Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 12/13/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) Accumulate Atul Ltd; Target of Rs 2530: CD Equisearch
Dec 13, 2016 | Money Control
After nearly flat lining (-1.8%) last fiscal, exports vigorously revived in HI to post 28% in Q1 and 18% (volume growth) in Q2. -
(ACC Mentioned) Global Plastics Industry Joins Hands to Combat Marine Litter
Dec 13, 2016 | EPPM
Yesterday, (December 12th 2016), seven new signatories were added to the Declaration of the Global Plastics Associations for Solutions on Marine Litter, or the Joint Declaration, in 2016, including the American Fiber Manufacturers Association (AFMA), the Bangladesh Plastic Goods Manufacturers & Exporters Association (BPGMEA), the Flexible Packaging Association (FPA), the Ghanaian Plastics Manufacturers Association (GPMA), the Myanmar Plastics Industries Association (MPIA), the Indonesian Olefins, Aromatics and Plastics Association (INAPLA), and the Vietnam Plastics Association (VPA). -
EPA Proposes Chemical Ban for the First Time in 27 Years
Dec 13, 2016 | Chem Info
By Meagan Parrish
The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed strict limits on a common degreasing chemical. -
EPA Announces 10 Chemicals to be Evaluated for Risks to Human Health and the Environment
Dec 13, 2016 | National Law Review
By B. David Naidu, Tara L. Pehush, Michael J.R. Schalk, & Luke E. Steinberger
On November 29, 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) announced 10 chemicals that it will evaluate for potential risks to human health and the environment pursuant to its new authority under the recently enacted Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (the “Act”), which revised, updated, and replaced the 1976 federal toxic substances statute, known as the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”). -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Groups Blast EPA's New Testing Regime
Dec 13, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith
Two prominent trade groups are questioning U.S. EPA's interpretation of the overhauled Toxic Substances Control Act ahead of an agency meeting on the law tomorrow. -
Outlook Hazy for Dodd-Frank and Conflict Minerals Reporting
Dec 13, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Since the passage of Dodd-Frank in 2010, the conflict minerals reporting rule that comes under section 1502 of the law has not come into force without complaint or challenge. -
Ipen Says Lead Chromates Authorisation is 'Unlawful'
Dec 13, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Sara Brosché
Lead is one of the most well-researched toxic substances known to man, causing significant harm at exceedingly low levels of exposure. -
The Final Deadline
Dec 13, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Dominic Byrne
The announcement, earlier this year, that Echa expects to receive approximately 60,000 registration dossiers for 25,000 substances by the 2018 REACH registration deadline, brought the nature of the final phase-in into focus for many registrants. -
(ACC Mentioned) 2016 REW Conference: Circular Circumstances
Dec 13, 2016 | Recycling Today
By Kristin Smith
Extracting as much value as possible from products is an idea that is gaining traction. Beyond use as a material, waste has tremendous energy value. -
Trump Picks Rick Perry to Lead Energy Department
Dec 13, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President-elect Donald Trump is planning to nominate former Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) to lead the Department of Energy, a transition official tells The Hill. -
Rick Perry to Lead Agency He Promised to Kill — Source
Dec 13, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
President-elect Donald Trump is expected to name former Texas Republican Gov. Rick Perry to lead the Department of Energy, a source close to the transition effort confirmed. -
Exxon CEO Named as Trump's Secretary of State
Dec 13, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Benjamin Hulac
President-elect Donald Trump this morning named Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO Rex Tillerson to lead the Department of State, setting up a contentious confirmation battle and elevating Exxon's positions on climate change to the national stage. -
Tillerson's Ties to Russia Could Bolster U.S. Interests
Dec 13, 2016 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Brenda Shaffer
President-elect Donald Trump’s nomination of ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson for Secretary of State has provoked concerns among some lawmakers that his good working relationship with Russia under President Putin and his company’s investments in the nation will prevent Tillerson from promoting U.S. national interests. -
What Could $65/b WTI Mean for Oil Production in the Permian?
Dec 13, 2016 | Platts Blog
By Taylor Cavey
Clearly, the alleged deal between OPEC members and other cooperative nations has generated a fair amount of optimism among market participants. -
In Stunning Reversal, EPA Now Says Fracking Can Impact Drinking Water -- Under Some Conditions
Dec 13, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
In a stunning reversal, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a final report Tuesday that says hydraulic fracturing (fracking) can impact drinking water under some circumstances, and identified several conditions where the impacts could be more severe. -
API Eyes Trump to Resolve Criticisms of EPA Fracking Water Impact Study
Dec 13, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
The American Petroleum Institute (API) is looking to the incoming Trump administration and the GOP Congress to address its concerns about the Obama EPA's issuance of its final study on the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water, which drops an earlier draft finding of “no widespread, systemic” impacts to drinking water. -
Future of Fracking Research Uncertain Under Trump
Dec 13, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
Under President Obama, scientists in government and academia probed the impacts of hydraulic fracturing on water, air and health. -
Managing Methane: New Jersey’s Largest Utility Using Better Data for Better Decisions
Dec 13, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Simi Rose George and Virginia Palacios
A new method of prioritizing gas infrastructure improvements is resulting in faster reductions of greenhouse gas emissions in New Jersey. -
Proposed Pennsylvania Methane Regs Exceed Federal Standards
Dec 13, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) plans to incorporate and go beyond the latest federal requirements to reduce oil and gas industry methane emissions in a new general permit for unconventional wells sites and revisions for the general permit for natural gas compressor facilities. -
(ACC Mentioned) Oil Refinery Workers Face Dangerous Conditions, Deadly Explosions
Dec 13, 2016 | Huffington Post
By Jim Morris
Refineries don’t just pollute. They also kill and maim workers and threaten the public. -
Pipeline Threats Prompt Call for 'Vigilance'
Dec 13, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Recent break-ins at U.S. pipeline sites have drawn a stark warning from officials at the Department of Transportation. -
Detection Failed for Spill 150 Miles from Standing Rock
Dec 13, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
Detection technology did not work for a pipeline rupture that spilled 176,000 gallons of crude oil into a creek about 150 miles from the Dakota Access oil pipeline protests, according to the pipeline operator. -
Sinking Electricity Consumption Leading Cause of GHG Drop — Report
Dec 13, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Evan Lehmann
A historic slowdown in the growth of energy use is helping to drive the United States toward its goals in the Clean Power Plan, according to a new report.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Accumulate Atul Ltd; Target of Rs 2530: CD Equisearch
Dec 13, 2016 | Money Control
CD Equisearch's research report on Atul Ltd
After nearly flat lining (-1.8%) last fiscal, exports vigorously revived in HI to post 28% in Q1 and 18% (volume growth) in Q2. Untowardness was averted last fiscal when crop protection business chipped in to post 72.3% growth in exports (21% export revenue share), while one of the most resilient businesses like colors (-34.3%) and aromatics (-13.6%) report jaw-dropping decline in overseas sales. Polymers business, however, managed to retain its growth streak for the sixth consecutive year (at least).
Outlook
According to American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) “Year End 2016 Chemical Industry Situation and Outlook,”, despite a contraction this year, US chemical production (excluding pharmaceuticals) is expected to grow by 1.6% in 2016, followed by 3.6% growth next year and 4.8% in 2018. It reckons that US competitive advantage - access to sufficient supplies of natural gas - continues to offset major challenges, including a rebalancing in oil & gas sector, weak export markets and a strong dollar. Demand continues to expand from key domestic end use markets, including light vehicles and housing, consumer spending accelerated, household spending increased owing to low energy costs - all factors supporting industrial activity.
http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/recommendations/accumulate-atul-ltd-targetrs-2530-cd-equisearch_8106421.html?utm_source=ref_article
-
(ACC Mentioned) Global Plastics Industry Joins Hands to Combat Marine Litter
Dec 13, 2016 | EPPM
Yesterday, (December 12th 2016), seven new signatories were added to the Declaration of the Global Plastics Associations for Solutions on Marine Litter, or the Joint Declaration, in 2016, including the American Fiber Manufacturers Association (AFMA), the Bangladesh Plastic Goods Manufacturers & Exporters Association (BPGMEA), the Flexible Packaging Association (FPA), the Ghanaian Plastics Manufacturers Association (GPMA), the Myanmar Plastics Industries Association (MPIA), the Indonesian Olefins, Aromatics and Plastics Association (INAPLA), and the Vietnam Plastics Association (VPA).
"We’re excited to welcome each of these new partners, who bring perspectives from countries in Asia and Africa, or types of plastic not previously represented in our Joint Declaration," stated Steve Russell, Vice-President, Plastics, American Chemistry Council, at the 27th Global Meeting on Plastics and Sustainability in Hanoi, Vietnam. At the meeting, delegates also agreed that going forward the group will become known as the Global Plastics Alliance.”
Delegates from 17 countries and four continents participated in the Global Meeting – making this the largest and best attended meeting to date.
"Addressing marine litter issues effectively requires that we bring local, regional and global stakeholders together," said Karl-H. Foerster, Executive Director of PlasticsEurope. "Broadening our fold helps us find new partners and opportunities to tackle this very serious problem."
"Plastic producers from around the world are coming together to keep used plastic out of the environment, and to further improve the sustainability of these energy and resource efficient materials. The strong participation at this meeting demonstrates that this industry is committed to providing solutions to ensure a more sustainable future," said Callum Chen, Secretary General of the Asia Plastics Forum. "Together, as a united, global industry, we’re involved in hundreds of marine litter prevention programs in all regions of the globe," added Chen. "But there is still much to do. Growing our ranks helps further grow our work."
The Global Declaration was launched in March 2011 at the 5th International Marine Debris Conference.
To date, the Declaration has been signed by 69 plastics associations from regions across the globe. Recognising their important role in fighting marine litter, these plastics associations have launched and are supporting projects in six key areas aimed at contributing to sustainable solutions. The six focus areas of the Global Declaration are education, research, public policy, sharing best practices, plastics recycling and recovery, and plastic pellet containment.
In May, leaders from plastics organisations across the globe announced that there were approximately 260 projects planned, underway or completed.
http://www.eppm.com/industry-news/global-plastics-industry-joins-hands-to-combat-marine-litter/
-
EPA Proposes Chemical Ban for the First Time in 27 Years
Dec 13, 2016 | Chem Info
By Meagan Parrish
The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed strict limits on a common degreasing chemical.
Just two weeks ago, the agency announced the first 10 chemicals it will review under the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety For The 21st Century Act. Now the EPA is proposing a complete prohibition on one of the chemicals on that list: trichloroethylene (TCE).
TCE is a common chemical used as an aerosol degreaser and at dry cleaning facilities.
The EPA is basing its judgement on a 2014 assessment where it identified potential cancer and other health risks associated with exposure to the chemical in the long and short term.
The EPA is calling for a ban on manufacturing, processing and distribution of TCE in aerosol degreasing and spot cleaning applications. The Office of Management and Budget had already been reviewing plans for a prohibition on TCE in those applications, and is still considering proposed limits on the use of TCE in vapor degreasing.
The proposal also asks that manufacturers provide downstream notification their supply chain about the prohibition.
“Once finalized, today's action will help protect consumers and workers from cancer and other serious health risks when they are exposed to aerosol degreasing, and when dry cleaners use spotting agents,” Jim Jones, assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, said in a statement.
It’s the first time the EPA has asked for a ban on a chemical since 1989, when its proposed ban on asbestos was overturned in court. Analysts have said that this proposal on TCE will test how effective the new chemical laws will be.
Experts have noted that strong backlash within the industry could stall efforts to finalize the proposal. It’s also unclear what impact the Trump administration will have on the proposal, or if the incoming head of the EPA — Scott Pruitt — will be supportive of the EPA’s actions.
http://www.chem.info/news/2016/12/epa-proposes-chemical-ban-first-time-27-years
-
EPA Announces 10 Chemicals to be Evaluated for Risks to Human Health and the Environment
Dec 13, 2016 | National Law Review
By B. David Naidu, Tara L. Pehush, Michael J.R. Schalk, & Luke E. Steinberger
On November 29, 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) announced 10 chemicals that it will evaluate for potential risks to human health and the environment pursuant to its new authority under the recently enacted Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (the “Act”), which revised, updated, and replaced the 1976 federal toxic substances statute, known as the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”). Many of the 10 targeted chemicals are incorporated into a wide variety of consumer end products, such as appliances, personal care products, and textiles. The results of these evaluations, therefore, could significantly impact a broad spectrum of manufacturers.
Over the years, TSCA has been subject to criticism in large part due to the requirement that EPA choose the “least burdensome” way of addressing the risks posed by any given chemical. The Act significantly expands EPA’s authority under TSCA by removing the “least burdensome” standard and eliminating the requirement that EPA undertake formal rulemaking before requiring companies to test chemical substances. Under the new law, EPA can require toxicity testing through an administrative order, which requires considerably less administration and time. The Act further modified TSCA such that EPA is now required to evaluate existing chemicals under a new, risk-based safety standard pursuant to clearly defined and enforceable deadline.
Pursuant to those new requirements and deadlines, EPA has announced that it will evaluate the following 10 chemicals:
1,4-Dioxane
1-Bromopropane
Asbestos
Carbon Tetrachloride
Cyclic Aliphatic Bromide Cluster
Methylene Chloride
N-methylpyrrolidone
Pigment Violet 29
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
EPA previously conducted risk assessments for three of these chemicals (Trichloroethylene, N-methylpyrrolidone, and methylene chloride) under the old TSCA and is currently drafting proposed rules for them that it plans to publish in December 2016. Those rules, however, cover certain specified uses of the chemicals only, and the new evaluations may result in additional or more comprehensive restrictions.
EPA must complete the 10 risk evaluations within three years to determine whether the chemicals present an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment and must mitigate any such risk within two years. Given the prevalent use of many of these chemicals, the results of these evaluations could significantly impact several industries, including the pharmaceutical, agrochemical, cosmetics, and adhesives industries, both in terms of manufacturing and finished products. While the actual extent of that impact is uncertain, companies who manufacture these 10 chemicals or incorporate them into end products should be cognizant that EPA may severely restrict, limit, or modify their use in the foreseeable future. We will continue to monitor the developments in this area and can provide guidance to companies regarding compliance once those rules are issued.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-announces-10-chemicals-to-be-evaluated-risks-to-human-health-and-environment
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Groups Blast EPA's New Testing Regime
Dec 13, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith
Two prominent trade groups are questioning U.S. EPA's interpretation of the overhauled Toxic Substances Control Act ahead of an agency meeting on the law tomorrow.
In a blog post published yesterday, the American Chemistry Council took issue with the agency's interpretation of Section 5 of the law, which governs how EPA reviews new chemicals. ACC called EPA's interpretation a "key concern" for the nation's chemical companies, asserting that the agency has failed to review compounds expediently enough.
The new TSCA directs the agency to increase transparency around its chemical reviews. But ACC claims "EPA has expanded its review of new chemicals well beyond the uses designated" by the submitting chemical companies, and it chastised the agency for veering into "remote or speculative" territory.
Such reviews, ACC asserted, have caused delays.
"A delay doesn't just hurt the ... submitting company; it hurts all the companies in the supply chain — and the consumer," the blog says. "The ability to create and offer new product formulations helps U.S. businesses compete and win globally, and the predictability, timeliness, and efficiency of the new chemical review program under Section 5 is the critical first step to making this happen."
The trade group previously praised President-elect Donald Trump for heralding a regulatory atmosphere that promises "a manufacturing renaissance" in the chemical sector (Greenwire, Nov. 10).
"When we invoke the importance of American innovation, we do so proudly, and seriously," ACC's blog said. "Right now, innovation is stuck, because completion of new chemical reviews has ground to a halt."
And in a letter sent to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on Nov. 29, the American Alliance for Innovation also targeted Section 5 implementation.
AAI, which calls itself a coalition of over 200 trade groups, was created by ACC and the Grocery Manufacturers Association around 2011 in order to press for U.S. chemical reform.
In the letter, AAI charged that EPA's "new chemicals program has ground to a virtual standstill" only months after President Obama signed TSCA reform into law. The group claimed that the agency acted outside of its own authority by extending reviews on pending chemicals, thereby creating "a far more onerous and extensive regulatory burden for new chemistries."
EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics will host a meeting tomorrow on its chemicals program from 9 a.m. to noon EST at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center in Washington.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/12/13/stories/1060047114
-
Outlook Hazy for Dodd-Frank and Conflict Minerals Reporting
Dec 13, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Since the passage of Dodd-Frank in 2010, the conflict minerals reporting rule that comes under section 1502 of the law has not come into force without complaint or challenge.
Despite years of litigation – which has resulted in some requirements under the law being struck down – publicly traded companies have now been complying for two reporting years. They are required to conduct due diligence and report to the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) on whether their sourcing of tin, tungsten, tantalum and gold (3TG) is supporting armed groups in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) or its neighbouring countries.
But the fight over Dodd-Frank – and with it, the conflict minerals reporting rule – may only be just beginning.
US president-elect Donald Trump’s transitional website, greatagain.gov, criticises the “bureaucratic red tape and Washington mandates” created by the far-reaching financial regulation. His financial services plan implementation team, says the site will be working to “dismantle the Dodd-Frank Act and replace it with new policies to encourage economic growth and job creation.”
And earlier this year, Financial Services Committee chairman Jeb Hensarling (R–Texas) introduced legislation – the Financial CHOICE Act – that aims to significantly overhaul Dodd-Frank. Among comprehensive changes to the US’s financial regulations, it calls for a repeal of section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act, and that the provisions of the law affected by the section be “restored or revived as if [it] had not been enacted”.
In June remarks, the congressman indicated that it was unlikely that the bill would get traction in the current 114th Congress. But, he did note on the advent of the law’s proposal: “We have an election coming up here in November; we believe it is important to show how Republicans entrusted with all three levels of government would govern.”
Now, with such a scenario to become a reality in the coming 115th Congress, might the end be looming for the US reporting obligation? And what effect could this have on regulated companies, and on the impacted communities in the DRC?
115th Congress
Michael Zolandz, a partner with law firm Dentons, said that it is likely that the incoming Congress will look to the Financial CHOICE Act as its starting legislative framework.
A number of elements of the legislation have “long been targets” of Mr Hensarling and other Republicans on Capitol Hill, he said; and those are likely to remain targets in a Trump administration and Republican-controlled Congress.
He noted that in the final months of the 114th Congress – which concludes 3 January 2017 – it is likely that there will be a close review of the legislation together with the Trump transition team and the incoming Secretary of the Treasury. These discussions would help shape what a reintroduced bill in the next Congress could look like.
Sasha Lezhnev, associate director of policy at NGO the Enough Project, said that there will be an effort to overturn a variety of reform laws in the new Congress, from Obamacare to Dodd-Frank, and it is “not yet certain whether that will happen through individual repeal bills or an omnibus repeal package”.
“Either way,” he said, “section 1502 can get stripped out.”
Mr Zolandz agrees that standalone measures, aimed at certain provisions of Dodd-Frank, could well come into play if attempts of a sweeping overhaul fail. But he notes that there are parts of the legislation’s architecture that are “more likely to be targeted and have a better shot at removal”.
The conflict minerals provisions, he added, could well become a bargaining chip in broader dialogue on the future of the Act.
Political headwinds
Mr Hensarling focused on the Republicans’ Financial CHOICE Act in remarks on 16 November at the exchequer club in Washington, DC, when discussing the party’s approach for reforming the Dodd-Frank Act.
But he acknowledged: “Even though Republicans will be nominally in charge of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue soon, I remain painfully aware of the Senate’s cloture rules.”
“That means there will continue to be a need to work with the other party,” he said.
Mr Hensarling said, in his remarks, that he is “certainly willing to negotiate in good faith on any proposal”, including the Financial CHOICE Act.
Mr Zolandz agrees, notwithstanding the Republican majorities in the House and Senate, there remains the procedural challenge in the Senate from “a vocal and committed minority”. Full-scale repeal in this environment, he said, would be “quite challenging”.
But further to that concern, he said, is the appetite for American voters to back such an approach.
“As a political reality, there are headwinds to deregulation among the voter base that got Trump elected,” he said.
At this time, you have historic levels of mistrust among registered voters about many institutions, including many financial institutions, said Mr Zolandz. Suddenly deregulating an industry without a rampdown or strategy could create a backlash.
The Enough Project’s Mr Lezhnev said it remains unclear what the new Congress will do on conflict minerals legislation. “But it’s very clear that section 1502 has strong champions on both sides of the aisle, who will fight to keep it intact if the rest of Dodd-Frank is repealed.”
A future without Dodd-Frank
A repeal of the legislation would be “a disaster for eastern Congo”, he said.
“Dodd-Frank section 1502 is the backbone of the system that’s transformed mines in eastern Congo to the point that 79% of tin, tantalum, and tungsten miners now work in conflict-free mines, according to IPIS [International Peace Information Service],” he said.
And he noted that while some challenges remain, “there has been significant progress made in eastern Congo over the past few years, and it would be shameful to see that eroded.”
Some companies would still conduct due diligence in the absence of the law, said Mr Lezhnev. But “without [section] 1502, a vast majority of the 1,300 companies that currently trace, audit and certify their supply chains would fall by the wayside.”
Mr Zolandz notes, however, that transparency metrics are not going away.
The last eight years, he said, have featured a codification of corporate sustainability metrics. “Nevertheless, the trend line is certainly pointing in the direction of transparency, and has been for some time.”
Regardless of how the regulations come out of the legislative process, “there will still be a number of companies focusing on this, irrespective of whether they need to disclose” that information, he added.
Speaking at an Edif ERA electronics sector conference in London, last month, Lucy Graham, business and human rights team legal researcher for Amnesty International, was also optimistic about companies’ commitments.
She noted that while attending a Conflict Free Smelters Initiative conference one day after the US election, “everyone was carrying on as if it’s business as usual … Not one of them mentioned the repeal of Dodd-Frank or indicated they were going to stop doing this.”
“Companies have invested an awful lot of money in putting into place industry schemes, in putting into place management systems to conduct supply chain due diligence,” said Ms Graham.
And, she said, despite the election: “We still live in a globalised world. Consumers and companies are connected to some really horrific human rights violations going on in other companies.
“Governments are still signed up to human rights treaties under which they committed to protect people from human rights abuses by set policies.
“And it is still globally accepted that companies have a responsibility to respect human rights so there are some basic things that haven’t changed.”
Europe’s conflict minerals framework – similarities and differences
Kirsten Wallerstedt of the supply chain compliance services provider, 3E Company:
On 16 June, the European Commission, Parliament and Council reached an agreement on conflict minerals: EU entities importing tin, tungsten, tantalum, gold and their ores (3TG), including processed metals, will be required to do due diligence checks on their suppliers, with the aim of stopping trade of 3TG which funds conflicts and human rights abuses around the world. The EU measure has many similarities and some notable differences from the US law.
Mineral scope: Like the Dodd-Frank Act section 1502, the mineral and metal scope of the EU regulation will be: tin, tantalum, tungsten, gold, and their ores (3TG). [Note: In particular, US law covers coltan (from which tantalum is derived); cassiterite (tin); gold; wolframite (tungsten); or their derivatives, while the EU law covers tin, tungsten, tantalum, gold and their ores, which may lead to subtle differences.]
Geographic scope: The EU law will require companies to address 3TG from any “conflict affected” or “high risk” areas around the world. This differs from the US law which only requires companies to exercise due diligence on 3TG that may originate from the Congo region of Africa.
Business impact: Under the EU law, smelters and refiners (SORs) will have mandatory due diligence obligations, as will downstream operators importing 3TG into the EU (including processed metals). It does not impose mandatory obligations on entities importing products or components which contain 3TG. While the EU law only imposes mandatory requirements on importers of 3TG, the US law applies to any public company which manufactures products which contain 3TG.
The EU requirement on importers will impact smelters or refiners around the world – furthering the influence of the US law and putting more pressure on smelters and refiners to become “conflict free”. The EU entities which are not directly impacted by requirements will still have incentives to source responsibly, including due diligence checks on their suppliers – the EU law “encourages” these entities to report on these voluntary measures through the EU nonfinancial reporting Directive, which will publish names of companies which do so (these are the carrots), and will evaluate after two years whether this voluntary policy has spurred action or whether mandatory action is required (the stick).
This regulation will significantly impact EU importers, smelters and refiners, as well as their suppliers around the world. Like companies subject to the US law, these companies will be asked to establish due diligence programmes to identify and mitigate risks in their supply chains, related to sourcing conflict minerals from conflict affected or high risk areas. Companies which sell into the European market, like those selling into the US, may therefore find that they have additional obligations, imposed by their customers, to provide information on the source and chain of custody of 3TG in their supply chain.
The passage of this law is likely to bring benefits to companies subject to the US conflict minerals law, as the EU companies’ participation will help to increase pressure on global smelters and refiners to become conflict free.
https://chemicalwatch.com/51620/outlook-hazy-for-dodd-frank-and-conflict-minerals-reporting
-
Ipen Says Lead Chromates Authorisation is 'Unlawful'
Dec 13, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Sara Brosché
Lead is one of the most well-researched toxic substances known to man, causing significant harm at exceedingly low levels of exposure. Therefore, many European countries took early preventative measures, by banning the use of white lead pigments in paint under the white lead Convention almost 100 years ago. This was soon followed by progressive bans on use of leaded compounds in paint, for decorative purposes and other consumer products.
When lead chromates were finally destined to a complete phase-out for all uses in the EU under the REACH Regulation, European manufacturers successfully substituted them with safer alternatives and technologies in good time, ready for the sunset date in May 2015. Viewing the use of hazardous leaded compounds an obsolete technology, they looked forward to a safer and more environmentally sound lifecycle of these products. However, a recent decision by the European Commission has instead disregarded these forward-thinking companies and outraged governments, major paint manufacturers, industry associations, civil society organisations and other stakeholders.
In 2013, Canadian pigment producer and one of the world’s largest suppliers of lead chromates, Dominion Colour Corporation (DCC), applied through its Dutch subsidiary DCC Maastricht BV for authorisation to continue to use lead sulfochromate yellow and lead chromate molybdate sulfate red in the production of industrial paint, plastic applications and road markings in the EU.
A recommendation by Echa in 2014 to approve these applications was followed by a long period of strong opposition from EU-based industry stakeholders, governments and civil society, which provided detailed information about the suitable alternatives available for these uses. However, the Commission recently announced that they had decided to approve DCC´s applications, based on “the difficulties in fully ascertaining the lack of technically feasible alternatives for the entire scope of the uses covered by the application”. The company is now allowed to continue to use lead chromates for a wide range of uses in industrial paint and plastic applications, for seven years, and in road markings, for four years.
This approval includes products both for use within the EU and for export, including to countries where there is no or little control over where these products end up.
The latter is especially troubling, since reports from low- and middle-income countries show that all kinds of products will finish up on the consumer market irrespective of their intended use. People around the world were also shocked by the European Commission´s decision. If the EU cannot take a firm stance to completely ban the use of leaded pigments, what message does that send to low- and middle-income countries, struggling to put effective and meaningful restrictions on lead paint?
Also, this strongly underscores the growing criticism of the implementation of the REACH restriction and authorisation process. REACH, with the precautionary principle as its firm foundation and an emphasis on manufacturer accountability, was once envisioned to be the most progressive law in the world but now seems to be completely undermined by the misuse of the authorisation process. The process was included to allow for special circumstances. It seems rather to have become a loophole for companies, using substances of very high concern (SVHCs), to continue with “business as usual”. As reported by the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), this does not only concern lead chromates. In fact, the European Commission has granted all applications seeking authorisation for continued use of SVHCs, as recommended by Echa. However, few cases are so clear cut as the feasibility of substituting lead chromates, where the EU-based industry stakeholders also supported a rejection of the authorisation application.
Dismayed by the authorisation decision, and the questionable grounds on which it was taken, civil society organisations, Client Earth, EEB, ChemSec and Ipen utilised their rights under the Aarhus Regulation to submit a request for internal review to the EU Commission. The request provides evidence that the Commission´s authorisation decision violates the REACH Regulation, breaches the treaty and general principles of EU law, and is incompatible with the EU´s commitment to the Dubai Declaration on International Chemicals Management. Details of these claims are provided below.
The authorisation decision was recently further contested, when the Swedish government announced that they consider the authorisation to be a breach of REACH and that it creates an unfair competitive disadvantage for the EU-based companies that have already replaced lead chromates. As a result they have decided to refer the Commission’s decision to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling.
International pushback
Ipen is an international network of civil society organisations, from all regions of the world, working to establish and implement safe chemicals policies and practices to protect human health and the environment. It is a member of the Advisory Group of the Global Alliance to Eliminate Lead Paint (Gaelp), established under the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (Saicm), and hosted by the United Nations Environment Programme (Unep) and the WHO.
EU member states have expressed their commitment to achieve the Saicm goals, including elimination of lead in paint, through the Dubai Declaration. This has been reaffirmed through their support of resolutions at the second, third and fourth International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM), welcoming the work and progress towards Gaelp’s goal, to phase out lead in all paint in all countries by 2020. The authorisation of continued use of lead chromates is clearly not compatible with this commitment.
After conducting research in more than 45 low- and middle income countries, Ipen has concluded that where no regulations are in place to restrict the use of lead in paint or where the regulations are weak and poorly enforced, paint with high levels of lead will be widely available on the market. Through the work of Gaelp and its partners, many countries are now moving towards enacting regulations, restricting the use of lead in all paints. The continued use of lead chromates in products used in the EU, as well as products exported from the region, completely undermines this progressive global movement.
Apart from the moral obligation of the EU member states to follow through on their commitments, the submitted request for internal review provides evidence that this authorisation is a breach of the EU regulations.
The European Commission now has the opportunity to take decisive action in response to these challenges to its decision, and change the troubling path that the authorisation process seems to have taken.
Firstly, the Commission needs to retract its decision to authorise continued use of lead chromates. The applications should be rejected on the grounds of information already submitted, but the applicant should, as a minimum, be required to amend the former to fulfil the REACH requirements of detailed information about specific uses, and the technical requirements crucial to them. The applications’ claims must also be properly assessed, and not just accepted as the case, by actively seeking out the wealth of information on technically feasible alternatives, already developed by EU-based manufacturers.
Secondly, the Echa expert committees must be clearly assigned responsibility to thoroughly investigate the claims, to actively seek information providing insights into them, and to promote substitution.
Thirdly, Echa must be given clear authority to only recommend authorisation for specific, well-documented and well-justified applications and to reject those for broad uses of SVHCs, at the conformity check stage.
1. The applications failed to provide the information required and did not prove that feasible alternatives were not available
The approved applications did not specify uses beyond broad categories, such as professional, non-consumer application of paints on metal surfaces (for example, machines, vehicles, structures, signs, road furniture etc), and failed to specify what technically required performance characteristics the lead chromates provide that are vital for these. This consequently lead to a failure to conduct and provide a meaningful analysis of alternatives. These shortcomings in the applications were also acknowledged in the authorisation decision itself.
2. The applications fail to provide a complete assessment of risk to human health and the environment
The risk assessment, provided in the applications for authorisation, only focused on the two hazards that were the basis for its restriction: carcinogenic and toxic for reproduction. It ignored the risk through exposure from paint degrading with time or due to heat and excluded hazards to the aquatic environment, despite their CLP classifications. This, in spite of stipulations in REACH that the risk assessment for such applications should cover all relevant hazardous properties of a substance.
Action by Sweden
The Swedish government says the European Commission “broke the rules” when it authorised the continued use of the two lead chromate pigments in the EU. Stockholm is now referring the Commission’s decision to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for a preliminary ruling. It says the decision is bad for people’s health and distorts competition for responsible businesses that have stopped using the substances.
3. The decision did not take relevant contributions about available suitable alternatives into account
Submissions, during the public consultation period, from major and credible actors in the paint and pigment sector in the EU, such as the British Coatings Federation, Akzo Nobel, BASF and others, all provided detailed information about suitable alternatives to lead chromates. These clearly showed that technically and economically feasible alternatives are available on the market, and have been for years. In addition, the fact the use of lead chromates in road markings is already prohibited, in some member states, should have been evidence enough that suitable alternatives are available for this use.
4. The authorisation lacks logic and contains internal inconsistencies but also violates the precautionary principle
It is difficult to comprehend how the Commission could conclude that, despite the “uncertainties” and “difficulties in fully ascertaining the lack of technically feasible alternatives” mentioned in the decision, authorisation could still be granted. Since REACH prescribes that it is for the applicants to demonstrate that no suitable alternatives exist for all the uses they applied for, this approach undermines the entire authorisation procedure.
Finally, the decision was adopted in breach of the precautionary principle that underpins the REACH Regulation and may be invoked when a product, for example, has a dangerous effect, as identified by a scientific and objective evaluation and the risk cannot be determined with sufficient certainty.
https://chemicalwatch.com/51625/ipen-says-lead-chromates-authorisation-is-unlawful
-
Dec 13, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Dominic Byrne
The announcement, earlier this year, that Echa expects to receive approximately 60,000 registration dossiers for 25,000 substances by the 2018 REACH registration deadline, brought the nature of the final phase-in into focus for many registrants.
Importantly, the deadline will have a large impact on the downstream user, something they must be aware of well in advance. So what are their obligations when a supplier completes a REACH registration?
Supplier registrations
REACH Article 6 (1) sets registration requirements for “any manufacturer or importer of a substance, either on its own or in one or more mixture(s), in quantities of one tonne or more per year...”
While Article 3 (13) defines a downstream user as “any natural or legal person established within the community, other than the manufacturer or the importer, who uses a substance, either on its own or in a mixture, in the course of his industrial or professional activities ...”.
If a supply chain actor is downstream of the original substance manufacturer or importer, the registration burden lies with the latter. Although there are remaining REACH obligations for the downstream user to consider and manage, it benefits from the supplier’s REACH registration.
The downstream user avoids the upfront and deferred costs, associated with registration. For example, those to obtain a letter of access or the shared costs of further studies. Ongoing savings may also arise from reduced regulatory affairs resourcing.
For the supplier, completing a registration is often mandatory due to cumulative manufacture/import tonnage. Extending the scope of their registration can contribute to the maintenance and/or growth of their market share. An existing registration can incentivise the use of the suppliers’ product.
Downstream user obligations
Downstream users may view supplier registration(s) as the answer to all their REACH obligations. In reality this is not the case. Being a downstream user in a supply chain will reduce the regulatory burden but not eliminate it.
Title V of REACH deals exclusively with downstream users, imposing two significant obligations. They must operate within the scope of a chemical safety assessment (CSA) that has been either prepared by themselves or the registered supplier (Article 37). Additionally they must report information to Echa under certain circumstances (Article 38). Both obligations have legally prescribed timelines, which must be addressed within 12 months (Article 37) or six months (Article 38), following receipt of the supplier’s REACH registration number.
As a minimum, any potential downstream user should be aware of the following:
Article 37 (2): They have the “right to make a use ... known in writing ... to the manufacturer, importer, downstream user or distributor who supplies him with a substance or mixture with the aim of making this an identified use”. The downstream user has the right to provide “sufficient information” to allow preparation of an exposure scenario. They may relay any use information from further down the supply chain to the next upstream actor.
Article 37 (3): Upon receipt of use information from a downstream user, the party responsible for preparation of the chemical safety report (CSR) is required to assess the new identified use within a defined period, depending on the substance’s phase-in status. Should it not be possible to include a new identified use in the CSR (for example, unacceptable risk), the supplier must inform both the downstream user and Echa in writing, without delay, detailing the reason(s) for non-inclusion.
If the supplier’s CSA can accommodate their downstream user’s use, the latter is obliged to operate within the scope of it. Failure to operate within the prescribed use(s), emission limits and/or risk management measures, set by the supplier, will mean the downstream user falls outside the CSA.
If a downstream user is outside the scope of a CSA, there are two options. They can attempt to find an alternative supplier who can provide the required substance/mixture and accommodate their required use(s). Or they are obliged to submit a downstream user CSR. Article 37 (4) states that “a downstream user of a substance, on its own or in a mixture, shall prepare a chemical safety report in accordance with Annex XII for any use outside the conditions described in an exposure scenario or if appropriate a use and exposure category communicated to him in a safety data sheet or for any use his supplier advises against.” This requirement is independent of the ten tonne trigger set out in Article 14 (1) and the CSR shall be reported to Echa (Article 38 (1)). Article 37 (4) also incorporates a number of exemptions to these requirements if the downstream user is above the one tonne per use threshold prescribed by Article 38 (5).
Further obligations
Additionally, the downstream user may have further REACH obligations under:
Article 31 – requirements for the SDS;
Article 32 – communication of information down the supply chain (SDS not required);
Article 33 – communication of information on substances in articles;
Article 34 – communication of information on substances and mixtures up the supply chain;
Article 35 – workers’ access to information; and
Article 36 – retention of information.
It should be apparent that REACH obligations for downstream users are a potential regulatory quagmire. Assessing these is a repetitive process, required for each substance covered by a supplier registration. Key considerations include:
type of product supplied (substance or mixture);
registration status (pre-registration or full registration);
existing identified uses;
hazard classification;
mass used per year by the downstream user;
concentration limits (substances in mixtures); and
product and process-orientated research and development (PPORD) applications.
Supply-chain specificity
It is often forgotten that a REACH registration is supply-chain specific. A downstream user for a substance or mixture, is only such for that supply chain. But if they have multiple suppliers of a substance/mixture, supplier registrations for each substance in each supply chain are required. These registrations must therefore be considered in terms of both procurement and regulatory strategy.
Downstream user receiving a mixture
If a downstream user receives a substance from their supplier, the challenge of meeting their obligations is not difficult. The registrant is obliged to disclose substance identity, either via the SDS or by communicating their REACH registration number. Once the substance identity is known, determining the associated requirements is relatively straightforward.
However, a downstream user will often receive a hazardous mixture, containing one or more classified substances from their supplier. In such circumstances, meeting their obligations, particularly if operating outside of the registrant’s CSA(s), may be complicated by the lack of clear substance identity and compositional information. Depending on hazard classification or registration status, the supplier may disclose substance identity for certain components but it is only obliged to disclose concentration ranges (REACH Annex II (Part A, 3.2)). A lack of reliable identity and/or compositional information will hinder the downstream user from accurately assessing and identifying their REACH obligations.
European suppliers
Sourcing substances/mixtures within Europe has potential advantages. A prospective downstream user can expect a supplier to be well informed about REACH, able to directly monitor their capacity to accommodate customer consumption within their registration tonnage band(s), and should also be well equipped to support them on an ongoing basis (for example, accommodation of new uses).
Non-European Suppliers
In this case, cooperation between the non-European supplier, their only representative (OR) and the downstream user is essential. REACH Article 8 (1) requires the OR in the supply chain to fulfil the obligations of an importer for registration. For the downstream user, the OR is the REACH registrant and is usually the point of contact for related concerns. The non-European supplier acts as the point of contact for procurement. Communication throughout the supply chain is essential from all parties, to ensure that the OR can fulfil its obligation as the registrant for a substance.
Downstream user of a non-European formulator utilising proprietary material(s)
Suppose a non-European formulator sources part of their mixture from another non-European manufacturer.
Under the local regulatory regime, the manufacturer is not obliged to disclose the identity or composition of their material (substance/mixture) to the formulator and may only disclose a trade name along with certain properties of their proprietary material.
The non-European formulator may incorporate this proprietary material into a mixture, which is exported to their downstream user based in Europe.
If the manufacturer does not disclose the chemical composition of their material to the formulator’s OR, the OR is powerless to register the relevant substance(s) and assume regulatory liability. Regulatory liability would therefore lie on the party responsible for introducing a non-REACH compliant substance to Europe, the recipient of the material, that is, the downstream user. Ideally an arrangement should be in place before European exports commence, which ensures that either the manufacturer (via an OR) or the formulator’s OR completes the necessary registration(s) and risk assessments.
It is essential that the downstream user understands the chain of regulatory responsibility and engages consistently with parties further up the supply chain, to ensure REACH compliance is achieved and maintained.
Downstream users under REACH experience many benefits compared to a registrant. However, this is not a reason for complacency. Although operating under a reduced regulatory burden, they must identify their obligations and be prepared to engage with often complex challenges.
The role of the downstream user is not a silver bullet for REACH obligations. Ongoing regulatory stewardship is essential before and after a supplier registers their substance(s).
https://chemicalwatch.com/51622/the-final-deadline
-
(ACC Mentioned) 2016 REW Conference: Circular Circumstances
Dec 13, 2016 | Recycling Today
By Kristin Smith
Extracting as much value as possible from products is an idea that is gaining traction. Beyond use as a material, waste has tremendous energy value. Speakers during a session titled Waste-to-Energy in the Circular Economy, during the 2016 Renewable Energy from Waste Conference in Long Beach, California, in mid-November, shared several examples of waste’s value.
Craig Cookson, director of sustainability and recycling for the Plastics Division of the American Chemistry Council, Washington, discussed how plastics of all the energy resources, 97 percent goes into fuel, power and other chemicals. Only 3 percent ends up in plastics production. Of that plastics production, over 70 percent of that comes from the ethane in natural gas.
“Natural gas in North America really is the feedstock for plastics,” said Cookson.
He said a critical step in sustainable materials management of plastics is post-use collection and recycling everything that can be recycled, or break it back down to a monomer, or if that can’t be done, then getting the energy back out of it.
Cookson pointed out the many environmental benefits of plastics, including:reduce material use, weight;
maintain freshness;
reduce breakage;
reduce transportation costs through lightweighting;
economical; and
reduce waste
A recent study, he said, showed if you took plastics away, through a variety of applications, energy use would increase and greenhouse gas emissions would also increase. Another study showed costs of materials and transportation would increase if plastics went away.
He showed the evolution from coffee packaging from a steel coffee can, which was very recyclable, to a plastic canister, to a vacuum-packed plastic brick.
“Even though the plastic packaging does not get recycled, it still reduces life cycle greenhouse gas emissions by about 75 percent compared to that steel coffee can,” Cookson noted.
Cookson referenced the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) recently released Advancing Sustainable Materials Management 2014 Report.
He explained that the question the EPA asks is do recycling rates tell the whole story? For example, the report notes, the U.S. recycled 22,378,489 more containers in 2012 than 2005, an increase of 30.5 percent, but measured by weight, it is only an increase of 18.6 percent. So the increase in the number of containers does not tell the whole story because it leaves out the story of lightweighting and all the benefits that come from it.
He shared a graphic which showed how the provision of materials creates about 42 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions with about a 32 percent recovery rate. He said even if the recovery rate was 95 percent, it would only cause a 6 percent decrease in GHG emissions.
While that is important, Cookson said, “We still have to remember it is really what happens upstream that has the biggest benefits.” That is why he said we are seeing more and more plastics in the waste stream.
The ACC worked several years ago with Columbia University and its Waste-to-Energy Research and Technology Council (WTERT). Researchers found that plastics in the waste stream have about 15,000 British thermal units (BTU) per pound. The only two energy sources higher than that are natural gas and crude oil, said Cookson.
A report being release early in 2017 is a collaboration with the Earth Engineering Center (EEC) at City College of New York and the city of Edmonton. Researches have been doing pilot tests at Edmonton’s pilot gasifier modeled after the Enerkem’s gasification plant there.
They took a baseline biomass feedstock and tried to show that increasing plastics in the feedstocks would:make it more efficient;
produce more useful fuel and chemical to sell; and
produce less ash or byproduct needing landfilled.
He also shared an infograph showing that if you took all the waste landfilled in the U.S. each year and converted it into energy, you could power 14 million homes, or about 12 percent of the homes in the U.S. It would also save 6,000 acres of space. And if just the plastics portion were converted to gasoline, we could power 9 million cars per year.
A company that is doing much within its operation to take waste and put it toward energy use is Smithfield Foods, Smithfield, Virginia. Smithfield is the largest pork processor in the world with 490 hog farms in the U.S.
The company’s vice president of regulatory affairs and chief sustainability officer, Stewart Leeth, explained, “We look at the circular economy in a basic way that is to try to bring more value out of existing products and waste materials in a way that creates value for the company.”
“The renewable energy issue for us is squarely within our sustainability program,” said Leeth. The program focuses on environment, animal care, food safety and quality, helping communities, people and value creation.
Leeth explained that the value creation part of the program was added to capture the idea of a shared value approach where the company is “not just creating a monetary value, but value for its customers.” Those customers include grocery chains, restaurants and food distributors.
He said renewable energy is a challenge “because sometimes our return on investment is not good.”
The company’s largest processing plant in the world in North Carolina has a covered anaerobic digester. It processes 3 million gallons of wastewater per day to create steam and power for the plant. At the an anaerobic digester in Souix Falls, Iowa, gas is either flared or goes to the plant. Smithfield operates four or five of these types of digesters around the country.
“The issue for us is power generation is not as expensive as it once was,” said Leeth.
He spoke about the energy value contained in manure, mentioning that as feed efficiency becomes better, the energy value of the manure declines. Today the feed is 75 percent more efficient than it was 50 years ago.
He described the different ways Smithfield manages manure at its farms. A typical systems in the Midwest includes barns hooked up to anaerobic digesters. The manure is digested and applied to fields. In cooler temperatures, barns are hooked up to a slurry tank and tractors apply it to crops. In the desert, the company uses evaporation ponds, evaporates the manure and it is then applied as fertilizer or landfilled.
Leeth said Smithfield has digesters in Utah and North Carolina with power purchase agreements, where the energy is sold to the grid. In Mexico, where energy prices are double what they are in the U.S., the return on investment for digesters are less than 24 months, he added. Leeth said Smithfield has a number of joint ventures in place there.
Another major project underway for Smithfield is the Roeslein Alternative Energy project in Missouri, consisting of covering existing anaerobic lagoons. The gas will be cleaned and compressed and will go direct into the natural gas pipeline. It will consist of 88 lagoon covers and is designed for 2 billion cubic feet of renewable natural gas per year. At the time of the presentation, the project was about halfway complete.
Finally, Marco Castaldi, associate professor, The City College of New York, provided a bigger picture of some of the research the EEC and WTERT has been working on. He emphasized the importance of conversion technologies being affordable, distributed and versatile.
He pointed out that 0 percent of the world is without waste, but that does not get the visibility and attention from global entities. In terms of recycling, he said metals have a high rate of recycling and can be recycled infinitely. Glass is also infinitely recyclable, but has economic barriers, he added.
With paper and plastic recycling, he said even in areas with the highest recovery, they are only achieving recovery rates of 85 percent.
“Prior to shale gas, there was a big impetus to look at waste as an energy resource,” noted Castaldi. He also shared that the hydrocarbon coming online today far outstrips our energy needs.
“What can we do with it? Can we make more product?” he asked.
According to Energy Information Administration (EIA) the U.S. had the same carbon dioxide output in 2013 as it did in 1995.
“The U.S. met its obligation,” Castaldi said. “What to me this means is that waste recovery is a resource issue, not so much an environmental issue.”
He added that is it not so much “how can we get more energy?” It is, “What kind of materials are in the waste stream?”
He described pyrolysis, gas and combustion processes stating the difference is the amount of air each technology requires. Each technology also lends itself to different scales.
Incineration creates ash, and there has been some research into using ash to produce cement. Preliminary tests show a reduction in carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and Sulphur oxide.
In conclusion, Castaldi said, “The low price of energy means waste is a source of materials.”
The session was moderated by Ted Michaels, Energy Recovery Council. The Renewable Energy from Waste Conference was Nov. 14-16 at the Westin Long Beach in Long Beach, California.http://www.recyclingtoday.com/article/2016-rew-conference-circular-circumstances/
-
Trump Picks Rick Perry to Lead Energy Department
Dec 13, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President-elect Donald Trump is planning to nominate former Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) to lead the Department of Energy, a transition official tells The Hill.
If the Senate confirms Perry as secretary of Energy, he would oversee a department whose main missions include research on emerging energy technologies, regulating energy efficiency, managing the nation’s nuclear weapons and building nuclear reactors for Navy vessels.
The Energy Department in the coming years faces numerous challenges regarding the future of nuclear energy, including whether to continue working toward a nuclear waste site at Yucca Mountain that nuclear power producers say they need in order to keep operating.
Perry would replace Ernest Moniz, a nuclear physicist who has been Energy secretary under Obama since 2013. Moniz’s predecessor under Obama, Stephen Chu, was also a scientist, so Perry would break the tradition Obama set to put scientists in charge at DOE.
The former governor famously forgot the name of the Energy Department in a 2011 Republican presidential primary debate.
Perry tried to list the three federal departments he wanted to eliminate. He listed the departments of Education and Commerce, but then stumbled, saying, “The third one, I can’t. Sorry. Oops.”
After stepping down as Texas’s longest-serving governor in 2015, Perry ran again unsuccessfully for president. He was later a contestant on “Dancing with the Stars” in September, where he was eliminated in the second episode.
The Perry pick was first reported by CBS and Fox.
On the campaign trail, Trump said little about his plans for the Energy Department’s responsibilities.
More generally, he has promised to unleash fossil fuels like oil, natural gas and coal, which could lead to a shift at the department away from alternative energy programs.
Trump has also railed against “job-killing” regulations and pledged to review existing rules and crack down on new ones, which might change how the department writes efficiency rules for appliances and other products.
Perry could play a role in Trump’s proposal to invest $1 trillion in infrastructure. While it doesn’t have a formal regulatory responsibility, the Energy Department does research and analysis into the nation’s needs regarding energy infrastructure, like transmission lines and pipelines.
An April report from the department recommended billions of dollars in upgrades to the country’s energy infrastructure system, both to repair broken systems and adapt to new demands.
A questionnaire leaked last week from Trump’s transition team for the Department of Energy provided some more insight into his plans.
The survey sought a list of employees who worked on various climate change programs from President Obama and scrutinized various cost considerations of national labs and the Energy Information Administration, among other programs. It also asked how the agency could make nuclear power more competitive in the electricity marketplace.
Perry sits on the board of Energy Transfer Partners, which is building the controversial Dakota Access oil pipeline that the Standing Rock Sioux tribe and environmentalists oppose.
The Army Corps of Engineers is considering whether to grant the final easement that the project needs to build under Lake Oahe in North Dakota. The Energy Department has no direct role in the approval process.
Perry said in 2011 that climate change is a hoax by “a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects.”
But he’s also said that economic progress and protecting the environment are not mutually exclusive.
“You can have job creation, and you can make your environment better,” he said last year.
Before becoming Texas’s governor, Perry was a state lawmaker, agriculture commissioner and lieutenant governor.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/310111-trump-taps-rick-perry-to-lead-energy-department
-
Rick Perry to Lead Agency He Promised to Kill — Source
Dec 13, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
President-elect Donald Trump is expected to name former Texas Republican Gov. Rick Perry to lead the Department of Energy, a source close to the transition effort confirmed.
Perry, whose likely nomination has been widely reported, huddled for the second time this week with the president-elect at Trump Tower in New York City to discuss a Cabinet position. Perry once called Trump a "cancer of conservatism."
If confirmed, Perry would be a colorful addition to Trump's Cabinet. A former participant on the show "Dancing with the Stars," Perry has been the butt of jokes after forgetting during a televised GOP primary debate in 2011 that the Energy Department was one of three agencies he wanted to dismantle.
Further bolstering prospects of Perry's nomination, Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who was also in the running to lead DOE, announced plans today to stay in the Senate. "I was humbled to be considered for the Secretary of Energy position," Manchin said.
On a call with reporters this morning, Trump transition spokesman Jason Miller declined to confirm Perry's selection. "There hasn't been any announcement yet," Miller said. "Stay tuned for additional information."
Perry, 66, hails from Texas and was the state's longest-serving governor from 2000 to 2015. He is also known for his bids for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 and 2016. Perry holds a bachelor's degree in animal science from Texas A&M University.
The potential pick drew praise from some energy insiders but immediate criticism from the environmental community and Democrats who decried the nomination as mind-boggling. Republicans with close ties to Perry applauded his extensive experience.
Frank Maisano, senior principal in Bracewell LLP's government relations and strategic communications practice, said Perry oversaw an energy transformation in Texas that included integration of massive amounts of wind power into the U.S. electric grid, not to mention a booming oil and gas sector. He also pointed to Perry’s military experience as a former Air Force pilot. "This is a good pick," Maisano said.
The rumored pick drew polarizing reactions from Capitol Hill. Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said Perry doesn't recognize DOE's critical role in safeguarding the nation's nuclear arsenal and reactors and should be rejected.
"This nomination defies all logic," Pallone said. "Governor Perry is on the record both forgetting about the Energy Department and then later remembering that he wanted to eliminate it."
Pallone added: "It is also deeply unsettling that our current secretary of Energy, a renowned nuclear physicist, could be succeeded by a contestant on 'Dancing with the Stars.'"
With 158 political appointees, DOE oversees the nation's sprawling labs, the nuclear arsenal and more than 13,000 employees and contractors.
Texas GOP Reps. Pete Olson and Joe Barton, who worked on Perry's 2016 presidential bid, applauded the former governor's leadership in overseeing a booming energy sector back home.
"I have known Rick Perry since we were classmates at Texas A&M University, and he has always been a man of character," Barton said. "America is an energy superpower, and Governor Perry's expertise will be a valuable asset to the Administration."
Dismantle DOE?
Whether Perry can successfully navigate the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee — with its dozen Republicans and 10 Democrats — and move to the full chamber for confirmation may hinge on whether he still plans to dismantle DOE.
The agency is currently the source of multibillion-dollar loan guarantees for a variety of energy technologies and provides thousands of jobs in Democratic and Republican districts.
Republican ENR Committee members, including Sens. Cory Gardner of Colorado, Jim Risch of Idaho and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, all have DOE facilities or labs within their states.
Asked whether Trump wants to eliminate the agency, spokesman Sean Spicer stressed that the president-elect — not agency heads — will be the one setting policy.
"It's his agenda that's being implemented, not somebody else's," Spicer told reporters. "They're buying into the president-elect's vision."
Joe Romm, a senior fellow at Center for American Progress and former acting assistant secretary at the DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, said he didn't expect Perry to have much effect on the national labs because of their political clout.
"It's a dumb thing to take on," said Romm of any attempts to cut lab funding.
Romm recalled how there was a similar call for cutting energy programs under former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R) in the 1990s. A lot of deployment at DOE got cut as a result, but "we were able to save the research," Romm said.
At least some ENR panel Democrats signaled today they plan to oppose Perry's nomination given his stated intent to dismantle the agency. They also take issue with a memo the Trump's transition team is circulating to find out which federal employees attended climate-related meetings.
"The Trump administration should expect a fight on all of these nominations," said Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.).
Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) said DOE is New Mexico's lifeblood and people who work at the agency and national labs are among the nation's greatest intellectual assets.
"President-elect Trump has signaled his blatant hostility to the department and the workforce at our national labs by nominating someone who has proposed eliminating this entire agency," Heinrich said.
"I'm not confident that Rick Perry is fully cognizant of the role that DOE plays in keeping our nuclear deterrent safe, secure and reliable," said Heinrich. "He is utterly unqualified to lead this critical agency."
Also drawing sharp criticism is Perry's position on the board of directors at Energy Transfer Partners LP, the company pursuing construction of the Dakota Access oil pipeline in North Dakota.
The contentious project, currently under Army Corps of Engineers review, has triggered increasingly violent standoffs in North Dakota and intervention from the Obama administration.
"Rick Perry is on the board of the #DAPL parent company," Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) tweetedtoday. "This glaring conflict of interest should disqualify him from serving as Energy Sec."
Climate 'bullet'
Perry's selection, Romm said, should be viewed in the broader context of other appointments with strong fossil fuel ties, like the choice of Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO Rex Tillerson for secretary of State (see related story).
"The combination of Tillerson and Perry along with everyone else he's appointed is a bullet missile launched right at carbon reduction and all things clean energy," Romm said.
Perry in the past has said the "science isn't settled" on the issue of climate change, an assertion that drew criticism today from the environmental community.
NextGen Climate President Tom Steyer, Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune and Rhea Suh, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, criticized the possible appointment.
"Rick Perry is being tapped to run an agency he would eliminate if he could only remember its name," Brune said.
Earthjustice attorney Abigail Dillen said: "Today the Trump team gave the oil and gas industry a trifecta at the expense of the vast majority of Americans who understand the urgency of acting on climate change and transitioning away from fossil fuels to clean energy."
The former governor was a supporter of both wind energy and carbon capture and sequestration technology for power plants while governor of Texas.
In 2009, he signed a bill that provided tax incentives for Texas "clean energy projects" that can trap and store emissions.
That was a boost at the time for the Texas Clean Energy Project, a proposed coal-fired plant that would capture CO2 emissions at scale. DOE later pulled back funding after the venture did not meet milestones.
Perry also supported a multimillion-dollar fund in Texas to support carbon capture technology and originally pushed for FutureGen, a planned low-emissions coal plant that was later canceled, to be located in Texas before an Illinois site was chosen.
The main federal mechanism for funding carbon capture technology research is through DOE. A large percentage of DOE's overall fossil fuel budget, for example, is slated specifically for related research.
Perry has voiced opposition in the past to the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada, which Trump advisers have signaled interest in restarting. At least one nuclear industry source said Perry's position could shift.
"We are confident that any views expressed in the heat of a campaign will be trumped by the president-elect's transition team's focus on what needs to be done to restart Yucca Mountain," said David Blee, executive director of the U.S. Nuclear Infrastructure Council, a nuclear business consortium.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/12/13/stories/1060047131
-
Exxon CEO Named as Trump's Secretary of State
Dec 13, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Benjamin Hulac
President-elect Donald Trump this morning named Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO Rex Tillerson to lead the Department of State, setting up a contentious confirmation battle and elevating Exxon's positions on climate change to the national stage.
In announcing the selection of the hard-charging 64-year-old Texas oilman with close ties to Russia, Trump on Twitter called Tillerson "one of the truly great business leaders of the world" and in a press release called his career "the embodiment of the American dream."
Tillerson has led Exxon since 2006. He has no government experience. Trump noted Exxon has more than 70,000 employees in operations around the world.
"Mr. Tillerson knows how to manage a global organization and successfully navigate the complex architecture of world affairs and diverse foreign leaders. As Secretary of State, he will be a forceful and clear-eyed advocate for America's vital national interests, and help reverse years of misguided foreign policies and actions that have weakened America's security and standing in the world," Trump said.
Tillerson said in a statement that he shares Trump's vision for "restoring the credibility of the United States' foreign relations and advancing our nation's national security."
The CEO emerged as a dark-horse choice for the position late in the selection process, surpassing veteran Republican politicians, including former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, once New York City's mayor.
Republicans in the Senate, including Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Marco Rubio of Florida, have already expressed concerns that Tillerson is too close to Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin.
"Being a 'friend of Vladimir' is not an attribute I am hoping for from a #SecretaryOfState," Rubio said on Twitter yesterday, an apparent reference to Tillerson and Putin's relationship.
The Russian president presented Tillerson an award for foreigners, the Order of Friendship, in 2013.
If approved by the Senate, Tillerson would become the 69th secretary of State and take over the helm of a government agency responsible for negotiating international climate agreements and environmental deals, as well as forging international stability in volatile nations where Exxon operates.
While Tillerson's lifelong connections with the oil giant will likely raise questions about possible conflicts of interest, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) called him as "very impressive individual" this weekend, and President-elect Trump has praised him as a "world-class" deal-maker.
Tillerson has also been far more vocal on the topic of climate change than his predecessor, Lee Raymond, who often became visibly angry with investors who brought up global warming.
And after Trump was elected to the White House last month, Exxon said it stood committed to the Paris climate accord reached last year. At the same time, Tillerson has questioned climate models and argued that warming is an "engineering problem" to which humans can adapt.
Climate activists denounced the decision to put a man many of them vilify in charge of setting the tone of U.S. diplomacy.
Former European Commissioner for Climate Change Connie Hedegaard in a statement to E&E News said she hopes Tillerson's experience as a businessman convinces him of the need for the United States to stay in the Paris Agreement, signed by nearly 200 nations.
"That the CEO of Exxon will be one of few or maybe even the only climate voice in President Trump's Administration illustrates how sad the situation is," Hedegaard said.
"If the US government withdraws from the Paris agreement and stops living up to [its] financial pledges, I am in no doubt that China will fill the gap and cash in the geostrategical points with the developing countries. Making America great again?" she said.
Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune said in a statement that Exxon has hidden its knowledge of climate change for years — the company is under investigation by two state attorneys general and the Securities and Exchange Commission about those allegations.
Brune said the Trump administration is disregarding clean water and air.
"At a time when the climate crisis is deepening, both the United States and the world deserve much better than having one of the planet's top fossil fuel tycoons run U.S. foreign policy," he said. "We urge senators, who are elected to represent and protect the American people, to stand up for families across the country and the world and oppose this nomination."
Environmentalists are hoping to turn a confirmation hearing for Tillerson into a cross-examination on Exxon's climate change positions, research and funding (Climatewire, Dec. 12).
Straight from college with a civil engineering degree, Tillerson joined Exxon in 1975. He has never worked anywhere else since and was expected to step down from being chief executive in 2017.
Bradley Campbell, president of the Conservation Law Foundation, said the choice insults science and environmental stewardship.
"Every American should tremble for our country," said Campbell, who litigated against Exxon in the 2000s to force it to clean up its pollution in New Jersey.
And David Axelrod, the political adviser to President Obama, offered a playful jab on Twitter last night.
"Oil's well [that] ends well: Russophile Rex gets the job," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/12/13/stories/1060047094
-
Tillerson's Ties to Russia Could Bolster U.S. Interests
Dec 13, 2016 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Brenda Shaffer
President-elect Donald Trump’s nomination of ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson for Secretary of State has provoked concerns among some lawmakers that his good working relationship with Russia under President Putin and his company’s investments in the nation will prevent Tillerson from promoting U.S. national interests.
In addition, there are worries that Tillerson’s appointment signals a change in Washington’s international energy policy. A more careful look might alleviate some of those concerns. For most of the post-World War II period, energy has been a strong component of U.S. foreign policy.
Especially notable episodes include Henry Kissinger’s role in the establishment of the International Energy Agency in response to the 1973-74 oil crisis; the U.S. attempt to block establishment of gas pipelines from the Soviet Union to West Germany under the Reagan Administration; and the use of sanctions that target states’ energy sectors, in countries like Iraq, Iran and Sudan.
Institutionally, energy policy received its greatest boost at the State Department under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with the establishment of the Bureau of Energy Resources. In this very active bureau, over 90 diplomats focus on integrating energy into U.S. foreign policy around the globe. Thus, Under Tillerson, any new emphasis on energy issues will be more evolutionary than revolutionary.
Next, the claim that Tillerson having a cooperative relationship with Russia implies a lack of ability to promote American interests is puzzling. In fact, during periods of good bilateral relations, the U.S. has had a lot more influence over Russia’s foreign policy choices.
Russia is a global power that may not be the U.S.’s match in relative power, but certainly it is in relevant power. It has proved this in a variety of regions around the globe.
Moscow can’t just be ignored. A Secretary of State with a history of identifying common interests with Russia will likely be able to promote security cooperation with it.
In assessing the implications of Tillerson’s nomination for U.S. policy efforts to avert climate change, it is important to note that he was at the forefront of energy company CEOs endorsing a carbon tax in 2009. In fact, most major oil companies are actually oil and gas companies.
Natural gas producers benefit from climate change policies because they disproportionately affect the consumption of coal -- the main rival of natural gas and the largest producer of carbon emissions and air pollution.
Oil and gas companies, by and large, prefer a carbon tax over complicated schemes like emissions trading or cap-and-trade that do not give a clear price signal that can help them plan their investments to conform with the climate aversion policies.
Regarding the potential of the U.S. pulling out of the Paris CO21 Agreement, it should be recalled that it is a non-binding agreement. What will count is what each country does at home, not a toothless international mechanism.
The reality is that in the U.S., which is not a signatory to the major climate treaties of the past two decades, emissions are declining. This has happened due to the discovery and development of abundant U.S. natural gas supplies, which has motivated the power sector to move away from coal.
Policy did not motivate the switch; price did. President-elect Trump has stated that the U.S. needs “clean air, and beautiful clean water.” Hold him to this statement and it will bring both environmental and climate benefits.
One of the major strengths of U.S. foreign policy over the decades, in contrast to Europe and many other regions, is the ability to integrate energy into foreign policy. The U.S. has a larger tool box due to this approach.
Clearly, those tools will continue to be utilized under the incoming administration.
Brenda Shaffer is a visiting researcher and professor at Georgetown University’s Center for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies, a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Center, and the author of the book Energy Politics.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/310130-tillersons-ties-to-russia-could-bolster-us-interests
-
What Could $65/b WTI Mean for Oil Production in the Permian?
Dec 13, 2016 | Platts Blog
By Taylor Cavey
Clearly, the alleged deal between OPEC members and other cooperative nations has generated a fair amount of optimism among market participants. However, given so many unknowns and the near term mentality of the agreement, what the future may hold with respect to production and prices is, to say the least, a moving target. Nonetheless, as prices are expected to rise, there is upside potential for production and internal rates of return (IRR), particularly in premier basins like the Permian.
To no surprise, the Delaware and Midland basins in the Permian are generating some of the best returns in the country. Platts Bentek’s Well Economics Analyzer estimates that the IRR for a typical well in the Permian Delaware is currently 37% and is generating the best returns in North America. Let’s assume the stars align and OPEC along with cooperating countries are compliant with supply cuts and prices reach $65/b; what does this mean for IRRs in the Permian?
If this scenario were to play out, returns in the Permian Delaware would increase 14 percentage points to 51% IRR, holding regional price differentials constant. Well economics in the Delaware surpass those of competing plays with a robust oil initial production (IP) rate of 575 b/d, $6.0 million estimated drilling and completion (D&C) cost and a production mix that is heavily weighted towards oil at 76%. Not only that, the Delaware’s proximity to demand centers in the US Gulf Coast area and the overall quality of the barrel set it apart from the rest of the herd.
In the neighboring Midland basin, the second most profitable play in North America, returns are currently 34% and would jump to 48% at $65/b WTI. Oil IP rates in the Midland are roughly 100 b/d below those in the Delaware. However, on average, the play enjoys a D&C cost of $5.5 million, half a million dollars less than the Delaware and also reaps the financial benefit associated with proximity to refining centers along the Gulf Coast.
So what does $65/b WTI mean for production in the Permian? Platts Bentek estimates total Permian crude production will average a little less than 2 million b/d in 2016. However, given $65/b crude prices, production has the ability to increase 120,000 b/d in 2017. From a strictly quantitative standpoint, this estimate is more than reasonable. However, in reality, this estimate is rather conservative given accelerating efficiency gains and a vast inventory of drilled but uncompleted wells.
http://blogs.platts.com/2016/12/13/65-wti-oil-production-permian-opec/
-
In Stunning Reversal, EPA Now Says Fracking Can Impact Drinking Water -- Under Some Conditions
Dec 13, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
In a stunning reversal, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a final report Tuesday that says hydraulic fracturing (fracking) can impact drinking water under some circumstances, and identified several conditions where the impacts could be more severe.
The report marks a significant departure from a draft assessment on the potential impacts from fracking on drinking water the EPA issued in June 2015. At the time, the agency said it had found no systemic impacts to drinking water to date, but conceded that there were "potential vulnerabilities," some of which were not unique to fracking.
"The value of high quality science has never been more important in helping to guide decisions around our nation's fragile water resources," said Dr. Thomas A. Burke, EPA's Science Advisor and Deputy Assistant Administrator of EPA's Office of Research and Development. "EPA's assessment provides the scientific foundation for local decision makers, industry, and communities that are looking to protect public health and drinking water resources and make more informed decisions about fracking activities.
"This assessment is the most complete compilation to date of national scientific data on the relationship of drinking water resources and fracking."
According to the EPA, the conditions where fracking could have more frequent or severe impacts on drinking water are:
Water withdrawals for fracking in times or areas of low water availability, particularly in areas with limited or declining groundwater resources;
Spills during the management of fracking fluids and chemicals or produced water that result in large volumes or high concentrations of chemicals reaching groundwater resources;
Injection of fracking fluids into wells with inadequate mechanical integrity, allowing gases or liquids to move to groundwater resources;
Injection of fracking fluids directly into groundwater resources;
Discharge of inadequately treated fracking wastewater to surface water resources; and
Disposal or storage of fracking wastewater in unlined pits, resulting in contamination of groundwater resources.
The oil and gas industry blasted the EPA over the final report.
"It is beyond absurd for the administration to reverse course on its way out the door," said Erik Milito, upstream director for the American Petroleum Institute. "The agency has walked away from nearly a thousand sources of information from published papers, technical reports and peer reviewed scientific reports demonstrating that industry practices, industry trends, and regulatory programs protect water resources at every step of the hydraulic fracturing process. Decisions like this amplify the public's frustrations with Washington.
"Fortunately, the science and data clearly demonstrate that fracking does not lead to widespread, systemic impacts to drinking water resources. Unfortunately, consumers have witnessed five years and millions of dollars expended only to see a conclusion based in science changed to a conclusion based in political ambiguity. We look forward to working with the new administration in order to instill fact-based science back into the public policy process."
Last week, President-elect Donald Trump selected Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to lead the EPA.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/108717-in-stunning-reversal-epa-now-says-fracking-can-impact-drinking-water----under-some-conditions
-
API Eyes Trump to Resolve Criticisms of EPA Fracking Water Impact Study
Dec 13, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
The American Petroleum Institute (API) is looking to the incoming Trump administration and the GOP Congress to address its concerns about the Obama EPA's issuance of its final study on the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water, which drops an earlier draft finding of “no widespread, systemic” impacts to drinking water.
“We look forward to working with the new administration in order to instill fact-based science back into the public policy process,” API Upstream Director Erik Milito said in a Dec. 13 statement released the same day as the report. Milito blasted the decision to remove its previous draft conclusion that it found no evidence of “widespread, systemic impacts,” saying it is “beyond absurd for the administration to reverse course on its way out the door.”
Milito added that the “science and data clearly demonstrate that hydraulic fracturing does not lead to widespread, systemic impacts to drinking water resources” in the body of the agency's final report.
When asked by Inside EPA how API might specifically ask Trump or Congress to resolve the group's criticisms of the report, a spokesman for the group declined to speculate on exact future steps.
EPA previously floated a draft of the report with the finding of no widespread systemic impacts, which drew support from the oil sector that has long downplayed concerns about fracking's impacts on water. However, environmentalists criticized the finding, and EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) raised questions over it.
SAB's final Aug. 11 recommendations for improving the 2015 draft report said that EPA did not “support quantitatively its conclusion about lack of evidence for widespread, systemic impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources, and did not clearly describe the system(s) of interest (e.g., groundwater, surface water), the scale of impacts (i.e., local or regional), nor the definitions of 'systemic' and 'widespread.'”
SAB also urged EPA to better clarify local impacts; delineate its planned prospective case studies and explain why they were not completed; more clearly describe the probability and risk of potential fracking-related failure mechanisms; and include three high-profile groundwater pollution cases in Pennsylvania, Texas and Wyoming.
On a Dec. 13 call with reporters to announce the final report, Thomas Burke -- EPA's top science advisor and deputy assistant administrator of EPA's Office of Research and Development -- said that the agency opted to revise its topline draft conclusion on widespread, systemic impacts because SAB urged quantitative support for the statement.
Burke said that “significant data gaps and uncertainty limited our ability to estimate national frequency of impacts,” and also that public and SAB panel comments the agency received during peer review made it clear the draft conclusion “did not accurately summarize the information in the report.”
'Many Conclusions'
Rather, EPA in the final version of the report is now highlighting that the report includes “many conclusions” which are qualitative examples of potential vulnerabilities where fracking or related processes could impact drinking water.
To offer quantitative conclusions would require extensive monitoring and sampling, Burke said in response to a reporter's question about the conclusions in the final report. “There are instances where hydraulic fracturing has impacted drinking water -- those are important conclusions,” Burke said.
In the final report's executive summary, EPA now says that its examination of the fracking water lifecycle, which includes water withdrawals, fluid mixing and injection, and wastewater disposal, maintains that “These activities can impact drinking water under some circumstances.”
The report says, “Impacts can range in frequency and severity, depending on the combination of hydraulic fracturing water cycle activities and local- or regional -scale factors,” but highlighted several factors that “are more likely than others to result in more frequent or more severe impacts.”
Those impacts include water withdrawals in times of low water availability; spills that involve large volumes or high chemical concentrations that reach groundwater resources; injection of fracking fluids into wells with inadequate mechanical integrity or directly into groundwater resources; discharge of inadequately treated wastewater to surface water; and disposal or storage of wastewater in unlined pits.
The study identified “cases of impacts” for all stages of the fracking water life cycle, and found that such cases generally occurred near production wells and ranged in severity from temporary water quality changes to contamination that made private drinking wells unusable.
The available data and information allow the agency to “qualitatively” identify those factors that affect frequency and severity at a local scale, the report says, but data gaps and uncertainties in the available data prevented broader estimation of national impacts. “The data gaps and uncertainties described in this report also precluded a full characterization of the severity of impacts,” the report says.
Early Reactions
Environmentalists earlier this month had raised new concerns about the study based on press reports that EPA officials made last-minute changes to the agency's draft assessment to downplay risks associated with the findings -- but they are now praising the changes to the final report.
For example, Environmental Defense Fund's climate and energy vice president Mark Brownstein said in a Dec. 13 statement that the “revised assessment puts an end to the false narrative of risk-free fracking that has been widely promoted by industry” and opens the door for policy improvements and scientific advancements to better protect residents living near fracking wells.
Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, said in a separate Dec. 13 statement that the final report “rightly prioritized facts and science, and put public health and environmental protection over the profit-driven interests of the oil and gas industry.”
Some environmentalists are saying the final report gives them some scientific backing to fight the Trump administration if, as expected, it pursues an energy agenda that eases regulatory burdens on the oil and gas industry.
For example, John Noel, Clean Water Action's oil and gas campaign coordinator, said that if Trump's choice of EPA critic and Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R) wins confirmation to be the next EPA administrator, “the oil and gas industry will be calling the shots. But, thanks to the Obama administration, we have a head start -- proof that fracking threatens drinking water.”
The Natural Resources Defense Council's Amy Mall in a Dec. 13 statement said, “with a new administration coming in, this underscores the need for action at the federal level.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/api-eyes-trump-resolve-criticisms-epa-fracking-water-impact-study
-
Future of Fracking Research Uncertain Under Trump
Dec 13, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
Under President Obama, scientists in government and academia probed the impacts of hydraulic fracturing on water, air and health.
The scientific community is optimistic that President-elect Donald Trump will back new research that supports innovation in shale oil and gas extraction. But the appetite for science on potential environmental and health effects could be limited, and that attitude could trickle down to the availability of funding for academic researchers from federal agencies like the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
"I cannot predict the future on NIH [National Institutes of Health] funding. It could go in so many directions. I am hoping for the best," said Brian Schwartz, a professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, a fellow at the Post Carbon Institute and a recipient of NIEHS funding for his research on pregnancy and asthma in the Marcellus Shale. "Certainly the new administration's comments about opening up all fossil fuels to easier access and use makes me worry that research on the health and climate effects of fossil fuels, including unconventional natural gas, tar sands and oil shale, may not be high priority."
Trevor Penning, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Perelman School of Medicine and another NIEHS grantee, said Trump could offer unexpected support.
"I think we have to take a wait and see approach," Penning wrote in an email. "We should also recall that President Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency so because we have a Republican administration we should be careful making assumptions."
U.S. EPA's report on the effects of hydraulic fracturing on groundwater could help shape the future of science on that particular impact. Industry groups lauded a draft version of the document for its finding of no "widespread, systemic" impact (Greenwire, June 4, 2015). Don Siegel, chairman of the earth sciences department at Syracuse University, said the draft affirmed a paper he published last year finding that methane in Pennsylvania water wells was unrelated to nearby oil and gas activity.
"I feel very comfortable with my work and with what EPA came out with, that there's minimal risk to drinking water supplies from fracking and the oil and gas activity," Siegel said.
Environmental groups questioned the language and pushed for investigation of White House involvement in the report's messaging (Energywire, Dec. 5). EPA appeared responsive to those critiques, saying in the final version of its report today that "data gaps and uncertainties" limited the agency's assessment.
Under Trump's leadership, new government research on the practice could steer away from investigation of impacts on water and other resources, said Dominic DiGiulio, a retired EPA scientist.
"Maybe they'll continue to fund research on improving hydraulic fracturing and improving the technology with DOE and USGS [the U.S. Geological Survey]," he said. "In terms of environmental impact, I'm having a hard time seeing that."
Earlier this year, DiGiulio, who is now a visiting scholar at the Stanford School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences, published an analysis of public records and documents linking fracking in Pavillion, Wyo., to water pollution (Greenwire, March 29). He suspects scientists could continue to uncover evidence of contamination from oil and gas development — if funding is available.
If government takes a step back from investigating potential impacts from fracking, that's bad news for residents who live in the communities where extraction is taking place, DiGiulio said. Advocacy from environmental groups is not a substitute for federal oversight, he said.
"If I were a homeowner and I lived near fracturing and I had a problem, I'd be worried about how I could get someone to promptly investigate that," DiGiulio said. "They feel like they're totally abandoned."
Science plays a role in easing some of the public's fears about oil and gas operations, said Duke University scientist and professor Avner Vengosh.
"The reason we see so much toxicity and political debate among environmentalists and industry is the lack of science," he said. "It's becoming very political, and the scientific approach can fill the gap in terms of mitigating and providing objective information."
Groundwater contamination
In the spring, USGS found what it called a "definitive link" between water quality impacts and the process of disposing waste from fracking (Energywire, May 11).
Using isotopic analysis and chemistry, USGS tagged fracking waste as the source of contaminants in sediment samples collected downstream of a waste injection site in Fayetteville, W.Va. The study was critiqued for highlighting a site that is atypical of other injection wells and for failing to distinguish between the facility's impact and pre-existing contamination issues.
Baseline studies are a hole in the body of research on fracking. Few people foresaw the boom in domestic oil and gas development, and scientists scrambled to begin researching the newly pervasive extraction technique. They had difficulty securing funding for sampling studies that would likely be held for long periods before publication, said Chris Kassotis, a postdoctoral research associate at Duke.
"Most people agree funding won't get easier, and funding is already extremely tight," he said.
The USGS analysis was guided by a collaboration among EPA, DOE and the Interior Department, in which USGS is housed. The strategy sets research priorities for the agencies and helps facilitate communication among the departments, said USGS hydrologist Isabelle Cozzarelli.
As for how that strategy could change under Trump, "that's a big unknown," she said.
Trump's selection of fossil-fuel-friendly Cabinet members like former Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R) provide some indication of the administration's lack of desire for science. The multiagency strategy could also be affected by Trump's "Penny Plan," a pledge to reduce non-defense, non-safety net spending by 1 percent each year, said USGS research microbiologist Denise Akob. But Cozzarelli said she is optimistic USGS will continue to expand the scope of its fracking research under Trump.
"Our project is a long-term project, so we're going to continue to study the sites that we currently have, and we're not changing any of our priorities or approach on this project," she said. "You shouldn't expect to see any change there. A lot of what we're trying to do is understand impacts across the whole country and if we see any environmental effects how long they might last. That requires a bit of a longer-term view. Hopefully a change in administration isn't going to change that."
Impacts from waste disposal, rather than fracking itself, will likely be the focus of new science, Cozzarelli said.
"I'm more convinced than ever that that's the right place to concentrate," she said.
The USGS study built on fingerprinting analysis previously developed by Duke to link chemicals in the environment to Marcellus development (Energywire, Oct. 29, 2013).
This year, the Duke team looked at the risks associated with natural brines in produced water (Energywire, Oct. 17). Unconventional wells send up a large volume of fluid over the course of their existence, but just 4 to 8 percent of that is fracking fluid, according to the Duke study. The remainder is naturally occurring brine that contains halides, heavy metals, metalloids and naturally occurring radioactive materials.
If that fluid is used in other applications, it requires much more thorough treatment and dilution than fracking fluid, Vengosh said.
"People say it's naturally occurring, so no need to worry," he said. "The brine has been kind of neglected in a way, and we need further investigation."
Contamination from brine spills gained attention this year from the scientific and regulatory communities after researchers discovered that saltwater releases pose more environmental risk than oil slicks (Greenwire, April 28). The North Dakota Department of Health's Environmental Health Section this fall issued new guidelines for brine spill cleanups.
In the Bakken Shale, USGS research has helped regulators identify priorities for their water contamination investigations, said David Glatt, chief of the Environmental Health Section. In turn, survey scientists have been willing to adjust their focus to look at issues that are of concern to state regulators.
"Hopefully things won't change much with USGS" under the Trump administration, Glatt said.
There is also a valuable role for EPA in oil and gas science, he said, but that agency is more likely than USGS to attempt to displace state authority. Glatt said he would like to see EPA work in partnership with states, like USGS does. Even if regulators don't know what the survey's final findings will be, there is a sense of security that USGS will stick with the science, he said.
With EPA, "sometimes it's agenda-driven," Glatt said.
Health impacts
As a companion to its groundwater paper, USGS, in partnership with Duke and the University of Missouri (MU), also released a limited study on the potential human development impacts from fracking (Energywire, April 6).
The scientists found that exposure to frack waste in ground and surface water could be interfering with human hormones. Using the same West Virginia waste injection facility, the team compared the presence of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in water samples collected upstream, on and downstream of the site.
Author Susan Nagel, associate professor in the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health in MU's School of Medicine, called the paper the "strongest association" to date between oil and gas development and endocrine disruption.
But the industry group Energy In Depth questioned the concentrations and source of endocrine disruption chemicals that are likely to be found in the environment.
Causal links between fracking and illness have been tenuous. A Johns Hopkins paper this year correlated high exposures to fracking to migraines, nasal and sinus problems but stopped short of saying the industry's activity caused those symptoms (Energywire, Aug. 25).
Health scientists say there is a dearth of systematic studies of potential health impacts from fracking. Nagel has said she will be working — with the support of NIH funding — to more definitively link the practice with developmental outcomes.
She plans to expand on a study this year finding that fracking chemicals can affect fertility in female mice (Energywire, Aug. 26). As part of that study, Nagel investigated different exposure levels and found impacts at levels equivalent or below concentrations measured by EPA in Pavillion.
"The basic problem that we have in trying to determine if there's impact is trying to identify the actual organic compounds that are associated with these processes," said DiGiulio, who served as principal investigator of EPA's 2011 report on groundwater contamination near Pavillion.
Scientists don't know what's there, and reporting limits are sometimes too high to capture risk, he said. When DiGiulio was at EPA, he and his colleagues developed a method to detect methanol, a common alcohol used in fracking, at levels far below the detection capabilities of commercial labs (Climatewire, April 4).
"Better techniques result in detection," DiGiulio said.
The urge to apply the precautionary principle — don't implement a new technology until it is fully understood — is an understandable one, Siegel said.
But expecting to stop fracking until the science has vetted every caveat of the process is unrealistic, he said.
"You go with what you've got," Siegel said.
Remaining gaps
For industry, the book is closed on investigations of fracking's environmental effects.
EPA this year recorded the fourth consecutive year of reduced emissions from oil and gas production (Energywire, Oct. 7). Industry proponents said the measurements show there's no need for new methane regulations, although environmental groups attributed the reduction to existing rules on well completions.
Another study this year found that while gas production climbed, the industry's leakage rate fell (Climatewire, Oct. 6).
Fracking has "been looked at from a health perspective, a groundwater perspective, a climate perspective," said Energy In Depth researcher Katie Brown. "All the science overwhelmingly says it is safe and a benefit for the environment and a benefit for health because it is reducing emissions."
She doesn't expect any changes on the science as a result of the incoming administration.
"The data are what the data are," Brown said.
For scientists, especially in the health realm, there's much more to explore. Last year, the Boston-based Health Effects Institute set a strategic research agenda for study of the effects of oil and natural gas development in the Appalachian Basin.
As part of its agenda, HEI posed 35 research questions on environmental impacts, waste management and public health topics related to fracking. Among their questions: Are there long-term mental or physical health effects resulting from short-term or chronic exposures to chemical or physical stressors associated with oil and gas development?
HEI's model is to rely on funding from industry and EPA, said energy research director Donna Vorhees.
"As far as I know, they plan to fund that work," she said of EPA.
Industry participation will be critical, but oil and gas operators have been hesitant to collaborate with scientists because of a tendency among environmental groups to use research to condemn fracking, rather than flesh out public understanding of the process, Siegel said.
EPA reached out to industry for collaboration with its Pavillion investigation, DiGiulio said. But industry never indicated a strong interest in working with the agency.
"If they didn't do it then," DiGiulio said, "I don't know what would spur them to do it now."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/12/13/stories/1060047068
-
Managing Methane: New Jersey’s Largest Utility Using Better Data for Better Decisions
Dec 13, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Simi Rose George and Virginia Palacios
A new method of prioritizing gas infrastructure improvements is resulting in faster reductions of greenhouse gas emissions in New Jersey. Just over a year ago, we wrote about an order from the state’s Board of Public Utilities approving a settlement agreement for a $905 million, three-year pipe replacement program by PSE&G, New Jersey’s largest gas utility. This order, and the underlying settlement agreement were pioneering in one major aspect – PSE&G agreed to use environmental data to inform its infrastructure improvement efforts.
The order provided that the company would use data on leak flow rate (the speed at which methane is leaking from gas pipes) to help prioritize its local distribution pipe (“gas line”) replacement program. PSE&G is the first utility in the country to do so. The idea was that this data would be gathered by EDF as part of a collaborative project with Google Earth Outreach and Colorado State University through a survey of sections of PSE&G’s service territory targeted for gas line replacement.
Methane, the main constituent of natural gas, is a powerful greenhouse gas 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 20-year time frame. Replacing the leakiest gas lines first (after safety has been considered) means emissions can be reduced much more rapidly. In this way, PSE&G is generating benefits not only for the environment and public safety, but also for ratepayers, who pay the costs of leaked gas.
In Practice
Working with our partners, we surveyed 30 one-square-mile grids in PSE&G’s service territory, using a Google Street View car specially outfitted with methane sensors. PSE&G shared the type and location of the gas lines they were looking to replace, making it possible to orient the survey efforts in a manner responsive to the Company’s pipe replacement program. Readings were taken from May 2015 through November 2015.
As always, safety factors remain paramount in the prioritization of PSE&G’s pipe replacement efforts. What the new dataset on leak flow rate provides to PSE&G is a layer of insight not previously available. Where two or more grids have a comparable safety ranking and are not immediately hazardous, PSE&G is addressing the one with the higher methane emissions first. This allows the company to co-optimize environmental, ratepayer and safety benefits.
Impacts
We found an average of about one leak per mile of gas line within the 30 grid areas surveyed. Similar to other national studies on distribution pipeline leaks, we found that a few large leaks contributed to a substantial portion of the emissions we found.
PSE&G prioritized three grids for replacement based on leak flow rate, after replacing gas lines in all the grids that were deemed to have the highest safety risk. These three grids accounted for 37% of the total emissions we quantified, but represented only 9% of the gas line miles in the 30 grids that were surveyed.
Our analysis shows that using leak flow rate for prioritizing pipe replacement allowed PSE&G to achieve an 83% reduction of quantified methane emissions by replacing one-third fewer miles of gas lines than it would have needed to replace in order to achieve the same level of emission reduction under a business-as-usual scenario. These figures take on greater meaning when you consider that the average costs of replacement per mile of gas line on PSE&G’s system ranges from $1.5-$2 million.
The Bigger Picture
These findings have important implications for utilities across the country. In 2011, the Department of Transportation and the federal Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued a joint call to action to all state pipeline regulatory agencies, technical and subject matter experts, and pipeline operators to accelerate repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of the highest-risk pipeline infrastructure. According to PHMSA, cast iron pipes, which are considered to be high risk infrastructure, represent approximately 30 percent of the total leak-prone pipe in the country. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that the total cost of replacing cast iron and bare steel pipes in gas distribution systems is a massive $270 billion, underscoring the need to direct this investment in the most optimal way possible.
Our analysis shows that methane emissions reductions can be achieved more quickly nationwide if cutting edge leak quantification methods are used to prioritize cast iron distribution pipeline replacement programs. If PSE&G’s ratio of emissions to gas line miles (37% of emissions from just 9% of lines surveyed) were to be found nationally, prioritizing replacements using the method employed by PSE&G for 9% of the highest-emitting cast iron gas lines in the nation could result in 12,000 tons of methane emission reductions. That would have the same climate benefit as taking over 200,000 cars off the roads each year.
More Progress
Other utilities are exploring new leak quantification methods. EDF recently concluded a pilot project with Con Edison to characterize its backlog of non-hazardous leaks in Westchester County in New York. Con Edison will use this data to prioritize repairs of these leaks, addressing the largest ones first. Analysis of the data found that more than half the emissions could be eliminated by addressing the largest 18% of the leaks.
EDF is continuing to advocate before regulatory commissions across the country for this new method of implementing gas infrastructure improvements to be adopted more broadly by utilities. In the meantime, PSE&G is leading the way in using data and analytics to inform its asset management decisions.
http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2016/12/13/managing-methane-new-jerseys-largest-utility-using-better-data-for-better-decisions/
-
Proposed Pennsylvania Methane Regs Exceed Federal Standards
Dec 13, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) plans to incorporate and go beyond the latest federal requirements to reduce oil and gas industry methane emissions in a new general permit for unconventional wells sites and revisions for the general permit for natural gas compressor facilities.
The agency discussed the changes for the first time at an Air Quality Technical Advisory Committee meeting last week. The changes would apply to pigging operations and unloading fluids from wells as they've been identified as considerable short-term emissions that aren't covered by federal regulations. Regulators would also require quarterly leak detection and repair surveys at well sites instead of semi-annually as federal regulations require. If an operator can demonstrate that 2% or less of its equipment is leaking then that requirement would be reduced.
Revisions for compressor stations would also impose noise mitigation requirements that comply with federal or local standards. The general permit for unconventional well sites would replace the Category No. 38 conditional permit exemption for oil and gas exploration, which changed DEP's air permitting policy and allowed regulators to more narrowly identify sources or categories of sources that could be exempt from plan approval.
Among the chief concerns about replacing the exemption criteria and revising the current general permit was the possibility that the DEP's efforts would exceed the scope of similar federal rulemaking efforts. The Obama administration has rolled-out a series of similar regulations and updates in recent years to meet a goal of slashing methane emissions from the oil and gas sector by 40-45%.
Before last week's meeting, which was one of the first times the industry heard about the new permit and revisions, the Marcellus Shale Coalition (MSC) sent letters to DEP recommending that the state adopt the recent federal regulations. The organization cautioned that dual standards could prove onerous and costly for the industry. The MSC said after the meeting that it wouldn't have further comment until the new permit and revisions are put out for public comment.
DEP has said there is no timeline for the release of the new regulations, but agency officials at last week's meeting said the draft documents would be published "shortly" in the state bulletin and opened to a 45-day public comment period. The changes are part of Gov. Tom Wolf's plan to reduce industry emissions. Other parts of that plan call for developing a rule to cover methane leaks from existing oil and gas facilities and establishing best management practices, including leak detection and repair programs to reduce emissions along production, gathering, transmission and distribution lines.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/108714-proposed-pennsylvania-methane-regs-exceed-federal-standards
-
(ACC Mentioned) Oil Refinery Workers Face Dangerous Conditions, Deadly Explosions
Dec 13, 2016 | Huffington Post
By Jim Morris
Refineries don’t just pollute. They also kill and maim workers and threaten the public.
From 500 yards away, John Moore felt the concussion before he heard it.
Moore was midway through a 6 p.m.-to-6 a.m. shift as an operator at the Tesoro Corporation’s oil refinery in Anacortes, an island town 80 miles north of Seattle. It was 35 minutes after midnight on April 2, 2010.
Up the hill from Moore, in the Naphtha Hydrotreater unit, seven workers were restoring service to a bank of heat exchangers — radiator-like devices containing flammable hydrocarbons, that had been gummed up by residue and cleaned. Most of the workers didn’t need to be there; it was, for them, a training exercise.
Moore was monitoring the job by radio. “They were maybe two-thirds of the way to putting the bank online when I heard a noise from outside,” he said. “I felt a tremendous vibration in my feet,” followed by the whooshing sound of “a match hitting a barbecue.”
Exchanger E-6600E, part of a bank that had kept running while the other one was down, had come apart and disgorged hydrogen and a component of crude oil called naphtha, which ignited. Moore called each of the seven workers on the radio and got no response. Thirty or 40 seconds later he heard the strained voice of the crew’s foreman, Lew Janz. “Lew said, ‘Get someone up here. We’re all dying.’”
Members of the refinery’s first-responder team raced to the unit. They sprayed water on flaming, mangled equipment and burning bodies, which reignited from the heat. Debris flew. The conflagration lasted until 4 a.m.
Three of the workers died at the scene. Two more succumbed to their injuries within hours. A sixth — Janz — lived for 11 days, a seventh for 22. The Washington State Department of Labor & Industries investigated and proposed a record fine against Tesoro, having found that it “disregarded a host of workplace safety regulations, continued to operate failing equipment for years, postponed maintenance [and] inadequately tested for potentially catastrophic damage.” The company has since settled lawsuits filed by the families of the seven workers but is still appealing the state citation.
In a written statement, Tesoro said that while it disagrees with the Department of Labor & Industries’ conclusions, this “does not alter our focus on continually learning from incidents and improving the safety of our operations.” Moore, now retired and in fragile health, takes a darker view. “They’ve fought everything tooth and nail,” he said, “and refused to take the blame for anything.”
There are 141 oil refineries in the United States. Where they are clustered — east and south of Houston, south of Los Angeles, northeast of San Francisco — they are prodigious sources of air pollution and inflict a sort of low-grade misery — rank odors, bright flares, loud noises — on their neighbors.
They also pose an existential threat, as evidenced by the more than 500 refinery accidents reported to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1994. The Anacortes disaster occurred five years after the BP refinery in Texas City, Texas, blew up, killing 15 workers and injuring 180. It came two years before a fire at the Chevron refinery in Richmond, California, sent a plume of pungent, black smoke over the Bay Area, and five years before an explosion at the ExxonMobil refinery in Torrance, California, nearly unleashed a ground-hugging cloud of deadly acid into a city of almost 150,000 people.
These episodes and others call into question the adequacy of EPA and U.S. Department of Labor rules that have been in place since the 1990s. The former is finishing an update, due out in early 2017, that critics say doesn’t do enough to safeguard the public; the latter is years away from floating a proposal to protect workers.
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board, an investigative body modeled on the National Transportation Safety Board, lists among its highest priorities upgrades to process safety — procedures that can help prevent industrial fires, explosions and chemical leaks. The board, which makes recommendations but has no regulatory authority, has investigated 15 refinery accidents in its 19-year history and just committed to an inquiry into a Nov. 22 fire at the ExxonMobil refinery in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, that injured six workers, four critically. It has issued 112 refinery-related recommendations, nearly half of which have not been adopted.
“Underlying so many problems in this industry is production pressure,” board member Rick Engler said. “Shutting down part or all of a major refining unit costs an enormous amount of money, so there are pressures not to do so from management.”
The board’s final report on Anacortes is an indictment of Tesoro’s safety ethos: The bank of heat exchangers on which Lew Janz, Daniel Aldridge, Matthew Bowen, Kathryn Powell, Darrin Hoines, Donna Van Dreumel and Matthew Gumbel were working had a “long history of frequent leaks and occasional fires” during startup, investigators found. Tesoro “did not monitor actual operating conditions” of two of the exchangers, including the badly degraded one that ruptured, “even though it would have been technically feasible to do so.”
Tesoro could have redesigned the exchangers and automated startup procedures — things it did after the fact — so the seven workers would not have been in peril, the board said.
Instead, Tesoro chose to tempt fate. It was a mindset former workers like Maria Redin had complained about for years.
“Very few people exercised their right to stop work because of peer pressure,” said Redin, who lives in Belcourt, North Dakota, and went by her married name, Maria Howling Wolf, in Anacortes. When she, an operator, would raise a concern, managers would “pat me on the head like a good little dog” and tell her not to worry.
Redin and her colleagues used to say they worked at “God’s favorite refinery,” a wry reference to the many close calls that somehow hadn’t ended badly. This run of luck expired at 12:35 a.m. on April 2, 2010, when Redin, who had just gone to bed, heard the explosion. “I automatically assumed it was the refinery,” she said. “You could see the fire from my house. I knew they were going to need help.”
Redin got dressed and drove her pickup truck to the main gate. Sent first to a break room where the seven workers’ belongings lay untouched, she next was dispatched to the bottom of the hill on which the Naphtha Hydrotreater unit was perched. Redin arrived by bicycle and went upstairs to an old control room. There she saw Matt Gumbel, a 34-year-old operator with whom she had worked. His eyelids had been burned off. His body smoldered.
“I didn’t even recognize him,” Redin said. “He was all swollen up and laying on the floor with a blanket over him. He was naked. He was cooked, literally cooked.”
Gumbel began talking. “He was telling me to tell his dad [Paul, who also worked at the refinery] he was fine. I said, ‘Matt, you’re not OK. You look like shit.’ He kind of laughed and said, ‘I know.’” The banter continued as paramedics tended to Gumbel and Redin held his hand. Eventually, it subsided. “I could tell he was going down,” Redin said.
‘High-Risk, High-Reward’
At the time of the accident in Anacortes, Dr. Michael Silverstein headed the Department of Labor & Industries’ Division of Occupational Safety and Health. “I went out there not too long after the explosion,” said Silverstein, who retired in 2012. He was struck by the sheer size of the 120,000-barrel-per-day refinery, built in 1955. “Even single units are monstrous,” he said. “I remember being stunned at the scope of the unit that had blown up.”
The Naphtha Hydrotreater unit’s purpose was to remove sulfur and other impurities from raw naphtha so it could be turned into high-octane gasoline stock. The cylindrical, tube-filled heat exchangers inside the unit were used to conserve energy: They preheated the feed as it made its way to the reactor and also cooled the reactor effluent.
The more Silverstein learned about what had happened at the refinery, the angrier he became. He was told about the troublesome heat-exchanger leaks during startup; workers routinely used steam lances to suppress flammable vapors. “It was unfathomable to me why Tesoro had decided to place workers in positions of known danger rather than making more expensive but definitive fixes to these leaking units,” Silverstein said.
He learned about a corrosion mechanism called high temperature hydrogen attack, or HTHA, which can cause tiny cracks in equipment, like the exchangers, subject to intense heat and pressure. He learned that the company hadn’t done the sorts of inspections required to find these micro-cracks, which can turn into bigger ones.
Silverstein was bothered in particular by a 1999 Tesoro document stating that it was “economically attractive” to push reactors and exchangers to their limits in older units. The document urged “very close control and monitoring of operating conditions, coupled with frequent inspection” under such circumstances.
The state’s investigation took six months, the maximum allowed by law. On Oct. 1, 2010, the Department of Labor & Industries cited Tesoro for 44 violations — 39 classified as “willful,” five as “serious” — and proposed a fine of just under $2.4 million. Tesoro gave notice of appeal three weeks later and subsequently filed a series of legal motions that sent the case into limbo for more than four and a half years. Finally, in July 2015, what would turn out to be a year-long proceeding began before the state Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals. Over the course of that year, 102 witnesses gave testimony.
In his opening statement in Mount Vernon, a small city southeast of Anacortes, on July 21 of last year, Assistant Attorney General Brian Dew, representing the Department of Labor & Industries, outlined the state’s case. “Tesoro is in a high-risk, high-reward business, but with a twist,” he said. “They take the higher reward, but it’s the employees that are put at risk.”
The exchanger that blew, E-6600E, and its twin, E-6600B, were made of carbon steel, a material known for its susceptibility to HTHA. Tesoro, Dew said, never inspected either for this condition. “As you see the evidence that’s offered in this case,” he told Industrial Appeals Judge Mark Jaffe, “you will see that this tragedy did not have to happen.”
Tesoro’s outside counsel, Peter Modlin of San Francisco, spoke next. The company “could not have foreseen the event giving rise to the April 2010 incident,” he said, and there was no evidence that it violated any regulations.
Modlin explained that Tesoro had acquired the refinery in 1998 from Shell Oil Company, which had installed the E-6600 heat exchangers 26 years earlier. Tesoro retained corrosion specialists who determined that the E and B exchangers weren’t vulnerable to HTHA, Modlin said; therefore, they weren’t inspected for it. The A and D exchangers, which ran hotter, were.
Modlin rebutted the allegations in the Labor & Industries citation and promised, “There will not be a shred of evidence presented by the department that Tesoro was indifferent to workers’ safety.”
The following 12 months brought a parade of witnesses, including the CEO of Tesoro, Gregory Goff, and his predecessor, Bruce Smith.
In a deposition, Smith, who retired on April 30, 2010, described how he helped turn a $250 million company that was near bankruptcy into a $7 billion powerhouse, a company that went from owning one refinery to seven. Smith recalled being awakened by a phone call the morning of the blast and driving to a crisis center that had been established at Tesoro headquarters in San Antonio. He and his wife arrived in Anacortes that evening and “immediately went to the hospital to meet with families,” he said.
Dew: “As far as you know, was anyone at Tesoro responsible for the April 2, 2010, explosion and fire?”
Smith: “No.”
Goff was in China, finishing his tenure at ConocoPhillips, at the time of the accident. Just as Smith professed no knowledge of what happened after his departure from Tesoro — “When I left, I left” — Goff said he couldn’t speculate on events prior to his arrival in May 2010. Testifying by telephone during one of the Mount Vernon hearings, Goff said he thought “the company responded extremely well” to the catastrophe and assured Dew that “a core value of everything we do is our commitment to environmental health and safety.”
In a deposition, the company’s former chief operating officer, Everett Lewis, said it was unfair to blame him or anyone else at Tesoro for the loss of life in Anacortes. “It was a set of circumstances that were set up earlier in the life of the refinery that really led to the incident,” Lewis testified. The heat exchangers, he said, were arranged by Shell in a way that increased the likelihood of “fouling” — clogging, which could cause the temperature to spike — and other problems. “That was easier to see after the fact,” Lewis said. “It was very difficult for anybody to recognize that in the course of regular operations.”
A Shell spokesman declined to comment.
Until exchanger E split open, Tesoro had assumed that it and its duplicate, exchanger B, weren’t subject to HTHA as long as they operated below the so-called Nelson curve for carbon steel — a set of temperature and pressure parameters developed by engineer George Nelson in 1949 and adopted by the oil industry’s primary trade group, the American Petroleum Institute — API — in 1970. Tesoro built in an additional safety factor, lawyer Modlin said.
It wasn’t enough. As the Chemical Safety Board noted in its final report on the accident, one part of exchanger E found to have been damaged by HTHA was running 120 degrees below the curve. A metallurgical analysis by a consultant found a crack in exchanger B, undetected by Tesoro, that was 48 inches long and one-third of an inch deep. “Had somebody crawled inside that shell,” one worker remarked at a public meeting held by the board, “they would’ve seen it with a flashlight.”
API itself warned in 2008 of a trend among refiners to “push equipment to the limits … for economic reasons …” and said “the concept of a simple boundary between safe and unsafe operating conditions” was flawed.
The same year, Tesoro began its own investigation of fires, leaks and temperature excursions within the Naphtha Hydrotreater Unit and the adjoining Catalytic Reformer Unit in Anacortes. A confidential report introduced as evidence in the appeal hearing documented 14 incidents in the two units from 2003 through 2007 and bemoaned “complacency in the workforce.”
For a time, the report said, one of Tesoro’s mechanical engineers was fully engaged in stopping the exchanger leaks, successfully pushing for repairs and changes in startup and shutdown procedures. After the engineer left the company, “it appears that the level of concern … did not get communicated to his replacement and no further progress was made.”
And so it happened that seven workers were stationed around the leak-prone bank of exchangers on the blustery night of April 1, 2010.
Patrick Neely was working as an operator in the blender unit, several hundred yards away. Just after midnight, “I was outside in the parking lot,” he testified in Mount Vernon. “Saw a fireball. Stepped around the building and thought an airplane had crashed into one of our cooling-water towers.”
Neely assembled with the other first responders. “We rolled out hoses and started cooling the vessel, right next to where the fire was originating from, just to keep it cool, so there was no other explosions,” he said. “At the same time there was a body in front of us, burning. We were trying to put the body out, with no luck.”
Shaken residents of Anacortes, a city of 16,000 whose business district lies about five miles northwest of the refinery, called 911. At least one thought there had been an earthquake.
In his closing argument on July 21 of this year, Dew, the assistant attorney general, said that from the time it acquired the Anacortes refinery until the night of the accident, Tesoro showed “systemic apathy” toward safety. Violating its own policy, it never performed internal inspections of the E and B heat exchangers to see if they were being weakened by HTHA, Dew said. It seemed uninterested in learning about the refinery’s idiosyncrasies before closing the purchase with Shell in 1998. “If you are buying a car, are you not going to look under the hood?” Dew asked. “Well, apparently that’s how Tesoro operates.”
Tesoro “was anything but indifferent to safety,” said Modlin, its lawyer. Every operator “had authority to stop work or even shut down a unit if he or she felt there was a hazard.” Incidents and near-misses were closely tracked.
Modlin said the state had not proved “plain indifference” on the company’s part, the foundation of the willful violations. “Mistakes,” he said, “are not enough to establish willfulness.”
Judge Jaffe has weighed the evidence against Tesoro for nearly five months. It’s unclear when he will rule. Either side can appeal his decision.
‘A Quiet But Deadly Crisis’
In its written statement, Tesoro said that safety is “integral part of everything we do … and we strive for continuous improvement in our performance.”
Steve Garey, who retired from the Anacortes refinery in 2015 after almost 25 years and served as president of the United Steelworkers local, said that while some positive changes were made after the 2010 accident, upper management at Tesoro remains “contemptuous” of its work force and is “hiding behind incredibly permissive process safety regulations.”
Those regulations grew out of a string of catastrophic events in the 1980s, among them a chemical leak at a Union Carbide pesticide plant in Bhopal, India, that killed thousands in December 1984, and a near-miss at a sister plant in Institute, West Virginia, eight months later. Mishaps occurred with alarming frequency in the United States throughout the decade. In May 1988, the Shell refinery in Norco, Louisiana, exploded, killing seven workers and injuring 42. In October 1989, the Phillips Petroleum chemical plant near Houston blew up, killing 23 and injuring 132.
By 1990 Congress had seen enough. In amendments to the Clean Air Act, it ordered the Labor Department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration — OSHA — and the EPA to address what then-Rep. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, years earlier had called “a quiet but deadly crisis.”
In 1992, OSHA came out with its Process Safety Management standard, which requires industries using “highly hazardous chemicals which may be toxic, reactive, flammable, or explosive” to identify and address vulnerabilities, train workers in emergency-response procedures and take other actions. Four years later the EPA published its Risk Management Program rule, which sets out similar requirements along with a directive that the companies most likely to hurt or kill large numbers of people prepare worst-case accident scenarios and update them every five years.
These scenarios — which must be viewed in person and can’t be photocopied or photographed because of what the EPA describes as security concerns — are decidedly grim. The one for the Tesoro refinery in Anacortes is less daunting than most: The refinery’s remote location on March’s Point, in Fidalgo Bay, means that only 33 members of the public would be in harm’s way in the event of a vapor-cloud explosion, the company estimates. Contrast this with, say, an all-out release of hydrofluoric acid from the PBF Energy refinery in Paulsboro, New Jersey, just south of Philadelphia, which, PBF calculates, would put 3.2 million people at risk of injury or death. Or a discharge of the same chemical, known as HF, from the Marathon Petroleum Corporation refinery in Texas City, near Houston, which would threaten 670,000.
A modified form of HF nearly escaped from the ExxonMobil (now PBF) refinery in the Los Angeles suburb of Torrance last year. At a public meeting there in January, Chemical Safety Board Chairwoman Vanessa Sutherland explained how an explosion in the refinery’s hydrocarbon-choked electrostatic precipitator, a pollution-control device, had sent airborne an 80,000-pound piece of debris, which narrowly missed a tank of modified HF 80 feet away. Had the tank been pierced, Sutherland said, there could have been a “catastrophic release of extremely toxic [acid] into the neighboring community.”
The Torrance scare came not quite two years after an explosion at a fertilizer storage and distribution business in the town of West, Texas, killed 15 — a dozen volunteer firefighters and three members of the public — and injured 260. The blast moved President Obama in August 2013 to issue Executive Order 13650, which called on the EPA, the Labor Department and other federal agencies to come up with preventive steps beyond those already mandated by law.
The EPA, which declined to make any of its officials available for interviews, has since proposed an updated version of its risk-management rule that could become final as early as January. It dictates additional hazard analyses and emergency-preparedness measures but in the view of the Chemical Safety Board and others — notably the Coalition to Prevent Chemical Disasters, with more than 100 member groups — doesn’t go far enough. For example, it requires only a fraction of the facilities that pose dangers to “consider” inherently safer technologies while pondering risks. This “permissive language,” the board said in a written comment to the EPA in May, means a company could “poorly perform the analysis and still satisfy the requirement.”
Who would be against safer technologies and other advances? Any number of corporations, trade associations and politicians. Among the 61,716 comments the EPA received were missives from the American Chemistry Council, which complained about the paperwork burden process analyses would impose on its members; the attorneys general of Texas and Louisiana, who said they feared new transparency provisions would encourage “those with nefarious motives”; and Sens. James Inhofe, David Vitter, John Barrasso and Shelley Moore Capito, all Republicans, who didn’t like the idea of third-party safety auditors prying into operations at their constituents’ plants.
The Labor Department is moving more slowly than the EPA. “We’re probably a couple of years away from a proposal” to revamp OSHA’s process-safety standard, said Jordan Barab, the department’s deputy assistant secretary for occupational safety and health. An overhaul is badly needed, said Kim Nibarger, who chairs the United Steelworkers national oil bargaining sector. “There’s no teeth to it,” he said. “If you develop a written plan, you’re basically in compliance with the standard. There’s no need to prove the plan is going to result in any improvements.”
After the BP-Texas City disaster in 2005, OSHA officials looked at inspection data and found that oil refineries accounted for more worker deaths than any other industry category covered by the standard. In 2007, the federal agency — along with many states that have their own versions of OSHA, such as Washington and California — launched a nationwide refinery inspection blitz that lasted four years. All told, 1,588 federal citations were issued, 70 percent of which involved process safety. A year before the Anacortes accident, the Washington State Department of Labor & Industries cited Tesoro for 17 serious violations as part of the program.
At this early stage, the Labor Department is considering a number of enhancements to its process-safety rule. It might, for example, extend coverage to oil and gas drilling, which are exempt at the moment. It might deal with reactive chemicals — substances that generate heat or toxic fumes when combined. It might broaden stop-work authority to include contract employees and force managers to sign off on safety recommendations they approve — or reject. It might make companies log near-misses.
An oil refiners trade group already has registered objections. In written comments, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers argued that the ideas under consideration “will not only fail to significantly reduce operational risks at covered facilities in our industry, but may actually undercut the safety benefits of the current [standard] … and will add significant, unnecessary and unjustified compliance costs to an already costly program.”
Given what appears to be a more regulation-averse White House on the horizon and a Republican-controlled Congress, it’s hard to know how the EPA and OSHA efforts will play out. This much is clear: The industries that would be affected by any new rules have extraordinary influence. The American Petroleum Institute, for example, spent $69 million on lobbying from 2006 through 2015, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, the American Chemistry Council $77.4 million. During the 2016 election cycle, API’s political action committee gave $281,250 to federal candidates, 85 percent of which went to Republicans. The chemistry council’s PAC handed out $450,000, 73 percent to Republicans, while American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers’ PAC gave $172,000, 95 percent to Republicans.
California is moving ahead on its own. In August 2013, a year after a corrosion-related fire at the Chevron refinery in Richmond, northeast of San Francisco, filled the skies with smoke and sent 15,000 people to hospitals and clinics, Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown convened an interagency refinery task force and asked it to find ways to amplify safety and emergency response.
That exercise spawned a 2016 proposal by the California Environmental Protection Agency and the California Department of Industrial Relations that would, among other things, make refiners adopt “inherently safer designs and systems”; give workers authority to shut down units for safety reasons; and require annual public reporting of safety metrics.
Stricter rules could have economic benefits as well as save lives. A state-commissioned study by the RAND Corporation found that while compliance costs for owners of California’s 19 refineries could be as high as $183 million a year, the average cost of the three major accidents that have taken place since 1999 was at least $220 million. An outage triggered by the explosion in Torrance last year cost California drivers nearly $2.4 billion, “which took the form of a prolonged $0.40 [per gallon] increase in gasoline prices,” researchers found. This shaved $6.9 billion off the state’s economy, according to the study.
Nonetheless, at the most recent public hearing on the proposal, in September, Big Oil pushed back, this time through the Western States Petroleum Association. The group produced its own consultant’s report, which claimed the RAND study was methodologically unsound and greatly underestimated industry costs. It asked, in written comments, why “less costly and less burdensome alternatives” to the proposed rules weren’t considered.
The two California agencies are still tinkering with a final regulation, which must be out by July 15 of next year; otherwise, the entire process will start over. Washington has formed an advisory committee and is mulling a similar initiative.
Meanwhile, problems keep turning up.
In August, the Chemical Safety Board issued an industrywide alert on high temperature hydrogen attack, the metal-weakening phenomenon that had lethal consequences in Anacortes. The board said the American Petroleum Institute’s updated operating limits for carbon-steel equipment did not take into account all the conditions that had led to the rupture of heat exchanger E. “The use of a [Nelson] curve not incorporating significant failure data could result in future catastrophic equipment ruptures,” the alert warned.
In short, the horror in Anacortes could be repeated. An API spokesman did not respond to requests for comment.
Painted Toenails
April 2010 was a ghastly month for American workers. The Tesoro accident on the 2nd was followed on the 5th by the Upper Big Branch coal mine cave-in, which killed 29 miners in West Virginia, and on the 20th by the immolation of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, which killed 11 workers and put 5 million barrels of crude into the sea.
The families of the seven who died in Anacortes settled civil lawsuits against Tesoro and Shell for a collective $39 million in 2014. But Tesoro’s appeal of the state fine — which amounts to less than two-tenths of one percent of the $1.54 billion in profits the company reported for 2015, or slightly more than 10 percent of the $23 million CEO Goff received in total compensation that year — has left an open wound.
“It’s disgusting,” said Estus “Ken” Powell, a retired farm-equipment salesman who lives in Mount Vernon. His daughter, Kathryn Denise, known as K.D., was 28 the day she died. Mechanically inclined and unintimidated by the dangerous, male-dominated environment, K.D. had gone to work at Tesoro in 2008. She’d volunteered to help restart the bank of heat exchangers on the night of the accident.
A 1:15 a.m. phone call from K.D.’s boyfriend, whose father worked at the refinery, sent her parents on a panicked excursion. They drove first to Island Hospital in Anacortes — where K.D., swelling rapidly from her burns, was wrapped in bandages from head to foot and induced into a coma — then to Harborview Medical Center in Seattle, a Level I trauma and burn center to which she was to be airlifted. Her parents got there before the helicopter.
K.D. died at 8:05 a.m. Her father was able to recognize her only by her painted toenails.
“It still hurts,” Powell said, sitting at his dining room table. “It hurts deeply.” His wife, Connie, stayed in a bedroom and would not join the conversation — still too upset, Powell explained.
The explosion and its aftermath afflict Matt Gumbel’s family as well. His father, Paul, was working at the refinery that night and helped fight the fire. A victim of post-traumatic stress disorder, he recoils at loud noises and is easily enraged. “I react badly to a lot of different things,” he said. “On occasion I just treat people like crap.”
Paul twice went back to work after his son’s death — “a mistake,” he said — and finally retired on disability in 2014. He seethes over the Tesoro appeal and assumes it has to do more with the company’s bottom line than any out-of-pocket costs. “Any time a corporation gets some kind of black mark against it, the stocks drop,” he said.
Matt’s mother, Shauna, explained how the grieving process had unfolded for her. “The first year it’s more robotic,” she said. “It’s like you’re looking through a window, watching life pass you by. The second year you’re no longer looking through that window. You’re actually living that.” Matt’s sister, Amy, now 38, had lost 105 pounds prior to his death; she regained all of the weight, having found no time to go to the gym or watch her diet. “Life just kind of stopped,” she said.
In its statement, Tesoro said it “learned much” from the accident. “Focusing on personal and process safety is an integral part of everything we do at Tesoro and we strive for continuous improvement in our performance,” the company said.
In 2014, however, four workers were burned by sulfuric acid in two consecutive months at Tesoro’s refinery in Martinez, California, east of San Francisco. The Chemical Safety Board later documented 13 cases in which others at the refinery had been sprayed with, and sometimes burned by, the acid from 2010 through 2013.
“The fact that these incidents continued for an extended period demonstrates a culture that does not effectively prioritize worker safety,” the board said. (Tesoro says it conducted “an extensive review of procedures, controls and training” in Martinez and made improvements after the 2014 accidents.)
In September, Tesoro agreed to pay $325,000 to settle an EPA complaint alleging it had violated provisions of the risk-management rule in Anacortes, where flammable chemicals such as isobutene, pentane and hydrogen are handled. Some operating and emergency procedures were unclear or incomplete, the EPA said. A Tesoro spokeswoman did not respond to requests for comment; the company neither admitted nor denied fault in the settlement agreement.
Not quite three years ago, the Chemical Safety Board held the first of two public meetings in Anacortes. Emotions were raw. Ken Powell, Maria Redin and Steve Garey spoke. Technical experts discussed deficiencies in the Nelson curve and the metallurgical quirks of carbon steel.
It was Brian Hughes, however, who tied it all together.
Hughes, a root-cause analysis consultant out of Seattle, said he investigated failures in the oil, chemical and aerospace industries. These failures, he said, could often be traced to “a big financial motive to get things up and moving as fast as possible.”
Hughes talked about an acceptance of risk that is engendered on Wall Street and filters down through a company’s management ranks. Losses on one side of the ledger can be overcome by gains on the other. Hazards feel remote.
Workers like the seven who died in Anacortes are “at the sharp end” of this calculus, Hughes said, “and they aren’t able to diversify that away.”
The Center for Public Integrity is a nonprofit investigative news organization in Washington, D.C. Jim Morris is managing editor for environment and labor.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/oil-refineries-pollution_us_584f29f0e4b0bd9c3dfe53c2
-
Pipeline Threats Prompt Call for 'Vigilance'
Dec 13, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Recent break-ins at U.S. pipeline sites have drawn a stark warning from officials at the Department of Transportation.
A federal call for "increased awareness and vigilance" is partly aimed at oil and gas pipeline operators and partly "to remind the public of the dangers associated with tampering with pipeline system facilities," according to DOT's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
PHMSA shared its "advisory bulletin" two months after climate change activists launched a coordinated attack on four pipelines operated by Enbridge Inc., Kinder Morgan Inc., Spectra Energy Corp. and TransCanada Corp. The activists broke into key pipeline valve stations with chains and bolt cutters, aiming to cut off the flow of oil, get arrested and ultimately test a novel "climate necessity" legal defense (Energywire, Oct. 17).
"Had the pipeline operators not shut down their lines in response to the threats, a pipeline rupture could have occurred," PHMSA said in its alert Friday, which was prepared in conjunction with the departments of Homeland Security and Energy and signed by Alan Mayberry, acting associate administrator for pipeline safety. "A pipeline rupture due to tampering with valves can have significant consequences such as death, injury, and economic and environmental harm."
The bulletin urges pipeline companies to consider stepping up security patrols along major routes, or even use aerial drones to spot "potentially unsafe conditions at a valve or pump station." It also suggests installing motion-sensing cameras at remote facilities and improving communications with local police forces.
The alert includes at least one old-fashioned fix: changing out locks. But it also draws attention to novel hacking threats to pipeline operating computers, known as "supervisory control and data acquisition," or SCADA systems.
"SCADA systems can be tampered with or disabled by a physical or cyber vector," PHMSA noted, adding that the agency "is aware of prior intrusion attempts on pipeline infrastructure."
"An operator should harden physical and software borders around SCADA systems to limit the risk to the safe operation of pipelines," the regulator said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/12/13/stories/1060047081
-
Detection Failed for Spill 150 Miles from Standing Rock
Dec 13, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
Detection technology did not work for a pipeline rupture that spilled 176,000 gallons of crude oil into a creek about 150 miles from the Dakota Access oil pipeline protests, according to the pipeline operator.
At the core of the Dakota Access protests is the concern that a pipeline spill would contaminate the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's drinking water.
The operation company is not sure why the monitoring equipment failed, according to a spokeswoman for Casper, Wyo.-based True Cos., which operates the Belle Fourche pipeline.
A landowner reported the spill Dec. 5. It spread 6 miles from the spill site, and as of yesterday, about 37,000 gallons of oil had been recovered.
According to spokeswoman Wendy Owen, the pipeline was immediately shut down when the leak was discovered. The pipeline is buried on a hill where the "hillside sloughed," which could have caused the rupture, Owen said.
"That is our No. 1 theory, but nothing is definitive," Owen said. "We have several working theories, and the investigation is ongoing".
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/12/13/stories/1060047102
-
Sinking Electricity Consumption Leading Cause of GHG Drop — Report
Dec 13, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Evan Lehmann
A historic slowdown in the growth of energy use is helping to drive the United States toward its goals in the Clean Power Plan, according to a new report.
When combined with expanding renewable energy sources, the flattening of electricity consumption accounts for 58 percent of the power sector's greenhouse gas reductions since 2005, says the analysis by the Carbon Tax Center. Fuel swapping from coal to natural gas at power plants accounts for 42 percent of that carbon reduction.
Charles Komanoff, the center's director, says the findings show that energy efficiency and other "energy savings" are an overlooked ingredient in carbon reductions. That can push states, where many efficiency measures are offered, to continue tackling climate change during a period of potentially dormant federal activity.
"It's really important to credit energy savings, or electricity savings, with the huge role that they've played in enabling the power sector to get most of the way to the finish line to the Clean Power Plan," he said.
The report says that utilities are 83 percent on the way to meeting their goals under the Clean Power Plan, the regulation issued by U.S. EPA to slash emissions 32 percent by 2030 in the electricity sector, compared with 2005 carbon levels.
"This finding belies the prevailing narrative crediting fracked gas for most of the reduction in coal burning and the resulting lowering of carbon emissions," the report says. "The electricity sector's reduction in carbon emissions is good news not only because of its magnitude but because it effectively 'banks' emission reductions against a slowing of progress looming under the incoming Trump administration."
The report focuses on the large erosion of electricity growth in the United States, a phenomenon that's accelerated over the last 10 years due to factors like efficiency gains in homes and factories, digitization, new government standards requiring appliances to use less energy, and the replacement of jobs in manufacturing fields with those in the service industry.
The analysis says that U.S. electricity generation in 2015 amounted to 4,087 terawatt-hours, or just 1.1 percent higher than in 2005. It estimates that this year's generation will be a bit lower, or about 0.5 percent higher than in 2005. The report says electricity growth averaged about 7 percent annually through 1975, after which it slowed to about 2.5 percent a year.
"The near-cessation of electricity growth has been critical to the greening of the power sector, accounting for an estimated 38 percent of the sector's impressive [27 percent] shrinkage in CO2 emissions in 2016 relative to 2005," the report says.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/12/13/stories/1060047077
Industry and Association News
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