Plant in Geismar, La., an investigation by the U.S. Chemical Safety Board concludes. -
Climate May Trigger Next Financial Crisis: U.K. Banker
Oct 25, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Emily Cadman
Climate change could spark the world's next financial crisis, according to Paul Fisher, who retired this year as deputy head of the Bank of England body which supervises the country's banks. -
The Business of Pricing Carbon
Oct 24, 2016 | The Energy Collective (In Real Clear Energy)
By Manjyot Bhan
More companies worldwide are turning to internal carbon pricing as an effective tool to spur the transition to low-carbon technologies, and C2ES is helping organizations to explore this frontier through a new working group to share best practices. -
One State Tests Liberals' Ability to Rally Around a Carbon Tax
Oct 24, 2016 | Christian Science Monitor
By Zack Colman
A debate on whether to tax carbon emissions in Washington State is laying bare divisions on the left about how far to push climate policy. -
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reach New Height
Oct 24, 2016 | UPI
By Daniel J. Graeber
Greenhouse gas emissions rose to a symbolic high last year and are at levels more than 40 percent higher than before the Industrial Revolution, a report said.
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 - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Oct 24, 2016 | Science Blogs
By Elizabeth Grossman
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced the first five chemicals it will “fast-track” under the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act for the 21st Century (LCSA). The EPA now has until June 22, 2019 to identify where these chemicals – all considered persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic – are used, how exposures occur, and propose possible restrictions on their use.
“The threats from persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals [PBTs] are well-documented,” Jim Jones, assistant administrator in EPA’s office of chemical safety and pollution prevention, explained in a statement. “The new law,” said Jones, “directs us to expedite action to reduce risks for these chemicals, rather than spending more time evaluating them. We are working to ensure the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act signed in June of this year delivers on the promise of better protecting the environment and public health as quickly as possible.”
This sounds promising. While it is a step forward in pushing the EPA to act, a look at these five chemicals and how they were “identified” – how the EPA explained the selection– raises questions about how effectively this provision of the law will enable the EPA to protect public health and the environment. As Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families director Andy Igrejas said in a statement,
“We fought to have this provision applied to a broader group of chemicals, but the chemical industry resisted. Nevertheless, expedited action even against these five chemicals will be a win for public health.”
How this LCSA provision works, also points to the ongoing importance of state action on toxics, say toxics reduction experts in states at the forefront of safer chemicals policies.
So what are these five chemicals and how were they chosen?
As described by the EPA they are:
· Decabromodiphenyl ethers (DecaBDE), used as a flame retardant in textiles, plastics and polyurethane foam;
· Hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD), used in the manufacture of rubber compounds and lubricants and as a solvent;
· Pentachlorothio-phenol (PCTP), used as an agent to make rubber more pliable in industrial uses;
· Tris (4-isopropylphenyl) phosphate, used as a flame retardant in consumer products and other industrial uses; and
· 2,4,6-Tris(tert-butyl)phenol, used as a fuel, oil, gasoline or lubricant additive.
The details of how these five were “identified” – EPA’s wording in explaining the selection – are a bit complicated. First, as the EPA explains, criteria in the LCSA were applied to chemicals previously listed on the EPA’s Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 2014 Work Plan. To rise to the top of the possible heap, the chemicals had to score high for environmental persistence and for bioaccumulation.
However, Congress excluded from possible LCSA fast-tracking any metals and metal compounds. It also excluded chemicals for which the EPA has already begun an evaluation or completed a TSCA Work Plan “problem formulation” – EPA’s analysis of hazards, exposures of concern, toxicity and other data. Further excluded are chemicals subject to a TSCA “consent agreement” – when the EPA requires a company to provide environmental or health effects data to determine if the substance presents unreasonable risks – and those for which the EPA has already received a LCSA risk evaluation request.
Toxic but not necessarily the most urgent
With these five categories of exclusions, the law appears likely to eliminate fast-track possibility for various chemicals that may be of greater urgency for regulation, notes Toxic Use Reduction Institute senior associate director and policy program manager Rachel Massey. Given the way the law works, “The five chemicals actually aren’t really EPA’s ‘choice’,” explains Environmental Defense Fund senior scientist Richard Denison.
“That PBTs are a priority and the EPA can move forward on these chemicals is good, but not as good as being able to move forward on more important chemicals,” says Holly Davies ofWashington State Department of Ecology’s hazardous waste and toxics reduction program. And, she points out, with the exception of the flame retardant tris (4-isopropylphenyl) phosphate, which is used in children’s products – and that her department has already recommended banning – and decaBDE, the other chemicals being fast-tracked are not ones with likely wide consumer exposure.
DecaBDE has already been voluntarily phased out of production in the U.S. It is still imported and used in products, but already subject to numerous restrictions under state laws, including some outright bans. “We banned deca nine years ago,” says Davies. Still, the EPA’s new action was welcomed as a way to get the flame retardant out of products nationwide.
With respect to the other chemicals on the fast-track list, HCBD is classified as a possible human carcinogen and listed by the Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants. It is no longer manufactured intentionally in the U.S., Europe, Japan, Mexico or Canada. According to the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), “Information on unintentional HCBD production is scarce,” and there is “no information on on-going uses of HCBD.”
Neither PCTP (used in rubber manufacture) nor 2,4,6-Tris(tert-butyl)phenol (used in fuels and other chemical manufacturing), are tracked by the EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory so it’s hard to know where they’re used or released in the U.S. Both are highly persistent and bioaccumulative but the European Union currently lists neither as “substances of very high concern.”
So while these five chemicals are undeniably toxic, there are many others not receiving this fast-track attention that may be of more widespread concern. “To the extent that the EPA is not taking on the most potentially high priority chemicals, it’s really important for the states to continue their work on these chemicals,” says Massey.
And says Davies, “It’s important for states to keep looking at chemicals not on the EPA’s first lists” under the new federal law.
http://scienceblogs.com/thepumphandle/2016/10/24/epa-announces-first-five-chemicals-for-fast-track-action-under-new-chemical-law/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Three Limited-Use Pesticides More Carcinogenic, WHO Says
Oct 25, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Three restricted-use pesticides pose a greater potential to cause human cancer than previously estimated, a United Nations World Health Organization agency said Oct. 24.
Meanwhile, a House Committee is investigating funding the U.S. National Institutes of Health provides the UN cancer research agency, as environmentalists charge that the funding investigation is spurred by an industry effort to shut down science.
An expert panel convened by WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer, or IARC, announced Oct. 24 upgrades of the carcinogenic potential previously estimated for three pesticides. Use of all three pesticides is restricted under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. The pesticides and classifications are:
• pentachlorophenol, which the Stockholm Convention said can be used only for utility poles, is “carcinogenic to humans,” an upgrade from its previous “possibly” carcinogenic to humans classification; and
• aldrin and dieldrin, which the Stockholm Convention allows to control a few pests, are “probably” carcinogenic to humans, which in 1987 were found to be inconclusive.
The panel classified a fourth chemical, 2,4,6-trichlorophenol—a wood preservative and leather treatment (CAS No. 88-06-2)—as “possibly” carcinogenic to humans—the same conclusion a previous IARC panel reached in 1987.A fifth chemical, 3,3',4,4'-tetrachloroazobenzene (CAS No. 14047-09-07), which is unintentionally formed during the production and degradation of certain herbicides including propanil, linuron and diruon, is “probably” carcinogenic to humans, the IARC panel said.
Limited Uses
The panel's specific findings are unlikely to cause pesticide manufacturers heartburn due to the limited uses or production of the five chemicals.
In a statement, the pesticide trade association CropLife America said it is disappointed that IARC continued its hazard-based approach to the assessment of crop protection chemicals.
“Over the past 18 months, the IARC approach to the assessment of the hazard of specific cancers from chemical substances has been decried by a number of governments, and as well as by industry associations,” CropLife said.
A hazard classification means a chemical could cause a particular health effect, in this case cancer. The hazard classification does not address the ways people are exposed or the concentrations of the chemical to which people could be exposed. Yet that exposure information could play a critical role in determining if the chemical increased the public's risk of cancer.
In March 2015, IARC classified glyphosate, the most widely used pesticide in the world and forms part of Monsanto's blockbuster Roundup products—in addition to pesticides made by other manufacturers—as a “probably” carcinogenic to humans.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concluded in an issue paper released Sept. 16 that glyphosate is “unlikely” to cause cancer. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) said in November 2015 that glyphosate was “unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans,” although dozens of scientists faulted that conclusion in a commentary published March 3 in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.
House Committee Investigation
IARC's classification of glyphosate and its October 2015 classification of red meat as a probable human carcinogen prompted the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform launched an investigation in September into the National Institutes of Health's funding of IARC.
The committee's letter says IARC's hazard classifications cause “controversy and alarm,” and influence U.S. policies while avoiding the scrutiny afforded to domestic science advisory committees. For example, the state of California considers IARC an authoritative agency when crafting state chemical policies and in labeling requirements.
The committee sought details on the National Health Institute's funding of the World Health Organization agency, saying database searches of the institutes’ grants show they have provided IARC millions of dollars since 1992.
This funding supports a range of IARC activities including the maintenance of cancer registries in developing countries, research on the mechanisms by which tumors occur and the expert panels that classify the carcinogenicity of chemicals, pesticides and other environmental exposures and lifestyle factors, according to Bloomberg BNA's research. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Cancer Institute has funded IARC since 1982 with sufficient money to support two working groups a year that produce cancer classification reviews. In fiscal year 2015, NCI provided $859,000 in support for IARC cancer reviews.
A committee aide told Bloomberg BNA Oct. 18 that the investigation has resulted in gathering some information from NIH but expects that more will be forthcoming.
In an Oct. 5 letter IARC sent to National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, IARC's director, Christopher Wild, defended the “scientific rigor, standardized and transparent process” the agency uses to reach its hazard classifications.
Wild also defended the science the agency used in its classification of glyphosate in separate Oct. 4letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy.
‘Dangerous Precedent': Environmentalists
Jennifer Sass, a senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council, spoke with Bloomberg BNA after the House Committee launched its investigation.
“It's a dangerous precedent,” Sass said. CropLife America, the American Meat Institute, and the American Chemistry Council, which wrote an Oct. 18 letter to House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) commending the committee's investigation, are trying to shut down science and deny the public information it has a right to know, she said.
IARC's hazard classifications are difficult to communicate, Sass acknowledged. Companies in the supply chain have different perspectives than pesticide manufacturers do, Sass said. She referenced a widely circulated e-mail from a U.S. Food and Drug Administration scientist concerning research that found trace levels of glyphosate in honey. The presence of glyphosate was a technical violation, but not a safety risk, the e-mail said.
Food producers that use honey want to know about hazards, “they want to sell safe products,” Sass said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=99455942&vname=dennotallissues&fn=99455942&jd=99455942
-
Plastic Bag Ban, Legal Marijuana on California Ballot
Oct 25, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
The fate of the nation's first-ever statewide ban on single-use plastic carry-out bags is in the hands of California voters.
Measures backed by the plastic bag industry seeking to overturn the 2014 law are among four initiatives with environmental implications on California's statewide Nov. 8 ballot.
Proposition 67 asks voters to repeal or confirm the law (S.B. 270) that was to be phased in beginning July 1, 2015, but suspended after the industry scored enough signatures to qualify the measure for the 2016 ballot. The related Proposition 65 aims to redirect to environmental programs a 10-cent bag fee that currently goes to grocers to cover their costs of implementing the ban.
Also on the ballot are Proposition 53, a proposed constitutional amendment seeking voter approval for any single project financed with a state revenue bond over $2 billion andProposition 64, which would legalize recreational use of marijuana that would include regulations to avoid environmental harm from growing cannabis.
Propositions 65 and 67
S.B. 270 marked a victory for environmental groups seeking to eliminate the thin plastic bags grocers and other retailers use. The bags wind up in landfills, litter streets and parks, beaches, mountain and desert areas and wash into storm drains, rivers and streams and the ocean. They threaten wildlife and marine life, Julie Packard, executive director of the Monterey Bay Aquarium, said in the state's voter guide.
The American Progressive Bag Alliance, an industry-backed group, has spent more than $6.1 million on Propositions 65 and 67 and wants voters to overturn the law, or at the very least, block retailers from keeping the bag fees collected from consumers.
Claims the bags create blight in communities are overblown, Jon Berrier, a spokesman for the alliance, a project of The Society of the Plastic Industry, told Bloomberg BNA. One study showed the bags accounted for only 1 percent of the litter in communities, so “banning them is not going to reduce litter,” he said.
‘Misguided Law.’
“This is a terribly misguided law,” Berrier said, calling S.B. 270 “a special interest giveaway to grocers under the guise of an environmental measure.”
The law allows grocers to keep millions of dollars year in bag fees, he said. The ban also stands to eliminate 25,000 jobs at plastic bag manufacturers across the country, including 2,000 in California, Berrier said.
Proposition 65 would require the bag fees that retailers charge for recyclable paper bags go to an environment fund administered by the state's Wildlife Conservation Board. If the ban is repealed and Proposition 65 passes, any future statewide ban would require any bag fees go to the environmental fund.
By the time S.B. 270 was signed into law, more than 100 California cities and counties had already imposed bans. The plastic bag industry fought the bans, often in the courts.
Retailers prefer a single, consistent statewide ban.
150 Local Bans
Now, more than 150 communities, covering more than 40 percent of the state have adopted bag bans, Mark Murray of the Californians Against Waste told Bloomberg BNA.
“Plastic litter has been reduced by 59 percent in parks and on roadsides and 76 percent in creeks and rivers,” Murray said. “A yes vote on Prop 67 will finish the job, eliminating the remaining 25 million plastic bags that continue to be generated in California every day.”
The “Yes” on Proposition 67 campaign has spent over $1.9 million, which includes grocers and environmental groups, to preserve the ban.
Proposition 64
Should California voters pass Proposition 64 to legalize the recreational use of marijuana and tax its sale and cultivation, 20 percent of the new revenue would support cleanup and prevention of the environmental damage stemming from “illegal marijuana grows,” as the crops are known, including illegal water use and diversion and pesticide pollution.
“Proposition 64 is not just a landmark social-justice movement – it's an important environmental measure that, for the first time, meaningfully addresses the harms caused by illegal marijuana grows and water diversion across California's precious natural landscape,” Jason Kinney, a spokesman for the Yes on 64 campaign, told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail. “That's why it's the first marijuana policy measure ever endorsed by the California League of Conversation Voters and Planning and Conservation League.”
The measure would “build upon and expand” environmental protections in recently enacted medial marijuana laws and “provide hundreds of millions of dollars in new funding” to restore lands harmed by illegal cultivation and enforce laws against illegal growing, Kinney said.
Under Proposition 64, all licensees would have to comply with state laws and regulations related to environmental impacts, natural resources protection, water quality, water supply and pesticide use. The measure also would require growers to obtain water use permits and have to use “unique identifier” program to help ensure compliance with laws.
A multi-agency task force initially established to address environmental impacts from the illegal growing of medical marijuana would enforce laws to curb cultivation illegal cultivation of nonmedical cannibus, under the measure.
The No on 64 campaigns include several law enforcement groups, anti-drug organizations, California Hospital Association and others who say the initiative fails to adequately address public safety concerns, would put local small growers at a competitive disadvantage and expose children to sweets made from marijuana.
Polls show voters favoring Proposition 64.
The Yes on 64 has contributed $19.8 million to the measure, compared to the “No” campaign's nearly $2.5 million.
Proposition 53
Proposition 53, the measure requiring voter approval for state-financed projects over $2 billion, could interfere with the California Water Fix, Gov. Jerry Brown's (D) plan to build two tunnels to move water through the Sacramento-San Joaquin River delta, and a high-speed rail project. It has the backing of a wealthy, retired farmer, Dean “Dino” Cortopassi, an opponent of the two projects who has spent nearly $5 million on the measure, state financial reporting data shows.
Meanwhile, Brown's 2014 reelection committee, contractors, business and labor groups, local governments, public safety groups and others have contributed over $11.3 million to fight approval of Proposition 53.
Threat to Water Projects
Opponents say the measure could block important state and local water supply, transportation and other infrastructure projects. The measure also lacks an exemption for emergencies and natural disasters, delaying the ability to rebuild after earthquakes, wildfires and floods, the “No” groups say.
“In November 2014, Californians overwhelmingly passed Proposition 1 to advance a wide range of water projects and vital water infrastructure,” Tim Quinn, executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies, told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail.
“Proposition 53, if passed, will threaten major storage projects and other large scale investments that require the involvement of the state,” Quinn said. “Also, because of the legal uncertainty Proposition 53 would clearly create, it could undermine the success of a wide array of other local projects. Requiring a statewide vote for local projects that local citizens support and are willing to pay for robs those communities of their local discretion.”
The fiscal effects on state and local governments are unknown, the state Legislative Analyst office said in its review of Proposition 53. The measure is likely to cover only the largest projects that seek financing through revenue bonds. Proposition 53 fails to define a “project,” so the courts and state would need to make decisions on what single project would be subject to voter approval, the Legislative Analyst said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=99455925&vname=dennotallissues&fn=99455925&jd=99455925
-
4-Tert-OPnEO Authorisation Would ‘Risk Patient Safety’, Bayer Says
Oct 25, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Echa’s proposal for authorisation for the substance 4-tert-OPnEO would put patient safety and the supply of live-saving drugs at risk, chemical company Bayer says.
Echa proposed that the SVHC, which is widely used in paints and coating products, be subject to authorisation because it is used in high volumes and has widespread applications.
The substance can degrade to 4-tert-octylphenol (4-tert-OP) in wastewater treatment plants, sediments and soils. The latter has been identified as an SVHC, due to its endocrine disrupting properties for the environment.
In written feedback to the European Commission, Bayer said emissions of 4-tert-OPnEO are very low at its facilities and did not pose a risk for the environment.
The company is a third party in the consultation process as it sources the substance from another supplier. It says it is “vital” in the manufacturing process of one of its drugs, which it did not want to name.
“If this substance is banned, we will have to withdraw the drug from the market and this will have severe consequences for patient safety,” a Bayer spokesman told Chemical Watch.
A potential substitution is “probably not feasible”, he said, because it would be a significant regulatory, costly and time-consuming undertaking, including new clinical studies on patients.
If the substance was added to Annex XIV, Bayer would need very long review periods of more than 12 years to guarantee the supply of its drug, the spokesman said.
The substance is subject to a four- to six-week industry consultation. After that, it is likely to be six months before Echa reaches a final decision, Bayer said.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50514/4-tert-opneo-authorisation-would-risk-patient-safety-bayer-says
-
Petitioners Seek To Consolidate, Bifurcate Oil & Gas NSPS Suits
Oct 25, 2016 | Inside EPA
State and industry petitioners challenging EPA's new source performance standards (NSPS) for the oil and gas sector's methane emissions are asking an appellate court to consolidate their litigation with suits already pending in the circuit over the agency's 2012 NSPS rules that seek to curb volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
In an Oct. 21 motion, lawyers for the American Petroleum Institute (API) and a slew of states also asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to bifurcate briefing in the consolidated suits into two separate briefing schedules, with one addressing fundamental legal issues and a second dealing with implementation-based challenges.
The motion in State of North Dakota, et al., v. EPA proposesa time frame of 30 days after the court resolves the motion to submit a briefing schedule on the legal issues. And it asks that the court hold in abeyance the implementation-based issues until after the groups have had time to discuss potential settlement measures on those issues.
“The purpose of this request is to proceed in the most efficient way to address the Rules’ fundamental legal issues expeditiously before this Court while providing the Parties with an opportunity to engage in settlement discussions on certain implementation-based issues that may allow them to resolve such issues without litigation,” the motion says.
The motion says that bifurcating the briefing would allow the court to promptly resolve the “fundamental legal issues related to whether EPA has authority under the [Clean Air Act] to issue the Rules and regulate methane emissions, and if so, whether EPA appropriately exercised such authority.”
The fundamental legal issues the states and industry groups are asking the court to address promptly include whether the rule violates the air law because EPA failed to make a separate finding that methane endangers human health and the environment and that the oil and natural gas sector poses a “significant contribution;” whether EPA's use of a set of white papers to support the rule was lawful; the agency's novel social cost of methane estimates, and other issues.
At issue is litigation over EPA's June 3 NSPS, which included first-time methane controls, as well as pending suits over the agency's 2012 NSPS rule setting limits for VOCs and a 2014 reconsideration rule related to the 2012 standards.
The rules are part of a package of measures issued by EPA governing releases from the oil and gas sector.
Last week, the agency issued voluntary guidelines that aim to help states in ozone nonattainment limit harmful emissions.
Meanwhile, EPA in a separate Oct. 21 motion is asking the court to to order the parties in the suit to submit briefing proposals within 30 days after all pending procedural motions have been resolved, saying “an interval of 30 days after disposal of the procedural motions would be sufficient to allow the parties to consult regarding their proposals.”
http://insideepa.com/news-briefs/petitioners-seek-consolidate-bifurcate-oil-gas-nsps-suits
-
Texas Leads US in Use of Renewable Energy
Oct 25, 2016 | Voice of America
By Greg Flakus
Texas, a state known for oil production, has become a leader in the development and use of renewable energy, especially wind power. And solar energy production is growing rapidly in the “Lone Star state” spurred on by the state’s abundant sunshine and the sharp drop in the price of solar panels in recent years.
Kerry hails Texas research
Back in April, just after taking part in the signing of the Paris Climate Summit agreement in which world nations committed themselves to a concrete plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry visited a University of Texas solar research site in Austin. He spoke of both the environmental and economic benefits of solar energy development.
“Millions of jobs will be created in the building of, and in the maintenance and running of, these kinds of energy production facilities,” Kerry said.
Kerry also met with some of the Texas business leaders and entrepreneurs who have developed both wind and solar energy resources, aided by the state’s investments in infrastructure. The state has invested in high-power lines to bring electricity from wind turbines in remote areas of west Texas to big urban centers in central Texas.
While Kerry and President Barack Obama encourage the development of renewable, clean energy sources to combat global warming, that issue has less traction in Texas. The conservative Republicans who control state government are skeptical of climate change, so their backing of renewables is all about cost.
The business of clean energy
One of the businessmen who met with Kerry, Michael Skelly of Cleanline Energy, said he expects state support for this growing segment of the Texas economy to continue.
“You will see, over the next five or 10 years, a lot more investment in the grid and that, too, will facilitate more solar generation,” said Skelly.
Another participant was Andy Bowman, chairman of Pioneer Green Energy, a company that has mostly focused on wind, but is now developing solar projects.
“A lot of wind companies have evolved to include solar and wind because solar has become so cheap. It is quite competitive with not only wind, but with fossil (fuel) generation,” Bowman told VOA.
Experts see shifts in energy sector
Jennifer Ronk, a renewable energy expert at the Houston Advanced Research Center, told VOA electrical energy production will increasingly involve a variety of energy sources. She said it makes sense for a new energy company to develop both wind and solar.
Wind is most active at night, “which is not when we have our highest usage," she explained. "So, to be able to put up some solar panels, which obviously produce more in the daytime, balances out the system a lot.”
One major goal of renewable energy developers has been to come up with a means of storing energy produced at times when there is slack demand so that it can be used at times when there is more need. Ronk said the research on developing better batteries for electric cars, computers and smartphones has helped the effort to build big batteries.
“There is a lot of research being done, a lot of development being done,” she said. “I think it is going to be interesting to see what happens in the next three to five years.”
Ronk said the use of coal is likely to decrease further in the years ahead in Texas and elsewhere, mainly because of cheaper and cleaner-burning natural gas. But she said it is unlikely that the electrical grid will be powered entirely by clean, renewable energy for many years to come.
“I don’t think the world is going to shut off all major power plants everywhere and run everything on solar. That’s not where we are going long-term,” she said. “I think there is a mix of solutions that are going to be the optimal outcome.”
She said use of natural gas for generating electricity will continue to be cost effective, but nuclear power is stalled. She said modern nuclear reactors could provide a lot of clean energy, but the costs and public fears of devastating accidents have reduced its appeal.
http://www.voanews.com/a/texas-leads-us-in-use-of-renewable-energy/3565024.html
-
Enterprise's Seaway Crude Pipeline System Shut After Cushing, Oklahoma Spill
Oct 24, 2016 | Reuters
By Devika Krishna Kumar and Liz Hampton
A leak late on Sunday prompted Enterprise Products Partners to shut its Seaway Crude Pipeline system, the largest conduit for moving oil from the major storage hub in Cushing, Oklahoma to Gulf coast refineries.
News of the leak dragged U.S. crude prices lower on Monday on worries that shutting down the 850,000 barrel-per-day (bpd) Seaway system would bottle up barrels in storage in Cushing, the delivery point for the benchmark West Texas Intermediate (WTI) futures contract.
U.S. crude futures slipped 1.3 percent in afternoon trading, while international benchmark Brent crude futures fell about 1.2 percent.
Enterprise said on Monday it had shut down the 400,000-bpd pipeline, which it calls its legacy line, but did not provide an estimate of the volume spilled. The total amount released would not be determined until recovery efforts were complete, the company said.
The company on Monday afternoon said it had restarted its 450,000 bpd Seaway Twin, which was shut as a precaution.
Most of the oil released was contained in a retention pond at a facility belonging to Enbridge Inc, a joint owner of the Seaway Crude Pipeline Company with Enterprise.
Enterprise said there was no threat to the public and no evacuations were ordered following the spill, located near the intersection of Linwood Avenue and Texaco Road in Cushing.
The company was working with emergency responders and law enforcement to address the situation.
A spokeswoman from the U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) said the organization was aware of the spill and officials were despatched to take corrective measures and relief.
The spill comes at a time of concern and debate by environmental activists and energy firms over the issues of pipeline safety and security.
Climate-change activists earlier this month disrupted the flow of millions of barrels of crude from Canada to the United States, in support of a Native American tribe protesting the construction of the controversial Dakota Access crude oil pipeline.
The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe has protested the construction of the $3.7 billion Dakota Access pipeline that will carry oil from North Dakota to the U.S. Gulf Coast, over fears of potential damage to sacred land and water supplies.
The news pushed the discount between front-month U.S. crude futures and the second-month to 69 cents, the widest in nearly two months. The prompt crude spread, often correlates to the supply-demand balance in Cushing.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pipeline-operations-seaway-oklahoma-idUSKCN12O16D
-
Chemical Safety Board Says Multiple Errors Led To Fatal Accident
Oct 24, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jeff Johnson
Two workers died in 2013 Williams Olefin chemical plant explosion
Errors in process management and equipment led to a 2013 fatal explosion at the Williams Olefins Plant in Geismar, La., an investigation by the U.S. Chemical Safety Board concludes.
Two workers died, and 167 other workers reported injuries after hydrocarbons leaked from a plant operation, formed a vapor cloud, and ignited.
The facility produces ethylene and propylene that are used by the petrochemical industry, said CSB Chair Vanessa Allen Sutherland, who unveiled the board’s conclusions last week in Louisiana.
A “reboiler”—a heat exchanger that supplies heat to a distillation column—catastrophically ruptured and caused the accident, CSB says in its report on the incident. The reboiler that failed was one of two in the system that provided heat to the propylene fractionator—a distillation column that separates propylene and propane.
The second reboiler was a backup and had been offline for 16 months. Plant officials assumed the backup reboiler was clean and available for use. When the operating reboiler appeared to have fouled, plant operators began to shift operations to the idle reboiler.
The plant operators did not know that the standby reboiler contained hydrocarbons and its pressure relief system was not in proper order, CSB found.
As the reboiler’s heat increased, the confined liquid hydrocarbons expanded, resulting in a quick and dramatic pressure rise within the vessel. The shell ruptured, causing a release, an expanding vapor explosion, and a fire.
A series of process safety management program deficiencies over the 12 years before the accident allowed the reboiler to be unprotected from overpressure problems, according to CSB.
After the incident, Williams Olefins redesigned the reboilers, improved its management of change process to be more collaborative, and updated its process hazard analysis procedures, CSB says. Further improvements are needed, the agency adds.
CSB took three years to complete its report of the investigation. According to CSB investigator Lauren Grim, the time was needed to conduct metallurgical analysis, run computerized accident scenarios, and gather input from accident experts and others.
https://cen.acs.org/articles/94/web/2016/10/Chemical-Safety-Board-says-multiple.html
-
Climate May Trigger Next Financial Crisis: U.K. Banker
Oct 25, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Emily Cadman
Climate change could spark the world's next financial crisis, according to Paul Fisher, who retired this year as deputy head of the Bank of England body which supervises the country's banks.
“It is potentially a systemic risk,” Fisher said Oct. 24 in an interview in Sydney. A sudden repricing of assets as a result of climate change “could be the trigger for the next financial crisis,” he added.
Fisher, a 26-year-veteran of the U.K. central bank, pointed to the renewed fall in sterling earlier this month, after the government set out a timetable for leaving the European Union, as an example of the way that prices can shift suddenly. “That is exactly the sort of event you might get with climate change,” said Fisher, formerly deputy head of the U.K.’s Prudential Regulation Authority.
Signs that governments are growing increasingly serious about tackling climate change suggest that businesses need to be ready for greater regulation, Fisher said.
China and the U.S. agreed at the Group of 20 meeting in Hangzhou last month to ratify the Paris accord designed to limit global warming, bringing two of the world's largest emitters of carbon pollution on board with an agreement to control temperature increases. A paper presented to the Hangzhou G-20 meeting by the U.K.’s Cambridge Centre for Sustainable Finance urged financial institutions to improve the way they assess climate risks.
“You don't need to believe in climate change, you don't need to believe that it is man-made,” Fisher said. “You just need to believe that governments are going to do stuff and that is going to affect your business. And then it is a material risk.“
Valuation Risk
Risks associated with climate change come both from the effect on valuations of the transition toward a lower carbon economy, as well as from the cost of adapting if global warming isn't checked, according to Andrew Gray, an investment manager at AustralianSuper, the country's largest pension fund. “Climate change is a genuine investment risk,” Gray said at a Citigroup Inc. conference in Sydney last week.
Fisher said there's a possibility of unexpected moves in financial markets as a result of climate change. He warned of the chance of a “system-wide repricing of assets happening quite suddenly.“
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=99455923&vname=dennotallissues&fn=99455923&jd=99455923
-
The Business of Pricing Carbon
Oct 24, 2016 | The Energy Collective (In Real Clear Energy)
By Manjyot Bhan
More companies worldwide are turning to internal carbon pricing as an effective tool to spur the transition to low-carbon technologies, and C2ES is helping organizations to explore this frontier through a new working group to share best practices.
By putting a price on the carbon pollution associated with business activity, companies can account for their operations’ climate impact and incentivize actions to achieve their emissions reduction goals. Pricing carbon also responds to stakeholder and investor calls for climate action and prepares businesses for future carbon pricing regulation.
According to CDP, more than 1,200 companies either currently price their carbon emissions, or plan to within the next two years. Meanwhile, more than 120 companies have joined the World Bank Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition that brings together government, the private sector, and civil society to support effective carbon pricing systems and policies.
This movement isn’t restricted to developed economies. This month, Mahindra & Mahindrabecame the first Indian company to implement an internal carbon fee (US $10 per ton) to help achieve its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 25 percent over the next three years.
There are a range of ways to implement an internal carbon pricing strategy. The most direct is an internal carbon fee, such as the one Microsoft uses in its pioneering program.
Microsoft, which pledged in 2012 to go carbon neutral, implemented an internal carbon price in 2013 to help reach its goal. Microsoft charges the fee on the company’s scope 1 (direct) and scope 2 (purchased electricity) emissions, including its global data centers, as well as a part of its scope 3 emissions (business air travel).
The fee has helped the company reduce its carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions by 7.5 million tons, achieve $10 million in annual energy savings, and invest in 10 billion kilowatt hours of renewable energy as well as support carbon offset projects around the world.
TJ DiCaprio, Microsoft’s senior director of environmental sustainability, said the benefits of the internal carbon fee include:It’s easier to target action. By quantifying the carbon emissions of different parts of the organization, it became clear where reductions were possible to meet the company’s carbon neutrality pledge.It provides incentive to act. The fee for emissions is charged to each department’s budget. This motivates decision-makers to take meaningful action toward emissions reductions, find low-carbon alternatives, and invest in carbon-saving projects. Even simple steps, such as reducing airline travel, made a real difference in the final accounting.It creates a dedicated funding source for action. The fees charged to departments are placed in a centralized fund that Microsoft uses for a variety of projects, from purchasing carbon offsets to investing in programs supporting e-waste recycling.
Among the key lessons for other companies from Microsoft’s experience:Set clear objectives you would like your carbon pricing model to meet.Align your carbon pricing model to support those objectives.Anchor the carbon price across all business units to drive accountability, employee engagement, and a cultural and behavioral change.
While an internal carbon fee prices carbon pollution directly, companies are also using indirect strategies, such as shadow pricing and implicit pricing.
Shadow pricing—a more common approach—is used by companies including BHP Billiton, Duke Energy, EMC, Google, NRG and Shell, as a risk assessment tool. It is the hypothetical or assumed cost of carbon emissions used to evaluate large investment decisions and profitability of projects in light of government regulation and/or the impacts of climate change. Compared to the more direct approach that companies such as Microsoft are taking, however, shadow pricing is not actually reflected in a company or division’s profit and loss statement, thus it may not have the same incentivizing effect.
Implicit pricing, another form that is used by companies including Unilever and Novo Nordisk, is simply a price calculated based on how much a company spends to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, including the cost of complying with regulations. Here, the price reflects actions taken, rather than being a charge that drives change. Recognizing how much a company spends to meet its internal greenhouse gas targets and/or regulatory requirements can encourage greater action. Some companies, for example, employ an implicit pricing strategy as the first step before establishing a direct carbon fee.
Internal carbon pricing is a relatively new tool that can play a critical role in helping companies achieve aggressive greenhouse gas reductions. Through our Business Environmental Leadership Council, C2ES is engaging companies on internal carbon pricing strategies. Please contact us if your company would like to learn more about internal carbon pricing as a business strategy.
For more information on the C2ES Working Group on Internal Carbon Pricing, contact C2ES Policy and Business Fellow Manjyot Bhan.
http://www.theenergycollective.com/manjyot/2391198/the-business-of-pricing-carbon
-
One State Tests Liberals' Ability to Rally Around a Carbon Tax
Oct 24, 2016 | Christian Science Monitor
By Zack Colman
A debate on whether to tax carbon emissions in Washington State is laying bare divisions on the left about how far to push climate policy.
Perhaps to the surprise of many, a ballot measure to tax carbon is getting a thumbs down from many environmental groups, communities of color, and labor unions.
This opposition comes despite the initiative's appeal as a green issue. Putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions is one of the most basic strategies that’s been touted for years as a way to reduce the buildup of greenhouse gases linked to climate change. The problem: There’s sizable disagreement of what to do with the revenues generated from a carbon fee.
The Washington stalemate over Initiative 732, as it’s known, is a preview for other state carbon tax battles, and possibly for what will occur on the federal level should Congress ever test the carbon tax waters.
"The complexities and tensions are a good sign that more people with different perspectives are getting serious about climate policy,” says K.C. Golden, senior policy advisor with Seattle-based Climate Solutions, which opposes the carbon tax. "The media like to play up the skirmishes, but what I see is growing and broadening momentum for real climate policy.”
Where should the revenue go?
The Washington proposal would give manufacturers a tax break, lower the state sales tax and increase a tax incentive for low-income families. But opposing groups, aligned as the Alliance for Jobs and Clean Energy, want to put that money toward clean energy and public transit deployment, bolstering green jobs and energy in communities of color and other measures to directly curb greenhouse gas emissions.
“We don’t want carbon prices to be a permanent revenue source for essential public services. The carbon, and therefore the revenues, need to go away over time,” Mr. Golden says. “Again, the best way to make that linkage is to use the money to address the problem by facilitating a fair, affordable transition.”
Part of the opponents’ stance results from an emboldening of the environmental movement, coupled with a more prominent national conversation on racial equity. It’s part of a broader trend among national environmental groups to make their base more inclusive and less of the old, white, wealthy clientele that forms a bulk of the movement.
Green groups feel they increasingly have the backing of public opinion following victories in scuttling the Keystone XL oil sands pipeline, an international climate agreement inked in Paris last year, and the Democratic presidential campaign of early carbon-tax advocate Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Meanwhile, high-profile environmental pollution incidents like the Flint water crisis and a new emphasis on environmental justice – the dynamic of industrial emissions disproportionately affecting minority neighborhoods – have brought communities of color closer to the green camp.
“The creation of energy policy needs to be a unified effort and one that includes the perspectives and ideas of communities hardest hit by the fossil fuel industry,” says Cesia Kearns, deputy regional campaign director for Sierra Club's “Beyond Coal” campaign. "Could this take more time, patience, and more conversation? For sure. But it’s better to get it right than to charge ahead on something that doesn’t work.”
But proponents of I-732 contend it appeals to both Republicans and Democrats alike and could serve as a model for other states. The plan starts by taxing carbon at $15 per ton in 2017, hitting $25 per ton in 2025 and then ticking up 3.5 percent annually, adjusted for inflation. Those revenues would lower the state sales tax by 1 percentage point and refund the earned-income tax credit for low-income families up to $1,500 per family.
“It’s a great climate policy, great tax policy in terms of addressing low-income households; it’s just a great policy all around,” Yoram Bauman, an economist who helped draft the plan, told ClimateWire.
A preview of options for Congress
The Washington State proposal, in fact, mirrors the kind of carbon tax that some hope might ultimately win bipartisan approval in Washington, D.C. But, as in the Evergreen State, Democrats nationally are torn over how to design the tax – and even over its political merits.
Advisers to presidential nominee Hillary Clinton have said that backing a carbon tax would be “lethal” in the general election. The June 2015 missive from campaign manager Robby Mook to spokesman Brian Fallon, revealed last week by WikiLeaks, came after presumptive top Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York hinted Clinton could enact a carbon tax if president.
Later, in January, Clinton energy adviser Trevor Houser suggested staying away from “Bernie’s carbon tax fantasy,” referring to Sanders, demonstrating the pressure the Vermonter’s supporters on the left were bringing on climate change.
But several right-of-center organizations, such as the libertarian Niskanen Center and RepublicEN, are softening GOP lawmakers behind closed doors for the carbon tax pitch.
"We've have open lines of communication with a number of environmental NGOs and Democratic offices in both chambers,” says Jerry Taylor, president of the Niskanen Center. "Our relationships in those communities are strong and I'm confident that we can avoid a lot of what's playing out in Washington State."
A federal policy, though, would certainly carry complications.
While companies like ExxonMobil have touted a carbon tax, there’s a question of how committed they are to actually advocating for it. And, even if some fossil fuel companies are discussing what a carbon tax would look like, their ideal models are likely disparate, says Mike McKenna, a Republican lobbyist who works with energy companies and is leading Donald J. Trump’s Energy Department transition team.
“If it ever becomes a legitimate thing, companies will start to ask these questions internally and probably have some serious internal discussions about whether they support this particular tax,” McKenna says in an email. "And the answer will probably routinely be ‘no.' Because no one is in favor of making their product more expensive. Unless there is some really good regulatory swap. Like a carbon tax for elimination of the [Environmental Protection Agency]."
The fossil fuel industry and its Republican allies would insist on axing regulation of greenhouse gas emissions – the EPA rule imposing carbon limits on power plants currently stuck in federal courts and restrictions on vehicle emissions are two options – in a carbon tax deal. But that idea is anathema to environmental groups.
One option could be to include a carbon tax in a larger overhaul of the whole federal tax code – a much-discussed, but very elusive idea on Capitol Hill. Whether as part of a mammoth bill or not, a central question would be whether to design a carbon tax to be "revenue neutral," so that overall US taxes don't go up. Finding agreement from Democrats on revenue neutrality may prove difficult, as carbon tax opponents in Washington State have demonstrated by rejecting that concept.
“Unfortunately, there is absolutely nothing unique on what to do with carbon revenues in the Washington debate. This was a key issue when the House and Senate worked on climate legislation,” says Ms. Kearns, referring to a sweeping cap-and-trade bill that passed the US House but failed in the Senate in 2010. “It continues to be a central issue in California and has been an ongoing issue as climate advocates have debated policy design everywhere they have discussed pricing carbon.”
California's cap-and-trade test case
California already offers a test case for the difficult politics behind designing a market-based carbon policy.
The state has debated how to distribute the dollars generated through a cap-and-trade auction program. Basically, emitters pay for credits to offset their emissions, and then revenues are used for various purposes.
Green groups successfully fought to send some revenue to low-income communities of color to buffer against environmental pollution that might be allowed to continue if industrial emitters buy carbon offset credits.
But that measure has put the Golden State system in legal limbo. Opponents of cap-and-trade said the revenue shift amounted to a tax, which requires a two-thirds vote in the California legislature. The law that created the cap-and-trade system fell well short of that mark.
The California and Washington State examples reflect the high-level discussions that will come to define future carbon policy debates, says Robert Stavins, an environmental economist at Harvard University, by email.
"The economist’s favorite is to cut distortionary taxes on labor and capital,” he says. “But many others want to target the funds to address the purpose of the carbon tax” – in other words, to take additional steps that hasten the rise of a low-carbon economy.
"This will be a huge issue in state legislatures when any carbon tax proposal is considered, because the stakes are huge,” Professor Stavins says.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Inhabit/2016/1024/One-state-tests-liberals-ability-to-rally-around-a-carbon-tax
-
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reach New Height
Oct 24, 2016 | UPI
By Daniel J. Graeber
Greenhouse gas emissions rose to a symbolic high last year and are at levels more than 40 percent higher than before the Industrial Revolution, a report said.
The World Meteorological Organization reported that carbon dioxide, a potent greenhouse gas, reached 400 parts per million in the atmosphere last year for the first time on record. That represents a level that's 44 percent higher than pre-Industrial Revolution levels.
In the 15 years since 1990, there was a 37 percent increase in the warming impact on the climate because of the atmospheric influence of greenhouse gases like CO2, methane and nitrous oxide. WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas said in a statement some of the warming was attributed to a recent El Nino weather pattern, though patterns that suggest a warming climate were apparent.
"The real elephant in the room is carbon dioxide, which remains in the atmosphere for thousands of years and in the oceans for even longer," he said. "Without tackling CO2 emissions, we cannot tackle climate change."
The report comes less than a month after major support built up behind last year's Paris climate agreement, which calls on the global community to take action to address threats posed by a warming climate by cutting their emissions.
Under the terms of the agreement, wealthier nations like China and the United States are expected to help finance the shift to a low-carbon economy in poor, developing nations.
Younghoon David Kim, the chairman of the World Energy Council who began his three-year term Monday, congratulated outgoing U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for steering the Paris agreement forward.
"Secretary General Ban has overseen a grand transition in the way in which we view energy," the WEC leader said.
The U.N. Environment Program said, however, that even if all the commitments under the agreement materialize, emissions levels by 2030 could still potentially lead to a global average temperature increase of more than 3 degrees Celsius.
The WMO chief said last year marked a new high point in the debate over climate change, as evidenced by the Paris agreement.
"But it will also make history as marking a new era of climate change reality with record high greenhouse gas concentrations," he said.
U.S. President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping said this year they were committed to signing the Paris agreement. In a contentious election year, neither major party candidate in the United States has put much emphasis on climate issues during their campaigns.
http://www.upi.com/Greenhouse-gas-emissions-reach-new-height/4051477312658/
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 - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested