Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 12/21/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Specialty Chemicals Markets Gather Momentum
Dec 21, 2016 | Powder & Bulk Solids
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) reported that U.S. specialty chemicals market volumes rose 0.4 percent in November. This follows a revised 0.1 percent gain in October and a 0.2 percent gain in September. -
EPA Issues 3 New Notices Taking Action Under Amended Toxic Substances Control Act
Dec 21, 2016 | National Law Review
By Thomas C. Berger, Martha E. Marrapese, and Adrienne M. Timmel
EPA is issuing a proposed rule under section 6(a) of Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to prohibit the manufacture, import, processing, and distribution in commerce and to prohibit commercial use of trichloroethylene (TCE) for aerosol degreasing and for spot cleaning in dry cleaning facilities. -
Flame Retardant Exposure Linked to Income, BMI and Household Smoking
Dec 21, 2016 | Chem Info
By American Chemical Society
A class of flame retardants known as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) have been phased out of production in the U.S. out of concern for their potential neurotoxic effects, particularly in young children. -
EPA Restricts 72 Inert Ingredients; Enviros Blast Rule
Dec 21, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith
U.S. EPA restricted 72 inert pesticide ingredients yesterday in a final response to a 2006 petition from environmental groups, though it failed to mandate comprehensive labeling as the initial petition requested. -
Running Out of Gas: Chemical, Food Industries Face Shortage of Nitrous Oxide
Dec 21, 2016 | Chem Info
By Andy Szal
Chemical manufacturers could be affected by a continued shortage of nitrous oxide in the wake of an explosion in Florida nearly four months ago. -
Bio-Based Building Blocks
Dec 21, 2016 | Chemistry World
By Elinor Hughes
Plant-based chemical building blocks are being used more and more to replace fossil fuel-based chemicals. It is hoped that these sustainable alternatives will reduce dependence on fossil feedstocks for chemicals, materials and fuel, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions throughout production chains. -
Echa Adds Four Substances to Candidate List
Dec 21, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Four more substances will be added to the REACH candidate list in January after Echa's Member State Committee unanimously agreed they should be designated as SVHCs. This will bring the total number of substances on the list to 173. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Girds for Battle Over Obama Drilling Bans
Dec 21, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
A fight is brewing over offshore drilling as industry plots its next move after the Obama administration banned drilling in parts of the U.S. Arctic and the Atlantic Ocean north of Virginia. -
(ACC Mentioned) Obama Decision to Block Arctic Drilling 'Stunning,’ Says Alaska Delegation
Dec 21, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By David Bradley
President Obama's decision to place the entire Chukchi Sea and most of the Beaufort Sea off-limits to energy development is "stunning" and will deny economic opportunity, according to a trio of powerful elected officials, all of them Republican, representing Alaska. -
Methane Rule May Be Immune to Early Legislative Strike
Dec 21, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Hannah Hess
A recent analysis raises questions about whether a suite of U.S. EPA rules targeting methane emissions from new and heavily modified oil and gas operations may be insulated from early legislative attacks in the next Congress. -
No Need for Broad Climate Analysis in Oil and Gas Leasing — Interior
Dec 21, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Obama administration pushed back this week on claims that the government routinely ignores climate risks from oil and gas leasing on public lands. -
Delays Push Pipeline Work into Spring — Energy Transfer
Dec 21, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
The company building the Dakota Access pipeline won't finish restoring farmland in Iowa until the spring, citing regulatory delays and vandalism. -
Toxics: EPA Issues Final Rule Overhauling RMP Facility Safety Program
Dec 21, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA has issued its long-awaited final rule overhauling its Risk Management Plan (RMP) facility accident prevention program strengthening requirements for facilities to reduce risks of accidents, but the incoming Trump administration and/or Republican lawmakers are expected to block or kill the rule. -
PATH Installs PTC on 33rd Street Rail Line
Dec 21, 2016 | Progressive Rail Roading
The Port Authority Trans-Hudson's (PATH) 33rd Street rail line will return to operation on weekends starting Dec. 24, following the installation of new safety and signal upgrades. -
Trump Says Energy Regulations are Hurting Economic Growth. The Evidence Says Otherwise.
Dec 21, 2016 | Washington Post
By Vivek Wadhwa and Mark Muro
“I will cancel job-killing restrictions on the production of American energy, including shale energy and clean coal, creating many millions of high-paying jobs,” says President-elect Donald Trump. -
Outgoing EPA Chief: Science is ‘Fundamental to Absolutely Everything We Do.’
Dec 21, 2016 | Washington Post
By Brady Dennis
Gina McCarthy — Boston native, Irish Catholic, lover of Guinness beer and a good laugh — has been a central player in the Obama administration’s work to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and combat global warming at home and abroad. -
CCS Experts Defend EPA's New-Source Rule
Dec 21, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
A group of scientists who study carbon capture and sequestration is backing U.S. EPA in litigation over the agency's carbon dioxide limits for new power plants. -
DOE Commits $2B Loan Guarantee for CCS Methanol Plant
Dec 21, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Christa Marshall
The Department of Energy announced a $2 billion commitment today for a loan guarantee to construct the world's first methanol facility using carbon capture technology. -
EPA Agrees to Tighten Heavy-Duty NOx Standard but Faces California Fight
Dec 21, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Curt Barry
EPA has formally agreed to write a rule to tighten nitrogen oxide (NOx) standards for heavy-duty engines and trucks that would take effect with the 2024 model year, in response to petitions from state and local air districts and other organizations concerned that stricter greenhouse gas rules for the vehicles may not achieve the NOx reductions they believe are needed to comply with air quality standards.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Specialty Chemicals Markets Gather Momentum
Dec 21, 2016 | Powder & Bulk Solids
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) reported that U.S. specialty chemicals market volumes rose 0.4 percent in November. This follows a revised 0.1 percent gain in October and a 0.2 percent gain in September.
Volumes have generally been moving up since May. All changes in the data are reported on a three-month moving average (3MMA) basis. Of the 28 specialty chemical segments we monitor, twenty-one expanded in November and seven experienced decline. During November, large gains (1 percent and over) were noted in cosmetic chemicals, mining chemicals, oilfield chemicals, and specialties.
The overall specialty chemicals volume index was off 0.7 percent year-over-year (Y/Y) on a 3MMA basis. The index stood at 105.2 percent of its average 2012 levels. This is equivalent to 7.25 billion pounds (3.29 million metric tons). The downturn in the oil and gas sector affected headline volumes and weakness spread to other segments as well. Year-earlier comparisons have been negative since second quarter 2015. Lately, the year-earlier declines have been moderating. On a Y/Y basis, there were gains among sixteen market and functional specialty chemical segments.
Specialty chemicals are materials manufactured on the basis of the unique performance or function and provide a wide variety of effects on which many other sectors and end-use products rely. They can be individual molecules or mixtures of molecules, known as formulations. The physical and chemical characteristics of the single molecule or mixtures along with the composition of the mixtures influence the performance end product. Individual market sectors that rely on such products include automobile, aerospace, agriculture, cosmetics and food, among others.
Specialty chemicals differ from commodity chemicals. They may only have one or two uses, while commodities may have multiple or different applications for each chemical. Commodity chemicals make up most of the production volume in the global marketplace, while specialty chemicals make up most of the diversity in commerce at any given time, and are relatively high value with greater market growth rates.
This data is the only timely source of market trends for twenty-eight market and functional specialty chemical segments. Chemistry directly touches over ninety-six percent of all manufactured goods, and trends in these specialty chemical segments provide a detailed view of trends in manufacturing. The data also sheds light on how various consumer end-use markets are performing compared to others in the marketplace.http://www.powderbulksolids.com/news/U-S-Specialty-Chemicals-Markets-Gather-Momentum-12-21-2016
-
EPA Issues 3 New Notices Taking Action Under Amended Toxic Substances Control Act
Dec 21, 2016 | National Law Review
By Thomas C. Berger, Martha E. Marrapese, and Adrienne M. Timmel
Proposed Ban on Certain Uses of Trichloroethylene
EPA is issuing a proposed rule under section 6(a) of Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to prohibit the manufacture, import, processing, and distribution in commerce and to prohibit commercial use of trichloroethylene (TCE) for aerosol degreasing and for spot cleaning in dry cleaning facilities. EPA is also proposing to require manufacturers, processors, and distributors, other than retailers, to provide downstream notice of these prohibitions throughout the supply chain, and to maintain certain limited records. Section 26(l)(4) of TSCA authorizes EPA to issue risk management rules under section 6(a) of TSCA that are consistent with the scope of a risk assessment completed on a Work Plan Chemical before the date of enactment of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. EPA published the risk assessment for TCE on June 25, 2014, in which the Agency determined that the above uses result in significant non-cancer risks (under acute and chronic exposure scenarios) and cancer risks. Comments on the proposed rule will be due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. A pre-publication copy of the Federal Register notice of proposed rulemaking is available here.
Comments Requested on Definition of Small Manufacturer and Processor
Section 8(a)(3)(C) of TSCA requires EPA, after consultation with the Small Business Administration, to review the adequacy of the standards for defining “small manufacturers and processors” that are subject to certain reporting exemptions under TSCA. EPA has preliminarily determined that an increase in the current size limit is indeed warranted. Through this Federal Register notice, EPA is requesting comments by January 17, 2017 to determine whether a revision is warranted. If EPA determines that a revision is warranted, such revision would occur by subsequent rulemaking, which would involve a further opportunity for public notice and comment.
Negotiated Rulemaking Committee Announced to Develop CDR Inorganic Byproducts Requirements
As required by section 8(a)(6) of TSCA, EPA has announced plans for establishing a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee to develop a regulation limiting TSCA section 8(a) Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) requirements for inorganic byproducts that are recycled, reused, or reprocessed. EPA anticipates selecting 10 to 25 members and is soliciting comments, due January 17, 2017, regarding procedures for establishing the committee and the issues the committee should address. Once the procedures for establishing the Committee are determined, EPA will publish another Federal Register notice seeking members to serve on the Committee.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-issues-3-new-notices-taking-action-under-amended-toxic-substances-control-act
-
Flame Retardant Exposure Linked to Income, BMI and Household Smoking
Dec 21, 2016 | Chem Info
By American Chemical Society
A class of flame retardants known as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) have been phased out of production in the U.S. out of concern for their potential neurotoxic effects, particularly in young children. But the compounds persist in older furniture, plastics and textiles, and in dust. Now a new report in the ACS journal Environmental Science & Technologyexamines the factors that help predict which children could be at a higher risk for exposure to these compounds.
Studies in animals and humans suggest that PBDEs, which are structurally similar to thyroid hormones, could have neurotoxic effects. As a result, various formulations of the flame retardants were phased out in the U.S. as far back as 2004. But the compounds had been added to products such as sofas that people keep for years. And PBDEs can continue to migrate into household dust from these items.
Other studies have found that young children, who often put their hands and toys — and any dust that has settled on these items — in their mouths, tend to have the highest concentrations of PBDEs in their blood. Lyndsey Darrow and colleagues wanted to take a closer look to see whether particular groups of children might be affected more than others.
The researchers tested the blood levels of various PBDEs in 80 children between the ages of 1 and 5, all of whom were born after the U.S. phase-out in 2004 of two types of PBDE commercial formulations. Results showed that lower median income within a neighborhood, lower BMI and smoking in the household corresponded to higher PBDE levels.
The researchers note that the socioeconomic disparity in PBDE exposure will likely increase over time as the more economically well-off continue to replace their older products with ones that don't contain these flame retardants. The team speculates that lower BMI could lead to higher PBDE blood concentrations because the compounds accumulate in fat, which leaner kids have less of. However, it is unclear why smoking affects PBDE exposure.
https://www.chem.info/news/2016/12/flame-retardant-exposure-linked-income-bmi-and-household-smoking
-
EPA Restricts 72 Inert Ingredients; Enviros Blast Rule
Dec 21, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith
U.S. EPA restricted 72 inert pesticide ingredients yesterday in a final response to a 2006 petition from environmental groups, though it failed to mandate comprehensive labeling as the initial petition requested.
The 72 compounds will be banned from use in agrochemicals unless manufacturers successfully demonstrate their safety.
The ingredients include turpentine oil; rotenone, a pesticide linked to Parkinson's disease; formaldehyde, a carcinogen; and nitrous oxide.
The Center for Environmental Health, Beyond Pesticides, Physicians for Social Responsibility and almost 20 other nonprofits had initially requested that EPA disclose 371 inert pesticide ingredients, but the agency demurred.
"Instead, EPA will evaluate potential risks of inert ingredients and reduce risks, as appropriate," the agency said in a statement.
Inert ingredients are components added to products that are not intended to directly control pests.
"EPA agreed with the petitioners that the public should have a means to learn the identities of hazardous inert ingredients in pesticide formulations," James Jones, assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, said in a letter sent to the nonprofits in 2014 about EPA's 2009 response to their petitions. He added that the agency had indicated that it believed "increased transparency could lead to better informed decision-making and to better informed pesticide use."
The rule finalizes a 2014 proposal that partially granted the nonprofits' petition (Greenwire, Oct. 24, 2014).
The petitioners weren't pleased with EPA's response.
Beyond Pesticides called the proposal "a step in the right direction" in a 2014 blog post but slammed it as "ultimately ... inadequate and misdirected."
"The proposal not only fails to address the issue of disclosure for the rest of the 300 inert ingredients, but also only targets hazardous chemicals no longer being used as inert ingredients in any pesticide formulation," the group said.
Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, said yesterday's final rule shows that "EPA tends to take the path of least resistance."
In 2009, the agency proposed forcing chemical companies to disclose all inert pesticide ingredients but later backed down (Greenwire, March 6, 2014).
"We feel strongly that all toxic pesticide ingredients, whether active or inert ... must be disclosed on the product label to provide full transparency to consumers," Feldman added.
Inert components are "highly toxic materials," he continued, "often more toxic than the active ingredient."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/12/21/stories/1060047551
-
Running Out of Gas: Chemical, Food Industries Face Shortage of Nitrous Oxide
Dec 21, 2016 | Chem Info
By Andy Szal
Chemical manufacturers could be affected by a continued shortage of nitrous oxide in the wake of an explosion in Florida nearly four months ago.
Industrial gas giant Airgas continues to investigate the blast, which killed one of its employees at the facility near Pensacola. The plant, as a result, remains shut down, and the company was reportedly unable to compensate for the lost nitrous oxide production with its other plants.
Airgas officials recently said that a shortage of "laughing gas" forced it to make medical customers "our first priority."
The shortfall made headlines this week after food company Conagra said it could trigger a shortage of Reddi-wip whipped topping during the holidays.
Nitrous oxide is most famously used as an anesthetic in medical and dental procedures and as a propellant for the food sector, but a trade group also noted its role in semiconductor and chemical manufacturing.
The shortage also highlighted the increasingly intricate links of global supply chains. The Airgas plant itself, The Atlantic noted, was supplied by a neighboring nylon plant that produced nitrous oxide as a byproduct.
Investigators, meanwhile, appear closer to determining a cause of the August blast.
Nitrous oxide is stable at room temperature but becomes combustive at high temperatures. An official with the U.S. Chemical Safety Board suggested that the pump handle used to fill the tanks was at fault, but static buildup could not be ruled out.
http://www.chem.info/news/2016/12/running-out-gas-chemical-food-industries-face-shortage-nitrous-oxide
-
Dec 21, 2016 | Chemistry World
By Elinor Hughes
Plant-based chemical building blocks are being used more and more to replace fossil fuel-based chemicals. It is hoped that these sustainable alternatives will reduce dependence on fossil feedstocks for chemicals, materials and fuel, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions throughout production chains. ‘The chemical industry has always used plant-based raw materials such as vegetable oil and starch, but bio-based chemicals take renewable resources to a whole new level,’ says Marcel Lubben, president of Reverdia.
Bio-succinic acid
Reverdia is a leading producer of the bio-based alternative to succinic acid , a building block for polymers, resins and solvents. Reverdia is a joint venture between DSM, a global life sciences and materials company based in the Netherlands, and Roquette, a global starch and starch-derivative company based in France. It has been producing Biosuccinium commercially since 2012 at its plant in Cassano, Italy, which has a capacity of 10,000 tonnes a year.
Interest in bio-succinic acid and the development of the bio-based chemicals market in general was stimulated by the 2004 Department of Energy report Top value added chemicals from biomass. Succinic acid was identified as one of the top building blocks by the DoE and since then it has become one of the most advanced materials in terms of commercial development, says Lubben.
Reverdia’s low-pH yeast process to produce Biosuccinium has advantages over bacteria-mediated conversion technologies used by other companies. They convert feedstock, such as starch, directly to succinic acid, without the extra chemical processing, additional equipment and extra energy needed to convert intermediate salts into succinic acid. Their method is also less vulnerable to infection. As a result, production equipment requires less cleaning and handling, which improves the consistency and quality of the bio-succinic acid.
‘We are working to develop the applications customers and big brands are looking for, from non-toxic paint to shoe soles,’ says Lubben. ‘We see a great deal of interest and activity from brand-owners to introduce more sustainable alternatives, creating market pull and enabling the switch to bio-based products.’
Reverdia has partnerships with companies that produce polybutylene succinate, polyurethanes, plasticisers, and coatings and resins. In September 2012, Proviron (Belgium) launched Provichem 2511 Eco, a dimethyl-succinate that can be used as a solvent and a raw material for fine chemicals such as pigments and UV stabilisers. In August 2015, Reverdia joined the consortium ADMIT BioSuccInnovate, an innovative initiative with Aberystwyth University in Wales and other European partners. The consortium will explore bio-based, biodegradable plastic packaging for consumer markets in association with UK supermarket Waitrose. In October 2015, Covestro, formerly Bayer MaterialScience, launchedDesmopan-brand bio-based thermoplastic polyurethanes containing Biosuccinium. Desmopan is used in a wide variety of applications, including footwear. In April 2016, paint producer Mäder announced the launch of 98% bio-based anti-polluting paints containing Biosuccinium.
How does the cost of bio-succinic acid compare with the cost of petro-based succinic acid? It depends on a number of factors including scale, feedstock price, oil price and currency fluctuations, says Lubben. ‘Biosuccinium is not aiming to be a cheaper version of oil-based di-acids but a greener and performance-enhanced alternative,’ he says. ‘It has a much improved carbon footprint and, in some applications, improved performance compared to traditional petro-based materials.’
Levulinic acid
Another compound identified in the DoE’s 2004 report is levulinic acid. Its applications are wide, ranging from flavours and fragrances to fuel additives and agrochemicals. Bio-based levulinic acid is not a drop-in replacement, though, it is a chemical building block giving new and additional functionality and performance. Its derivatives can be used in applications such as biodegradable plasticisers for flexible PVC, epoxy resins based on diphenolic acid, highly concentrated bio-based detergents, safer green solvents with high solvent power in coatings and cleaner-burning fuels.
GFBiochemicals, the largest levulinic acid producer in the world, was founded in 2008 to develop production of levulinic acid to replace petroleum-based products. One of its co-founders was the French footballer Mathieu Flamini, after he moved from Arsenal to AC Milan in 2008. It demonstrated its new technology at a plant in Caserta, Italy, supported by the University of Pisa and the Polytechnic University of Milan. Industrial production began in 2015 and the plant is expected to produce 10,000 tonnes per year by 2017.
‘GFBiochemicals is the first producer of levulinic acid directly from biomass,’ says chief commercial officer Marcel van Berkel. The biomass they use includes grass, wheat straw, wood and cellulose. ‘Current producers of levulinic acid start with a product from corncobs – furfuryl alcohol. Since the yield from furfuryl alcohol is about 75% and furfuryl alcohol prices vary between $1000–1500 per ton (£800–1200), this technology cannot reach the lower price levels needed to open up the platform potential of levulinic acid.’
The market for levulinic acid is worth more than $30 billion, but its potential is limited to high-end market only, because of its price. The first and traditional fossil-based route to levulinic acid consists of five steps, making levulinic acid too expensive in every market, van Berkel points out. The second is a bio-based process based on three production steps and a single feedstock. This option is costly too. The third alternative is GFBiochemicals’ direct from biomass one-step process. ‘This will allow us to cut costs and produce levulinic acid on a large commercial scale in the future,’ says van Berkel. ‘At lower price ranges, we can open new applications in new market segments.’
In February 2016, GFBiochemicals acquired green chemistry company Segetis’ assets and intellectual property, including the technology for their Javelin brand of levulinic ketals. Since 2007, Segetis has been developing a market for levulinic acid derivatives, in particular levulinic ketals – for personal care, cleaners, degreasers, agrochemicals, paint-strippers and non-phthalate bio-based plasticisers. GFBiochemicals plans to integrate their bio-based levulinic acid into the value chain, while continuing to develop the markets of levulinic ketals for their use in bio-solvents, bio-plasticisers and bio-polyols. Van Berkel expects that the markets will not just be limited to the US, but will grow in Europe, the Far East and South America. GFBiochemicals’ plan to build a world-scale facility, increasing their output to 50,000 tonnes per year by 2019, will support this growth.
Isobutene
Global Bioenergies, formed in 2008, is one of the few companies worldwide, and the only one in Europe, that is developing a process to convert renewable resources, such as sugar, crops, agricultural and forestry waste, into hydrocarbons through fermentation. Their main focus is isobutene production. They have a pilot plant up and running in Pomacle-Bazancourt, France, (with a capacity of 10 tonnes per year) and are about to finish constructing a demo 100-tonne plant in Germany, which is due to begin operating towards the end of 2016. They are also planning their first full-scale plant, named IBN-One, in France, which was set up as a joint venture with sugar suppliers Cristal Union Group and is planned to produce up to 50,000 tonnes per year.
Isobutene is a petrochemical building block that can be applied in fuels, plastics, organic glass, elastomers, cosmetics and lubricants. It is traditionally produced during the fractionation process of refinery gases and by catalytically cracking methyl-tert -butyl ether. Globally, over 10 million tonnes of it are produced each year and it represents a market worth more than $20 billion.
Global Bioenergies produces isobutene from sugars using microorganisms, such as the bacterium Escherichia coli. The challenge in producing it this way was that a metabolic pathway to produce isobutene does not exist in nature, so they had to modify the bacterium’s genes. In doing so, they created new artificial metabolic pathways (a series of enzymatic reactions). ‘The first such pathway we created consists of first converting acetylcoenzyme A into acetone through an enzyme cloned in E. coli from another microorganism. From acetone, we can then go to isobutene through new reactions catalysed by enzymatic activities not observed in nature,’ explains Thomas Buhl, head of business development.
One reaction involved is the conversion of 3-hydroxyisovalerate to isobutene as an activity of mevalonate diphosphate decarboxylase. The advantage of a completely biological route is that purification is simpler. Gaseous isobutene can be extracted from the gas phase of the fermenter, containing essentially only carbon dioxide, oxygen, nitrogen and water vapour as impurities, rather than having to separate a liquid from a culture broth. And since the isobutene evaporates spontaneously, it won’t be toxic to the microorganisms.
A big market for isobutene is the automotive industry. As well as making up 98% of butyl rubber, which is used in the inner part of tyres, isobutene can also be used to produce isooctane, a fuel additive, as well as 100% biological ethyl tertiary butyl ether. Global Bioenergies has an agreement with German car manufacturer Audi regarding isooctane produced from their bio-based isobutene. The isooctane can be mixed with fossil-based gasoline without blending ratio restrictions. The first batch was produced in May 2015.
Since 2013, Global Bioenergies has had a three-year agreement with Arkema and the French National Center for Scientific Research to establish a new process for converting sugar into isobutene and then methacrylic acid, a key ingredient in acrylic paint. They have already sent their first batch of isobutene to Arkema.
As far as cost is concerned, once oil prices will have risen again above $100 per barrel, the isobutene process will be very cost-competitive, says Buhl. If it comes to fruition, Global Bioenergies’ isobutene process may be used in many plants that will radically transform the global industrial landscape, he says.
Epicerol
Epichlorohydrin (ECH) is mainly used to produce epoxy resins for coatings, composite materials and electronic components. Belgian chemical company Solvay recognised the need for a sustainable, bio-based ECH so they developed and commercialised Epicerol. Epicerol first became commercially available with the start-up of Solvay’s Advanced Biochemical plant in Map Ta Phut, Thailand, in 2012. The plant has a capacity of 100,000 tonnes per year, the largest of its kind in the world, and it still has a significantly higher capacity than the ECH industry average in Asia, says Pan-usa Kongmunwattana, Epicerol’s marketing manager.
In 2015, ABT became the first bio-based chemical operator in Asia to obtain Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials (RSB) certification. It covers the manufacture of bio-based ECH using Solvay’s technology and related operations in the supply chain. RSB’s certification has been recognised as the strongest and most trusted by a number of influential non-governmental organisations and United Nations agencies, says Kongmunwattana.
Solvay produces Epicerol using 100% vegetable glycerol. Glycerol is an existing by-product of other processes, such as oleochemical or biodiesel production, which is used to create bio-based chemicals in a more sustainable way. Their process enables brine recycling, which drastically reduces liquid effluent and reduces the volume of chlorinated by-products by over 80% compared to conventional processes.
‘Solvay’s bio-based ECH is the most sustainable in terms of carbon emissions and the environmental performance of the process, demonstrated by life cycle analysis,’ says Kongmunwattana. ‘Incorporating 1 tonne of Epicerol can reduce a product’s carbon footprint by 2.56 tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent, compared to traditional ECH.’
As a drop-in, Epicerol can be used in all existing applications for traditional ECH without impacting quality or performance. Solvay supplies Epicerol to major epoxy resin producers worldwide. The epoxy resins are sold to paint and coatings producers, printed circuit board and electronics component raw material producers, and composite producers. AkzoNobel signed a partnership agreement with Solvay in 2013 to progressively increase the Epicerol amount used in their epoxy coatings.
In 2015, Epicerol-based epoxy resins were used in the composite matrix of a Belgian solar car. ‘This partnership between SHD Composite Materials, Cardolite, Solvay and the Punch Powertrain Solar Team created one of the most environmentally-friendly carbon-fibre vehicles ever to take to the road,’ says Kongmunwattana.
Epicerol is also used for non-epoxy applications, such as cationising reagents (used in the modified starch and paper industries), wet strength resins (used in the paper industry), organic coagulants (used by water treatment plants), surfactants (used in the formulations of mild personal care products).
Sustainability is still high on the corporate agenda of large multinational companies and relevant end-consumer brands and is driven by the consumers and government, says van Berkel. ‘New bio-based products should stay on political agendas as a priority once there are economically sound sustainable alternatives at the volumes needed,’ he says. ‘However, being bio-based alone is not enough: additional functionality and performance are needed to convince corporates, institutions, politicians, and the business community in general and drive change.’
https://www.chemistryworld.com/bio-based-building-blocks/2500012.article
-
Echa Adds Four Substances to Candidate List
Dec 21, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Four more substances will be added to the REACH candidate list in January after Echa's Member State Committee unanimously agreed they should be designated as SVHCs. This will bring the total number of substances on the list to 173.
The highest profile of the four is bisphenol A, which was proposed by France and will be added because of its toxic to reproduction properties. The other three are:
the perfluorinated chemical PFDA (nonadecafluorodecanoic acid) and its sodium and ammonium salts. These were proposed by Sweden, due to their toxic for reproduction and persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) properties. According to research by ChemSec, they have been used as plasticiser, lubricant, surfactant, wetting agent and corrosion inhibitor. They have also been detected in various water and stain resistant textiles.
4-heptylphenol, branched and linear (4-HPbl). This was proposed by Austria, due to their endocrine-disrupting properties for the environment. According to Echa's website, it has not been registered in the EU yet. Indications from safety data sheets, says the website, point to uses in scientific research and development. The substance phenol, heptyl derivatives is registered as a monomer. Uses of the resulting polymers include in lubricants and greases in vehicles or machinery.
4-tert-pentylphenol (PTAP). Proposed by Germany, due to its endocrine-disrupting properties for the environment. According to the German authorities' justification document for making PTAP subject to substance evaluation under REACH, it is used in the production of phenolic resins and lacquers. It is also used in the production of ethoxylated resins, some of which are used in oilfield applications. Other use categories are cleaning/washing agents, surface active agents, paints. Also use in consumer products are given: adhesive, sealants, coatings and paints, thinners and paint removes.
A majority of committee members agreed that two other substances should be added to the candidate list but failed to reach unanimous agreement, and so Echa will submit the committee's Opinions and the minority positions to the European Commission. This will have three months to prepare draft proposals for their inclusion and take a final decision in conjunction with the REACH Committee of member state officials. The two substances are:
4-tert-butylphenol (PTBP), also proposed by Germany, is an endocrine disruptor. According to the Annex XV dossier proposal, information in the registration dossiers says it is mainly used in the phenolic/epoxy resin industry and is only used as an intermediate in polymers. There are no downstream uses of the substance itself or in preparations within the EU.
trimellitic anhydride (TMA), proposed by the Netherlands, is a respiratory sensitiser. According to the authorities' justification document, it is mainly used in the synthesis of plasticisers for PVC resins, while smaller amounts are used as a reactant in wire and cable insulation enamels and polyester resins for powder coatings.
None of the committee's Opinions had been published on Echa's website at the time of publication.
https://chemicalwatch.com/51840/echa-adds-four-substances-to-candidate-list
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Girds for Battle Over Obama Drilling Bans
Dec 21, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
A fight is brewing over offshore drilling as industry plots its next move after the Obama administration banned drilling in parts of the U.S. Arctic and the Atlantic Ocean north of Virginia.
Oil and gas supporters insist that the decree issued yesterday is not permanent and that advocates for offshore drilling have strong cards to play once President Obama leaves office.
"We are hopeful that the incoming Trump administration can repair some of the damage done to the offshore energy industry and America's energy security over the past eight years by putting policies in place that increase, rather than decrease, access to federal offshore areas," said Randall Luthi, head of the National Ocean Industries Association.
In a joint move with Canada, the Obama administration slapped special protected status on vast swaths of waters of the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. The new ban on U.S. Arctic offshore drilling in these areas is considered indefinite. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's decision is up for review every five years, according to a joint communiqué.
The administration also announced an indefinite ban on drilling in much of the Atlantic Basin, removing from future consideration blocks stretching from Maryland to Massachusetts. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has already decided not to auction leases off the coasts of South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia in the next five-year outer continental shelf oil and gas lease sale plan, reversing earlier plans that foresaw lease sales in those waters and in the Arctic.
That leaves the Gulf of Mexico, minus Florida waters, and Alaska's Cook Inlet as the sole U.S. purview for offshore oil and gas exploration and production from 2017 on.
Canada still allows offshore drilling off its Atlantic seaboard.
"Today, President Obama and Prime Minister Trudeau are proud to launch actions ensuring a strong, sustainable and viable Arctic economy and ecosystem, with low-impact shipping, science based management of marine resources, and free from the future risks of offshore oil and gas activity," both offices said in a joint statement. "Together, these actions set the stage for deeper partnerships with other Arctic nations, including through the Arctic Council."
The executive order is based upon an obscure clause in the 1953 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, Section 12(a). The clause permits presidents to remove wide swaths of federally managed ocean seafloor from resource extraction activities. The law has no provisions for another president to reverse such a decision.
Earlier this month, President Obama used the same legal justification to declare some 40,000 square miles of waters in the Bering Sea off-limits to drilling rigs (Greenwire, Dec. 9).
'Precarious legal standing'
The 1953 statute was written without a challenge or reversal procedure in mind. But a challenge may be forthcoming anyway, either in courts or through an act of Congress. Though ill-defined, options may present themselves once the oil-and-gas-friendly Trump administration takes over the White House in January.
The Consumer Energy Alliance said action by Trump is almost a given. If not, allies of oil and gas will try through Congress, said CEA President David Holt.
"Everything is going to be on the table," he said. "I would expect the governors, state legislators, industry groups, the Trump administration, everyone will be looking at this highly questionable executive action.
"I think it's on pretty precarious legal standing," Holt added.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce doesn't see the move as binding on the incoming administration or permanent in any sense.
Christopher Guith at the U.S. Chamber's Institute for 21st Century Energy argues that Trump can rescind the decree with the stroke of a pen. That would likely prompt a lawsuit from environmental groups, with the battle playing out in courts.
Guith argues that if Obama had really wanted to keep rigs out of these areas, he should have cited the Antiquities Act in his decision. His predecessor, President George W. Bush, easily reversed an earlier decision by his own father to temporarily restrict offshore oil and gas activity under the 1953 act, Guith notes.
Industry could issue a challenge against the Obama administration's move, but by the time it reached the courts, the Trump administration would be in office and in the position to defend Obama's decree, which it wouldn't. Rather than prompt that delay, industry groups appear for now to be content to wait for Trump to assume office to see if he'll repeat Bush's move and repeal Obama's declaration.
"There is the very real likelihood of a legal challenge that would ultimately fall on the Trump administration," Guith argued. "But probably the easiest part of all of this is that, in spite of all the hand-waving, all it takes is another presidential memorandum where President Trump would say, 'I am reversing the withdrawal,' and it's done."
Indignation for industry, Alaska
According to planning maps provided by the Department of the Interior, blocks in and around the Prudhoe Bay oil province in Alaska will still be potentially available for future oil and gas exploration under Obama's executive order. However, these tracts have already been excluded in the 2017-22 offshore lease sale schedule. Every other part of the Beaufort Sea's federally controlled waters is now declared a permanent no-go zone for ocean drilling rigs, as is the entire Chukchi Sea.
Royal Dutch Shell PLC has attempted exploratory drilling in the Chukchi but failed to discover significant hydrocarbon reserves there and later suspended its Arctic Alaska drilling ambitions in the wake of the collapse of global oil prices. Other supermajor oil and gas companies that had earlier eyed Alaska Arctic opportunities subsequently closed their Anchorage offices for the same reason.
The oil price crash has quieted enthusiasm for opening up the U.S. Atlantic, as well.
Trump made expanding access to federally managed areas for oil and gas activity a main policy item during his campaign for the White House.
Thus far, industry groups are expressing their indignation as they consider their next move.
"These offshore areas belong to the public and should be used to their benefit — not to further the president's keep-it-in-the-ground political agenda," said the American Energy Alliance's director of communications, Christopher Warren, in a statement.
The American Chemistry Council said the move hampers U.S. manufacturing. "The U.S. business of chemistry relies on abundant, affordable natural gas as a source of energy and as a feedstock for countless chemical innovations that make life safer, more sustainable and more convenient," ACC said.
The administration said its decision was made in consultation with Alaska Native groups. But Alaska Gov. Bill Walker (I) blasted the move as an affront to his state's citizens. He did acknowledge that the exclusion of blocks around Prudhoe Bay and beyond showed that the administration did take his fears over future state tax and royalty revenues somewhat into consideration.
"No one is more invested than Alaskans to ensure that the habitats within the Arctic are protected. To lock it up against any further exploration or development activity is akin to saying that the voices of activists who live in Lower 48 cities have a greater stake than those to whom the Arctic is our front yard and our back yard," Walker said in a release.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/stories/1060047518/search?keyword=%22American+Chemistry+Council%22
-
(ACC Mentioned) Obama Decision to Block Arctic Drilling 'Stunning,’ Says Alaska Delegation
Dec 21, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By David Bradley
President Obama's decision to place the entire Chukchi Sea and most of the Beaufort Sea off-limits to energy development is "stunning" and will deny economic opportunity, according to a trio of powerful elected officials, all of them Republican, representing Alaska.
"The sweeping withdrawal disrespects the Alaskan people, is not based on sound science, and contradicts the administration's own conclusions about Arctic development," Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Sen. Dan Sullivan and Rep. Don Young said late Tuesday. "It will have lasting consequences for Alaska's economy, state finances, and the security and competitiveness of the nation. In making the decision, President Obama yet again sided with extreme environmentalists, while betraying his utter lack of commitment to improving the lives of the people who actually live in the Arctic."
The withdrawal areas announced by Obama on Tuesday encompass 3.8 million acres in the north and mid-Atlantic Ocean off the East Coast and 115 million acres in the U.S. Arctic Ocean, according to the Department of Interior. In the Atlantic, the withdrawal decision protects 31 canyons, extending from Heezen Canyon offshore New England to Norfolk Canyon offshore of the Chesapeake Bay. The Arctic withdrawal encompasses the entire U.S. Chukchi Sea and significant portions of the U.S. Beaufort Sea.
Simultaneously, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said his country would designate all Arctic Canadian waters as indefinitely off limits to future offshore oil and gas licensing, to be reviewed every five years through a climate and marine science-based life-cycle assessment.
The joint announcement with Canada "amounts to an incredibly lopsided trade for the United States," according to the Alaskan lawmakers. "While President Obama's Arctic withdrawal is indefinite, Canada will review the status of its Arctic waters every five years. With Russian development already underway in the Arctic, it may be just a few short years before our nation is bracketed by activity on both sides and importing the oil resulting from it."
The Beaufort and Chukchi seas together form one of the most prospective basins in the world, they said, with an estimated 23.6 billion barrels of oil and 104.4 Tcf of natural gas.
Obama invoked the 1953 Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act in his move to block indefinitely energy development in the Arctic and Atlantic oceans. Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton each used the law to temporarily block drilling in the OCS. Environmentalists and House Democrats had urged Obama to remove the Atlantic and Arctic oceans from future oil and gas leasing using the law, which includes no provision allowing a successor to repeal such a decision. In 2014, Obama used the same authority to extend indefinitely a freeze on oil and natural gas leasing in the waters of Alaska's Bristol Bay.
While President-elect Donald Trump as of midday Wednesday had not responded to Obama's decision specifically, during his 2016 campaign he proposed allowing states to regulate energy development over federal agencies and opening up more federal lands to drilling.
Reversing Obama's decision would require "a more significant Congressional or Executive Branch intervention than merely rewriting the Five-Year Program the Obama administration finalized on Nov. 18 (and any such intervention seems virtually certain to be challenged in court)," according to Christi Tezak, managing director of ClearView Energy Partners LLC. "The incoming Trump administration's most feasible rollback mechanism appears to be the budget reconciliation process established by the 1974 Congressional Budget Act."
Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell defended the president's action, saying it "recognizes the vulnerable marine environments in the Arctic and Atlantic oceans, their critical and irreplaceable ecological value, as well as the unique role that commercial fishing and subsistence use plays in the regions' economies and cultures. The withdrawal will help build the resilience of these vital ecosystems, provide refuges for at-risk species, sustain commercial fisheries and subsistence traditions, and create natural laboratories for scientists to monitor and explore the impacts of climate change."
The withdrawal does not affect existing leases and would not affect a nearshore area of the Beaufort Sea, totaling about 2.8 million acres, that has high oil and gas potential and is adjacent to existing state oil and gas activity and infrastructure, according to the Department of the Interior. That area will be subject to additional evaluation and study to determine if new leasing could be appropriate at some point in the future. Interior's five year offshore leasing program for 2017-2022 does not include lease sales in either that area or in the withdrawn areas, the agency said.
The announcement was widely hailed by environmental groups, but reaction from others was largely negative.
"This action by President Obama in his last days in office is another disturbing example of short-sighted policy decisions made by the administration to limit access to oil and natural gas on federal lands; it is the kind of policy that flies in the face of his own calls for a diverse all-of-the-above energy strategy," said the American Chemistry Council. "American manufacturers rely on secure and affordable energy supplies to compete globally. Yet, with this action the Administration has chosen to take sizable deposits of oil and gas off the table, which will eventually place upward pressure on prices and put America's ability to compete in global markets in jeopardy."
"Congress did not intend for the president to be able to exploit a rarely used, 24-word provision to make entire seas off-limits from energy production," said Karen Harbert, CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for 21st Century Energy. "We hope the Trump administration will repeal this action, and will work to consider all options to undo this unlawful action."
At least one environmental group did have a gripe with the Atlantic Ocean portion of Obama's decision, which did not extend protections south of Norfolk Canyon off the coast of Virginia.
"There is no question this is encouraging news for this important area off the coast of Virginia, yet the rest of the Southeast coast is just as environmentally and economically valuable and deserving of protection," said Sierra Weaver, leader of the Southern Environmental Law Center's coast and wetlands program. "The message from coastal communities and businesses could not be louder or clearer: we do not want offshore drilling. Not just for the next five years, but for all time."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/108813-obama-decision-to-block-arctic-drilling-stunning-says-alaska-delegation
-
Methane Rule May Be Immune to Early Legislative Strike
Dec 21, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Hannah Hess
A recent analysis raises questions about whether a suite of U.S. EPA rules targeting methane emissions from new and heavily modified oil and gas operations may be insulated from early legislative attacks in the next Congress.
Staffers at the Congressional Research Service project that agency final rules submitted to lawmakers on or after June 13 may be subject to disapproval on Capitol Hill under the Congressional Review Act (CRA).
The latest estimate, released last week in a backgrounder by the in-house research shop, is a revision from CRS's earlier estimates of June 2 and May 30.
The revised timeline is based on the House's decision to hold periodic pro forma sessions until Jan. 3, researchers note, the constitutional day the 115th Congress is set to convene. If the House deviates from the schedule, the unofficial estimate will change.
On June 3, EPA published its final rule in the Federal Register comprising Clean Air Act New Source Performance Standards, which increase how often companies must check and repair leaks at compressor stations, among other provisions.
The rules set up EPA to proceed on existing source rules as required by the law's Section 111, a key part of the Obama administration's pledge to lower U.S. methane emissions from the oil and gas industry between 40 and 45 percent by 2025 compared with 2012 levels (Greenwire, May 12).
Conservative lawmakers, as well as oil and gas industry groups, have come out strongly against new federal methane regulations, and they are also being fought in court. Republicans have been eyeing the CRA, which requires a simple majority in both chambers and the president's signature, as a straightforward route to rolling back recent regulations (E&E News PM, Dec. 8).
Outgoing Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and a staffer for the House Natural Resources Committee confirmed last month GOP lawmakers intend to use the CRA to go after the methane rules (Climatewire, Nov. 30).
Inhofe's office and a spokesman for the House Natural Resources Committee did not comment on the revised deadline.
A memo released by CRS this fall on major Obama administration rules that are potentially eligible to be overturned by the next Congress noted researchers could not identify when EPA's rule was received in the Senate, which could affect the calculation.
"This all goes back to the fact that [CRA] is not exactly a paragon of clear legislative drafting," said James Goodwin, a senior policy analyst at the Center for Progressive Reform.
Legislative attempts to kill EPA's methane rule may ultimately turn on how the House parliamentarian defines a legislative day. "Pro forma," from the Latin meaning "as a matter of form," refers to brief legislative meetings that are often only a few minutes long. The House and Senate parliamentarians have the final say on operation of the CRA, according to the Congressional Research Service analysis.
"It's going to be a political decision ... that just sort of underscores what a political law this is," Goodwin said.
Supporters of the effort to limit emissions of the potent greenhouse gas have suggested not all companies would align with attempts to blunt the rule.
"Let's remind ourselves here that the rules not only are good for the environment but prevent waste of domestic natural gas ... equal to the domestic energy needs of 7 million American homes," said Mark Brownstein, vice president of the climate and energy program at the Environmental Defense Fund.
Industry research has concluded 76 companies nationwide manufacture, sell and support methane control technologies. Those businesses are mainly concentrated in states where oil and gas production is greatest, such as North Dakota, Oklahoma and Texas, and more than half are small businesses.
"And we all know that small business is the engine of the American economy," Brownstein said.
Insiders have speculated that President-elect Donald Trump's administration would support slashing methane regulations as part of his transition team's pledges to unleash domestic energy production (E&E Daily, Nov. 10).
Brownstein is hopeful the Trump administration "will conclude that this action made good sense both environmentally and economically."
Federation of American Scientists transparency advocate Steven Aftergood posted the backgrounder online. CRS generally doesn't publicly release its documents to Congress.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/12/21/stories/1060047527
-
No Need for Broad Climate Analysis in Oil and Gas Leasing — Interior
Dec 21, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Obama administration pushed back this week on claims that the government routinely ignores climate risks from oil and gas leasing on public lands.
In a legal brief filed Monday, lawyers for the Interior Department argued that environmentalists are off base in an August lawsuit that accuses the agency of failing to consider the climate impacts of hundreds of leases issued in the past two years.
The filing says WildEarth Guardians and Physicians for Social Responsibility are correct that Interior's Bureau of Land Management has never prepared a broad environmental impact statement "focusing on the climate impacts of its nationwide oil and gas leasing activities." But, the agency argued, such a review is not required under federal law and would be an "excessive and legally unnecessary" response to the environmental lawsuit.
Interior's brief comes four months after the groups filed their challenge at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Building on the "keep it in the ground" movement, the lawsuit asks the court to freeze action on hundreds of oil and gas leases in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming until BLM performs a programmatic EIS focused on climate impacts.
According to lawyers for the groups, BLM does not identify lease sales' direct greenhouse gas emissions, indirect downstream emissions or cumulative emissions when combined with existing onshore development — resulting in a failure to meet the National Environmental Policy Act's requirement that agencies take a "hard look" at impacts from federal actions (Energywire, Aug. 26).
Justice Department lawyers representing BLM argued Monday that, contrary to the environmental groups' claims, "NEPA did not require nationwide analysis for the leasing decisions challenged in this case."
The brief also takes issue with the groups' argument that Interior should use a particular "social cost of carbon" calculation to weigh impacts.
"Federal defendants ... admit that one possible approach to evaluating the impact of [greenhouse gas] emissions is to undertake a complex and arguably subjective analysis of the costs of those emissions to society, although such an approach is not always helpful to the decision makers or the interested public," the filing says.
The case has broad implications for federal leasing, as a win for environmentalists would mean an overhaul of federal oil and gas leasing and a precedent for other natural resources decisions.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/12/21/stories/1060047505
-
Delays Push Pipeline Work into Spring — Energy Transfer
Dec 21, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
The company building the Dakota Access pipeline won't finish restoring farmland in Iowa until the spring, citing regulatory delays and vandalism.
Energy Transfer Partners LP sent a letter to the Iowa Utilities Board this week informing it of the change in schedule. The new timetable means construction will interfere with two growing seasons in the farmland that it crosses, instead of just one.
Energy Transfer planned to complete all its construction by the end of 2016, but it had to wait 90 days to start work because of a "regulatory delay"; there also have been "several instances of trespassers interfering with construction work," company attorney Bret Dublinske wrote in the letter. The company posted a $100,000 reward in October after an apparent arson attack caused $2 million in damage to a contractor's construction equipment (Energywire, Oct. 18).
The Dakota Access line will run about 1,170 miles from North Dakota to Illinois and carry as much as 570,000 barrels of oil per day from North Dakota's Bakken Shale field. The $3.8 billion project has sparked protests and lawsuits in at least two states.
Iowa residents have sued, saying the pipeline is abusing state eminent domain laws.
In North Dakota, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe held months of marches and other demonstrations to block construction, saying the project will endanger their water supply and could damage cultural sites on surrounding private land. The Obama administration delayed permission for the pipeline to cross Lake Oahe, in North Dakota, while it revises its system for consulting with Native American tribes (Energywire, Dec. 5).
Most of the construction work is finished in Iowa — 100 percent of the pipe has been installed and 80 percent of it has been pressure-tested, the board's staff said in a report.
Board members said they planned to discuss Energy Transfer's letter in a closed-door session.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/12/21/stories/1060047501
-
Toxics: EPA Issues Final Rule Overhauling RMP Facility Safety Program
Dec 21, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA has issued its long-awaited final rule overhauling its Risk Management Plan (RMP) facility accident prevention program strengthening requirements for facilities to reduce risks of accidents, but the incoming Trump administration and/or Republican lawmakers are expected to block or kill the rule.
EPA says the final rule, which Administrator Gina McCarthy signed Dec. 21, seeks to bolster facilities' accident prevention programs, enhance emergency preparedness requirements, and ensure that first responders and the public have information to prepare for and respond to accidents in their communities. The rule was required by President Barack Obama's executive order that sought to strengthen industrial facility after a lethal accident at a fertilizer plant in West, TX, in 2013.
But industry and state critics, including Scott Pruitt, President-elect Donald Trump's intended nominee to lead the agency, have warned that the rule could threaten security by making the data available for those seeking to carry out attacks.
"As the federal agencies responsible for national security have warned you,” Pruitt and other attorneys general warned EPA earlier this year, “compiling that information and making it easily accessible also aids those who might seek to cause an intentional release for nefarious purposes, by providing those bad actors with information that would help them both select a target and exploit any security vulnerabilities their target might have."
More recently, industry groups charged that in seeking to issue the final rule before Obama leaves office, EPA has failed to adequately assess the rule's costs and benefits. They contend the RMP rule will be a prime target for a Trump administration and Republican Congress looking to roll back regulation.
Given that the rule does not take effect for 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register, it will almost certainly be blocked by the incoming administration. In addition, it could be a candidate for formal disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, an action that would block a future administration from developing a “substantially similar” rule.
Environmentalists in recent months have urged White House officials to issue a strong final rule with new requirements for a broad range of facilities to at least assess whether alternative chemicals and processes would reduce or eliminate risks of an accidental release.
We'll have more on the rule later today.
https://insideepa.com/the-daily-feed
-
PATH Installs PTC on 33rd Street Rail Line
Dec 21, 2016 | Progressive Rail Roading
The Port Authority Trans-Hudson's (PATH) 33rd Street rail line will return to operation on weekends starting Dec. 24, following the installation of new safety and signal upgrades.
The weekend closures began in early August so that crews could install positive train control (PTC) technology and new communications equipment, as well as perform additional repair work and painting.
"This project is vitally important for PATH, as we transition to a state-of-the-art system to allow PATH to increase throughput safety," said Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Executive Director Pat Foye in a press release.
"PTC and [communications-based train control] will reduce the likelihood of human or mechanical errors and provide our customers with an additional layer of safety and reliability," said Kevin Lejda, assistant superintendent in PATH's transportation division.
During the weekend closures, PATH had been running direct trains between Hoboken and the World Trade Center, and providing shuttle bus service for riders from the WTC to West 29th Street. Those alternative services will be discontinued on weekends starting Dec. 24.
The port authority also released a video explaining PATH's safety and communications system upgrades.
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/news/PATH-installs-PTC-on-33rd-Street-rail-line--50440
-
Trump Says Energy Regulations are Hurting Economic Growth. The Evidence Says Otherwise.
Dec 21, 2016 | Washington Post
By Vivek Wadhwa and Mark Muro
“I will cancel job-killing restrictions on the production of American energy, including shale energy and clean coal, creating many millions of high-paying jobs,” says President-elect Donald Trump. For his part, his nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, has argued that growth and regulation are fundamentally at odds. “The American people are tired of seeing billions of dollars drained from our economy due to unnecessary EPA regulations,” he said.
The assumption they are making is that economic growth depends upon increasing carbon emissions. Trump and Pruitt seem to believe that because energy is essential for economic development, increasing its production by any means will boost the economy, and that limiting it in any way—as through emission controls—will hurt it.
The two are wrong on both counts.
Thanks to decades of innovation, smart regulation, and technology investment, the nation can grow and decarbonize at once. The key is to accelerate the move to low-carbon technology by strengthening—not eliminating—the rules and technology investments that are driving it.
Far from being a prohibitive drag on economic growth, decarbonization, or making the way that we get energy less dependent on burning fossil fuels that release carbon emissions, has gone hand-in-hand with output growth in most of the United States, according to research by the Brookings Institution. From 2000 to 2015, U.S. GDP grew by 30 percent though emissions declined by 10 percent.
Skeptics will argue that the nation’s economic growth would have been even faster if there had been less focus on low-carbon technology and carbon regulation, such as restrictions on emissions from coal-fired power plants. But the Brookings state-by-state interactive shows that, even in a period of what Pruitt deems regulatory “overreach,” the pace of economic growth has accelerated.
As of 2007, only 14 states had decoupled their economic growth from their emissions. This number increased to 34 by 2014, with states such as California, Georgia, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Virginia joining the mix. These states expanded their economies by 22 percent even as they reduced emissions by nearly 12 percent.
And get this: 22 of the 34 newly decoupled states have been growing faster in the recent 2000–2014 period than they were in the previous 14 years. In short, decarbonization—prompted in part by federal and state regulations—has been accompanied by faster growth in many states. That is, economic growth has been accelerating not in spite of the changes leading to emissions reduction, but along with them. So much for the assumed growth–emissions tradeoff.
Once one looks at what is driving these developments, meanwhile, it turns out that the bulk of the progress to date has more to do with innovation-driven technology change, market forces, and industry restructuring. Regulations to date have been neither a major deterrent nor the major driver of decarbonization, though if anything clean air regulations and sourcing rules like renewable portfolio standards or auto emissions standards have helped the cause. In this connection, the Brookings study affirms the findings of a recent EIA analysis that concludes that more than two-thirds of the country’s and individual states’ emissions reductions between 2005 and 2015 were due to fuel-use changes in the power sector—changes that reflect decades of government research and commercialization focus on low-carbon technologies.
Most notably, the nation’s recent “decoupling” owes heavily, as is well known, to the advent of cheap natural gas, as well as to the plummeting prices of renewables. In each case, extraordinary price gains and market-driven replacement of coal plants have been made possible by federal innovation policies that have expanded low-carbon energy options, pushed wholesale electricity prices to record lows, and accelerated the retirement of America’s aging coal plants. Altogether, the Brookings analysis shows that—thanks to technology change—coal plants’ share of state electricity generation declined in no fewer than 43 states.
All of this makes obvious the best way forward: Having enjoyed an incredible windfall from past federal investment in low-carbon innovation, the Trump administration should invest in more of it to generate the next era of windfalls.
Currently, the nation’s innovation-created glut of cheap natural gas is allowing sizable one-time carbon gains through the retirement of coal plants. Obviously, though, those gains won’t continue forever; and gas brings its own emissions problems. So this unique opportunity to increase low-carbon research and development, and accelerate the development of new technologies that can allow further growth, is one we would be foolish to overlook.
Where should the Trump administration invest? Many potential technologies are on the horizon and could be palatable to the Trump team. As the Columbia University scholar Jason Bordoff has noted, renewables are ripe for breakthroughs. “Solar paint on windows and buildings could soak up the energy of the sun. And new grid-scale energy-storage technologies could enable intermittent renewable energy sources like wind and solar to take a greater share in the power generation mix by delivering their electricity to the grid even when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing.” We could well be heading for an era of abundant and inexpensive clean energy.
The point here, in any event, isn’t to set a particular technology roadmap; rather, it is to observe that what has served the nation well in recent decades should be continued. Clean-energy innovation has finally broken the dependency of economic growth upon technologies causing emissions growth. Now it holds out the opportunity to allow for a deep decarbonization compatible with increasing prosperity. That vision is an essential element of any quest to “make America great again.”
Vivek Wadhwa is professor at Carnegie Mellon University Engineering at Silicon Valley and a director of research at Center for Entrepreneurship and Research Commercialization at Duke. Mark Muro is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/21/trump-says-energy-regulations-are-hurting-economic-growth-the-evidence-says-otherwise/?utm_term=.130b14a83201
-
Outgoing EPA Chief: Science is ‘Fundamental to Absolutely Everything We Do.’
Dec 21, 2016 | Washington Post
By Brady Dennis
Gina McCarthy — Boston native, Irish Catholic, lover of Guinness beer and a good laugh — has been a central player in the Obama administration’s work to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and combat global warming at home and abroad. A career environmental bureaucrat and a veteran of Republican administrations in Massachusetts and Connecticut, McCarthy promised a “common sense” approach to fighting climate change during her 2013 confirmation hearing.
Although she contends that the Obama administration has pursued exactly that, the Environmental Protection Agency has run into stiff opposition from the oil, gas and coal industries in recent years. The administration’s central effort to regulate carbon emissions from power plants, for example, remains stalled in federal court. President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to scrap that Clean Power Plan and other key environmental regulations from the Obama era, and his nominee to replace McCarthy, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, seems eager to give it his best shot.
As she prepares to leave office, McCarthy sat down with The Washington Post to discuss the accomplishments and frustrations of her tenure. She reflected on the water crisis in Flint, Mich., the importance of continued domestic and global leadership on climate change and the need to protect the integrity of the science at EPA and other federal agencies. The exchange that follows has been edited for length and clarity:
The Washington Post: What are your thoughts about your potential successor, Scott Pruitt? You’re certainly familiar with him, but usually from the opposing side of a courtroom. He’s been among the most outspoken critics of EPA.
Gina McCarthy: I’m thinking he has a big role to do here. He really doesn’t have a great deal of familiarity with the agency and the breadth of what it does, even though he has sued us on a number of occasions. I’m looking forward to him spending a little bit of time before he jumps at what his priorities are, because talking about it outside and then sitting at this table is a whole different ballgame. He is smart enough to know that he’s taking an oath to do a job, that this agency has a good mission and we’re proud of it. He’s going to have to figure out how he makes his mark.
TWP: Donald Trump has promised to roll back any number of things that the Obama administration has done, namely the Clean Power Plan. He has promised to pull out of the Paris climate agreement, which you played a key role in. He’s promised to get rid of the Waters of the U.S. rule. He’s called what EPA does “a disgrace.” And the folks that he is appointing seem determined to see that through. How have you wrestled with the prospect of much of your work being undone?
McCarthy: I’ve certainly heard all of this. I’m concerned, without question, by much of what I’d call political rhetoric. But I feel pretty confident that what we have done is really very solid work. There are clear records, factual records and science behind the decisions we’ve made. While I know that Mr. Pruitt, when he was attorney general, called what we did overreach in many different ways, if you really look at it, this is standard work we do in this agency and have done for a long time very successfully. So I don’t feel like we’ve broken new ground as much as we’ve applied the law and the science the way we’re supposed to.
[And] he hasn’t just gone after the Clean Power Plan; he’s gone after the Clean Water Rule, he’s gone after Clean Air Act rules that we have done. Mercury and air toxics standards — it’s already done, [companies] are already complying. We’re so past that. We’ve worked our way through regulations that were either not done in the prior administration or done badly and came back to us. There was a long, very large body of work we had to get through. As far as I know, we’ve done it extraordinarily well. So it’s not like a blink of an eye and all that goes away.
TWP: You said it’s not partisan to care about clean air and clean water. And [Trump and his nominees] say the same thing, that they care about the EPA’s mission of clean air and clean water. But they argue you have to free companies from unnecessary regulations. What would your response to that be?
McCarthy: It probably won’t surprise you to know I disagree. … The goal of government is supposed to be to have both. Where you can have cost-effective regulation and regulation that grows jobs, that’s where you ought to go. I don’t think EPA’s only task is to regulate. Our task is to reduce pollution with the best tools available. So we do it with voluntary programs as well as regulation.
TWP: You mentioned the evidence that underpins the regulations you’ve written. I’d like to talk about the role of science, because there’s been a lot of talk about that in recent days and worries whether the next administration will rely on science, will trust the science, will protect scientists. From your perspective, what role does science play at EPA?
McCarthy: Science is everything. Almost every action we take is bounded by what the science tells us. It’s based on a factual record of where the world is today and what is our obligation under our mission. Science needs to be protected. Any effort to undermine that science in a way that would give undue influence to folks that aren’t scientists is a really big problem.
But it’s not just for EPA. You can’t selectively say, “I’ve decided I don’t like the science on climate, so let’s find a way to revisit that,” without saying, “I’m revisiting the way the United States of America and, frankly, every country does science.” It’s something that people need to watch and protect. In this agency, if we’re asked who worked on climate change, I have a list of 15,000-plus people. Because everybody in this agency, one way or another, has touched the issue of climate.
Why wouldn’t something like climate change, which impacts everything we do, not be on everybody’s agenda? It’s just important for people to remember that the career staff were hired for their scientific credentials, and our job is to make sure that their integrity is maintained.
TWP: Can you illustrate an example or two … where you’d be lost without the scientific basis?
McCarthy: It’s fundamental to how we do clean air. I need to understand how dirty air hurts individuals to know what clean air looks like and what the goals are we should be moving toward. If I don’t have science, I don’t have anything. It is fundamental to absolutely everything we do.
The amount of science that goes into an Energy Star label, it’s enormous. For us to actually evaluate appliances and to tell people the greenhouse gas reductions achieved through those but also the energy savings and costs — it’s changed appliances forever.
TWP: What regrets will you leave with? Or maybe a better way to ask that is, how could the EPA have done better while you were here? Where did it fall short?
McCarthy: One of the areas, I think, is an area the next administration is going to have to make some big progress on: clean drinking water. There have been lots of lessons learned about how vulnerable some communities are. I really wish that the Clean Water Rule could have been better received by folks who didn’t understand it or that just read news stories about it. The Clean Water Rule is essential for source protection for 170 million people who rely on rivers and streams that are now unprotected for their drinking water.
So it’s a big deal. And the investment that needs to be made in drinking water is substantial. Now, the president-elect wants to do infrastructure investments? I just hope that this agency is able to put drinking water on the table as part of that. There are old, aging systems that we continue to rely on, and we just can’t. Nobody really wants to spend money when all it is are pipes in the ground that you’re never going to see. But ask people that same question when they have a contaminant in their drinking water system.
TWP: Are there other things you wish had gone differently?
McCarthy: EPA does not have the strong relationships with rural communities that it has with urban communities. We work in a lot of communities, we work on a lot of urban-related issues. We have great relationships with mayors. But we have tended to not be able to have a very compelling rural agenda and to build constituencies there. That’s been challenging for us. Because we do know that runoff from agriculture and storm water — all these small sources of nutrients that are getting in our waters and streams — are the biggest challenge we face right now.
If we can’t identify a partnership or collaborative approach, we’re going to be in trouble in trying to figure out how to address those in ways that won’t require huge investments downstream in treatment facilities. Certainly, I didn’t make the progress I wanted to make in building bridges with agriculture and in finding a way to articulate a really robust rural strategy. I know rural America is struggling right now, and I think when they see the word “regulation,” they just look at that as being money that they’ll have to spend. I look at it as being investments that need to be made. So, there’s an opportunity the next administration could take in recognizing how you meet this environment and economy nexus in rural communities. It’s a challenge.
TWP: The EPA acknowledged shortcomings in Flint. Obviously, there was also a huge state role there. But how confident are you that Flint can be made whole again, whatever that might mean? Trust was long ago lost. How does that get fixed?
McCarthy: That’s a really good question. I know the drinking water situation is getting fixed. We’ve made more progress than anyone could have anticipated at this point. But Flint was never just a drinking water problem. It was a community that was very vibrant at one point, with large auto manufacturing businesses, and it just got disinvested in the ’70s and ’80s in a way that devastated their economy. If you go there, you know this didn’t happen a year or two ago. This is a significant problem.
Flint is not alone in being a shrinking city. We’re doing great at getting the water quality up, but it’s too large a system. They have neighborhoods where they have one person living in them. You can’t service one person in a system like that without having stagnant water everywhere. Stagnant water is not your friend in a drinking water system. So there are long-term challenges there that have to be fixed. And it’s a real serious question about how the economics work in a city that has such high poverty levels with such high vacancy. It’s like Detroit, only smaller. There needed to be a huge national effort to address that.
TWP: If the next administration pulls back from climate action domestically and internationally, what role are cities and states going to play in combating this issue? And is that enough, if you essentially don’t have the federal government participating?
McCarthy: I’ve worked at the local level and the state level and the federal level. I’ve been working on climate change now for 25 or 30 years. The only action that the United States has been doing up until a very short time ago has happened at the local and the state level. Mayors are our champions. The reason is that they cannot deny the impacts that are happening. Good luck saying “climate change isn’t real” in some of the communities that are facing the brunt of the intense storms and the fires that are raging and the droughts that are happening. People know it’s not business as usual. And so they’re demanding action.
States and regional efforts are going to continue. But I’m hoping that if this next administration sees the same value in international leadership, that will not be the only thing happening.
TWP: And for you personally, what’s next?
McCarthy: Vacation for a little bit. And then we’ll see. I’m not retiring. I may be over the hill, but I don’t think I am — depends on how big a hill, I guess. I’ll still be active in these issues, and I’ll find an opportunity for myself. … I think I’ll be as vocal as I can be. This is a great agency, and its career staff needs continued support. While I recognize that the next administration can put its mark on things, I’m going to be watching the science more than anything else, because I need to make sure our science remains credible.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/21/outgoing-epa-chief-science-is-everything-it-is-fundamental-to-absolutely-everything-we-do/?utm_term=.77936acc27ab
-
CCS Experts Defend EPA's New-Source Rule
Dec 21, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
A group of scientists who study carbon capture and sequestration is backing U.S. EPA in litigation over the agency's carbon dioxide limits for new power plants.
EPA correctly concluded that new power plants could rely on partial CCS to meet the standards, the scientists today told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in an amicus brief.
The group of 11 experts from universities and research firms in the United States and the United Kingdom said that CCS was already "adequately demonstrated" as required by the Clean Air Act.
EPA's New Source Performance Standards finalized last year require both new and modified fossil-fuel-fired power plants to meet carbon dioxide limits. The standards for coal plants can't be met by efficiency improvements alone, meaning operators of new power plants will have to capture carbon and sequester it in deep saline formations.
Twenty-three states and dozens of power companies and industry associations have sued over the rule in the D.C. Circuit. They argue that CCS is costly and hasn't been proved in the real world.
But the CCS scientists, who are represented by Columbia University's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, argued that the standard is based on the "deployment of well-established CCS technologies that have been successfully deployed in industrial applications for decades, are commercial available and have proven to be technically viable."
Existing CCS projects would only help to significantly reduce the cost of complying with the standards, the experts also said.
Those projects include the Boundary Dam plant in Canada, the world's first carbon capture project on a large coal plant. The project's operator, SaskPower, in November announced that Boundary Dam had injected 800,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide underground in a year, reaching its target for the time period (E&E News PM, Nov. 1).
The scientists also highlighted the Petra Nova CCS project in Houston, which is scheduled to begin operating next year.
"Point being: the NSPS is already attainable, but technological advances will make it even easier to meet this standard in the near future," the scientists said.
Industry and state opponents are required to submit their next brief in the litigation on Jan. 19 but have asked the court to delay the schedule given the upcoming change in administrations. President-elect Donald Trump, who takes office on Jan. 20, is likely to take steps to undo Obama administration climate rules.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/12/21/stories/1060047528
-
DOE Commits $2B Loan Guarantee for CCS Methanol Plant
Dec 21, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Christa Marshall
The Department of Energy announced a $2 billion commitment today for a loan guarantee to construct the world's first methanol facility using carbon capture technology.
If constructed, the methanol production plant in Lake Charles, La., would reduce greenhouse gas emissions 36 percent in comparison to similar methanol plants that don't deploy low-emissions technology.
The $3.8 billion project would also be the first petroleum-coke-to-methanol facility in the United States. If the agreement is finalized, the initiative overseen by Lake Charles Methanol LLC will be the first to receive a DOE loan guarantee related to advanced fossil fuel development.
"This is a big step forward," said Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, citing recent data from the International Energy Agency that 2050 climate targets would be much more expensive without faster carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) development.
He said the announcement was not tied to the Trump transition team, considering how long it takes to process a loan guarantee application. "These are not things that happen quickly," he said.
DOE also revealed that there have been more than 70 applications for almost $50 billion in available loans and loan guarantees.
The plant envisions gasifying petcoke with General Electric technology to produce methanol and other industrial gases and chemicals. Petcoke is a byproduct of oil refining. Seventy-seven percent of all carbon dioxide produced by the facility would be captured and sold for use in enhanced oil recovery in Texas oil fields.
Denbury Onshore LLC plans to purchase the captured CO2, which is expected to reach at least 4 million tons annually. That level of CO2 is more than double the amount of some proposed carbon capture plants on power generation. The plant would increase domestic oil production by more than 12,000 barrels.
DOE said it would monitor the project's development before reaching a final decision on the loan guarantee. Lake Charles Methanol LLC said the project is expected to create 500 permanent U.S. jobs.
"The Department of Energy's investment in the Lake Charles Methanol Project is a positive sign that the federal government is committed to increasing domestic energy production and improving current energy refining technology," said Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) in a statement.
Some environmental groups oppose carbon-capture technology because of its focus on fossil fuels. In a statement, Friends of the Earth climate and energy campaigner Lukas Ross emphasized that the decision is not final.
"While there is still time, we fully intend to push back and make sure that taxpayers aren't left on the hook for another fossil-friendly boondoggle," said Ross.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/12/21/stories/1060047526
-
EPA Agrees to Tighten Heavy-Duty NOx Standard but Faces California Fight
Dec 21, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Curt Barry
EPA has formally agreed to write a rule to tighten nitrogen oxide (NOx) standards for heavy-duty engines and trucks that would take effect with the 2024 model year, in response to petitions from state and local air districts and other organizations concerned that stricter greenhouse gas rules for the vehicles may not achieve the NOx reductions they believe are needed to comply with air quality standards.
But the agency declined requests from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and other petitioners that had sought a commitment for a strict, specific limit on NOx, an ozone precursor, that they say is crucial to comply with the agency's air quality standard for ozone.
And EPA's commitment also falls short of the petitioners' calls to approve the requirements by 2019, when California plans to adopt its own strict NOx limits for the vehicles and engines, suggesting a clash between the Golden State and the incoming Trump administration over the issue.
EPA “intends to initiate a rulemaking to propose revisions to the federal on-highway heavy-duty NOx emissions control program,” states an agency memorandum released Dec. 20.
The agency says it intends to “work closely” with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) “to consider the development of a new harmonized Federal and California program to reduce NOx emissions from to heavy-duty on-highway engines and vehicles.”
New model year 2024 NOx standards “would coincide with both the latest timing stated in the petitions and also an important model year for the implementation of” EPA's heavy-duty Phase 2 GHG standards, the memo says.
The memo accompanied formal letters to California's South Coast and San Joaquin Valley air districts responding to the petitions.
The petitioners are concerned that some GHG-reduction technologies and processes required to comply with EPA's GHG rule, such as those that increase combustion chamber temperatures, have been shown to raise engines' emissions of NOx.
But with EPA strengthening standards for ozone and other conventional pollutants, state and local air agencies have been pushing the agency to develop strict new NOx limits, and trucks are the largest source of the pollutant in some parts of the country.
However, EPA notes in the memo that it will not initially propose a standard of 0.02 grams per brakehorse power-hour (g/bhp-hr), as strongly recommended by the petitioners, and which CARB officials have said they plan to pursue in their own rulemaking. “At this time EPA believes it is premature to commit to a particular level or form of a future low NOx standard for heavy-duty engines or vehicles, especially in advance of developing the robust technical record necessary to propose and promulgate such standards,” the memo states.
EPA also notes that the proposed 2024 start date is later than requested by the California air district officials.
California officials have argued that a new 0.02 g/bhp-hr NOx standard is critical for them to achieve EPA's ozone and particulate matter standards over the coming 15 years.
CARB officials have said they aim to adopt in 2019 a more aggressive NOx standard for 2023 engines sold in the state, setting up a potential major clash between the board and heavy-duty engine manufacturers. Industry officials have charged that there are more effective options for the state to achieve air quality standards and slash GHGs and that regulators are misrepresenting the potential for controls to cut NOx and GHGs.
GHG Penalty
Industry representatives have charged in part that CARB is using inappropriate engine testing procedures and models to claim that its preferred 0.02 g/bhp-hr standard can be achieved on diesel engines without a GHG penalty.
EPA appears to be taking a cautious and cooperative tone in its memo with regard to working with CARB, despite California's intentions to pursue the strict 0.02 g/bhp-hr standard. “EPA plans to work with truck and engine manufacturers, suppliers, state/local/tribal air quality agencies, NGOs, labor, the trucking industry, and the Petitioners as we move forward on this rulemaking,” the memo says.
EPA's decision to delay any rule's effective date may be driven in part by the timetable the agency detailed for its rulemaking. The agency says that based on a preliminary timeline for the rulemaking, it will take two years to complete the technical work and consultations needed to prepare a proposed rule.
“Such a schedule would provide enough time for EPA to develop a data-driven proposal, and also preserve the opportunity for EPA in a future final action to consider new standards that would be in effect beginning in the 2024 model year,” the agency says.
Acknowledging that the petitioners were seeking a faster timeline, EPA says that “in order to develop a comprehensive and effective proposal for a new NOx emission reduction program that properly assesses real-world costs and benefits more time is needed to gather and analyze the data.”
A more rapid time frame “would limit the inquiry to standards based on current regulatory test procedures and test cycles. EPA believes a more robust assessment and regulatory development process will lead to more real-world emission reductions,” the memo says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-agrees-tighten-heavy-duty-nox-standard-faces-california-fight
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested