Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 1/9/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) GOP to Revive 'Secret Science' Bill — and Now It Could Pass
Jan 9, 2017 | Climatewire
By Scott Waldman
A move by conservative lawmakers and business groups to fundamentally alter how science is used in crafting environmental policy has a greater chance than ever of becoming law. -
(ACC Mentioned) United States: A New Year Begins, Marked by Optimism
Jan 9, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Melody Bomgardner
After six years of sluggish growth, output from the U.S. chemical industry will expand by 3.6% in 2017, according to a projection by the American Chemistry Council, the country’s largest chemical trade group. -
The Chemical Industry's Having a Bad Reaction to New Regs
Jan 9, 2017 | Wired
By Megan Molteni
America used to be a chemistry powerhouse: It’s the nation that made teflon, Super Glue, and Magic Grow dinosaurs. But recently, the number of new chemical substances approved by federal regulators has dropped by half. -
EPA Announces Final Ecological Effects Test Guidelines (Series 850) Under TSCA, FIFRA and FFDCA
Jan 9, 2017 | Lexology
By E. Chase Dressman
On Dec. 29, 2016, EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) announced the availability of new final test guidelines in Series 850 Group A, pertaining to measuring the Ecological Effects of chemicals on Aquatic and Sediment-dwelling Fauna and Aquatic Microcosms. -
(ACC Blog) Japan Must Have Listened to the Science on BPA
Jan 9, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters
By Steven Hentges, Ph.D
More than 10 years ago, bisphenol A (BPA) was a hot topic in Japan. But these days, not so much. -
(ACC Mentioned) Specialty Chemicals: Sector is Expected to Regain Momentum This Year
Jan 9, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Marc Reisch
Globally, specialty chemicals output is expected to regain momentum in 2017 after a slower-than-expected increase in 2016, according to the American Chemistry Council. The trade association anticipates a production rise of 3.3% in 2017 after a 2.6% increase last year. -
Lead Testing for Children 'Inadequate,' Must be Universal — Report
Jan 9, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith
States' blood testing standards for lead in children are failing to assess enough children, according to a report released today by a public health group. -
Obama Admin Spars with Critics Over Methane Rule
Jan 9, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The fate of an Obama administration methane-slashing rule was on the line last week as critics and fans of the regulation argued over whether it should be halted. -
Giant Petrochemical Project Near Corpus Christi Meets Local Pushback
Jan 9, 2017 | E&E Energywire
The small cities surrounding the site of a proposed $10 billion petrochemical plant near Corpus Christi, Texas, are preparing for major changes. -
Environmentalists, Oil Industry at Odds Over EPA Refinery Air Toxics Rule
Jan 9, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Environmentalists and the oil industry are at odds over EPA's proposed reconsideration of provisions in its air toxics rule for refineries, with environmentalists calling on the agency to impose tougher controls on the facilities while industry is giving the proposal cautious praise but still seeking changes to specific requirements. -
Government, Tribe Slam Company's 'Legal Fallacy'
Jan 9, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Dakota Access litigation lit up again last week as the Obama administration and Standing Rock Sioux Tribe tried to block legal maneuvering by the pipeline company. -
A Rosy Future for U.S. LNG
Jan 6, 2017 | Oil Price (in Real Clear Energy)
By Gregory Brew
American LNG exports for 2016, according to the Department of Energy, totaled 109 Bcf through December, averaging about 0.3 Bcf per day. -
A Grim Prognosis for Mission Innovation Under Trump
Jan 9, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Umair Irfan
President Carter installed 32 solar water heating panels on the White House roof in 1979, and President Reagan took them down in 1986. -
EPA to Issue Regional Haze Regs, Likely Sparking Lawsuits
Jan 9, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA is poised to formally issue a package of changes to its regional haze regulations, opening the door for legal challenges.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) GOP to Revive 'Secret Science' Bill — and Now It Could Pass
Jan 9, 2017 | Climatewire
By Scott Waldman
A move by conservative lawmakers and business groups to fundamentally alter how science is used in crafting environmental policy has a greater chance than ever of becoming law.
The "Secret Science Reform Act" has been pushed by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) for years. It would require that U.S. EPA use only "transparent or reproducible" science to develop regulations and that such scientific data be posted online so that they can be scrutinized.
Proponents argue that the legislation simply makes science transparent and allows for independent scrutiny to ensure science is not politically tainted before it influences policy.
Democrats and scores of scientific organizations say the measure would have a crippling effect, since large-scale studies are not easy to reproduce and some industry data can't be made public.
In years past, Democrats have effectively killed the measure in the Senate, and President Obama threatened to veto it. But with the political road map now completely transformed, both proponents and opponents say the bill stands its best chance in years of passing both houses and landing on a friendly White House desk.
In December, Smith told a receptive crowd at the conservative Heritage Foundation that the "secret science" bill would be one of his top priorities in the 115th Congress. In fact, if the bill is introduced soon, observers say, that's because it likely has already received the blessing of the incoming Trump White House.
"Regulations should be based on sound science, not science fiction," Smith said.
The renewed fight comes against a backdrop of an empowered climate skepticism in Congress and impending pushback against eight years of environmental regulations under Obama. While the measure is not aimed solely at climate rules like the Clean Power Plan, which Trump has vowed to undo, its passage would help undermine the scientific expertise underpinning it and other efforts to regulate air and water pollutants.
Observers expect it to be introduced within the next month, when, if passed, it will meet a likely friendly White House.
And while much of the early attention on what actions the new Congress will take has focused on the "Midnight Rule Relief Act" and the "Regulatory Accountability Act," the "Secret Science Reform Act" could have long-lasting consequences that extend beyond the Trump administration or Smith's tenure as chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.
"The legislation simply requires the EPA to base its regulations on publicly available data," Smith said at the Heritage event. "Why would the EPA want to hide this information from the American people? Obviously, it's one of three reasons. The data doesn't show what they claim that it might show, or the data doesn't exist, or they've cherry-picked the data. The American people have every right to be suspicious when the EPA uses politically correct science to get the results they want and then refuses to reveal the data behind how those decisions were made."
Repercussions for decades to come
Opponents argue that the measure intentionally would weaken the scientific process by casting unnecessary doubt on research while opening policy up to industry influence. What's more, the bill could quickly spread to other agencies, said Yogin Kothari of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
"If something like this passes, it sets a really bad precedent," he said. "This bill, it's not designed to promote good science; it's really just crafted to prevent the use of independent science in developing public health and safety protections, and if a version like this were to get into other areas of the federal government, it could bring the entire regulatory process to a grinding halt."
The bill easily passed the House last year and made it through the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, then headed by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), who is known for his hostility to climate policy. This year, Kothari said, the committee is just as likely to pass the bill, and Senate Democrats would have to act as a backstop to prevent it from hitting the president's desk.
Observers noted that Democrats only have so much political capital to fend against a broad array of legislation, and it stands a strong chance of passage if attached to a policy rider on a must-pass bill. Still, Democrats say they are prepared to fight it.
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), the ranking member of the Science Committee, said EPA does not use "secret" science, but instead relies upon peer-reviewed research from trusted scientific sources.
"So-called 'secret science' legislation is an insidious attack on the EPA's ability to use the best science to protect public health," she said in a statement. "Judging from the groups that have endorsed 'secret science' legislation in the past, it might be more accurate to state that this legislation is the polluting industries' attempt to hurt the EPA's rulemaking ability."
The bill was supported by dozens of industry groups, like the American Chemistry Council, American Petroleum Institute and American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers. It was opposed by dozens of scientific organizations and universities, including the American Geophysical Union, Harvard University and the National Council for Science and the Environment.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science has cautioned that the bill would take the review of scientific studies away from the scientific community and instead put the responsibility "into the hands of a judge and jury."
It has pointed out that many studies collect data on human health and that revealing them could violate medical disclosure laws. What's more, it would be nearly impossible to reproduce some studies, including, for example, a study that tracks human health results over 40 years from exposure to air pollution at a coal plant.
If passed into law, the bill's effects could outlast the Trump administration, said Sean Gallagher, senior government relations officer at the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
"If they do it in the way they're talking about, it fundamentally alters any executive orders going forward and the EPA's ability to use science going forward," he said. "So that, in some sense, regardless of the administration, will have a longer-lasting impact. If the bad effects of the bill manifest, and that's a big if, it will have a longer-lasting effect than any executive order could."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/01/09/stories/1060048033
-
(ACC Mentioned) United States: A New Year Begins, Marked by Optimism
Jan 9, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Melody Bomgardner
After six years of sluggish growth, output from the U.S. chemical industry will expand by 3.6% in 2017, according to a projection by the American Chemistry Council, the country’s largest chemical trade group.
The figure implies that much will change from 2016, when ACC estimates output grew by a mere 1.6%. An earlier prediction by the group called for more robust growth of 3.1% in 2016.
Overall U.S. economic growth will remain modest, ACC says, but the chemical industry will be a source of strength because cheap shale gas provides a strong competitive advantage, and the industry serves fast-growing global markets. Economist predictions for global growth this year range from 3.1 to 3.4%, compared with about 2.8% in 2016.
The shale gas boom continues to attract investment and chemical jobs to the U.S. Gulf Coast, says ACC chief economist T. Kevin Swift. In addition, “chemical companies in the U.S. continue to innovate, focusing on improving efficiencies as well as on new, leading-edge product development,” he says.
ACC’s figures assume that factors dragging down the chemical economy will moderate or improve in 2017. A glut in supply chain inventories has evened out, for one. Swift also predicts that automotive builds and single-family home construction will be robust. And he says business investment will increase, reversing a strong postrecession trend.
What’s more, Swift alludes to a new, business-friendly climate under the incoming Trump Administration, saying “tax and regulatory reform will go far to rejuvenate U.S. economic dynamism and performance.” Although Trump has promised to erect trade barriers, Swift says total trade will pick up slightly in 2017.
Recent surveys show ACC is not alone in its optimism. According to the Conference Board, consumer confidence in November returned to prerecession levels, due in part to positive views of the labor market. And a survey of home-builder confidence by the National Association of Home Builders resulted in its highest reading since 2005.
But government figures show single-family home starts sank 4.1% in November. Also that month, new vehicle sales—which have been a big area of spending—shrank 2.0%, as measured by J.D. Power and LMC Automotive. Fiscal moves by the new administration will influence buying, the survey partners say. “The economy and industry could be facing a boom or bust depending on which policies are focused on and implemented.”
http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i2/World-chemical-outlook-2017.html
-
The Chemical Industry's Having a Bad Reaction to New Regs
Jan 9, 2017 | Wired
By Megan Molteni
America used to be a chemistry powerhouse: It’s the nation that made teflon, Super Glue, and Magic Grow dinosaurs. But recently, the number of new chemical substances approved by federal regulators has dropped by half.
That’s because last summer Congress issued reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act, a 30 year old law governing how the EPA and other federal agencies check the boxes that let new chemicals come to market. Industry groups say these significant changes to the review process are to blame, while agency officials say it’s nothing more than temporary growing pains during the initial transition. But one thing seems clear—the slowdown is real.
The Toxic Substances Control Act has been around since early days of the EPA; it gives the agency oversight over a wide range of commercial, industrial and consumer applications of microbial biotechnology—pretty much anything potentially harmful to humans or the environment that’s not food, drugs, cosmetics or pesticides.
That approval process changed significantly on June 22, 2016, when Congress passed an amendment called the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. Before, the agency had the authority to take action and halt approval if they found cause for concern with a new substance. But, if they they didn’t, they could simply dropped the review and the chemical could proceed. Now, by law, the EPA must give a full review to every substance, and only those that pass can go to market.
During those first six months prior the 2016 update—under the old review process—the EPA dropped the review of 81 new chemical substances, effectively OK-ing them for market. For cases reviewed between June 23, 2016 and the end of the year, the agency found only 39 substances to be “not likely to present reasonable risk,” the new affirmative head nod toward commercialization. That leaves hundreds of applications stuck in review limbo, with the backlog growing bigger every day.
As a result, some chemists feel like they must dial back their ambitions to pass review. “New chemicals are taking significantly longer to get through the EPA process now,” says Rich Engler, a chemical consultant with environmental law firm Bergeson & Campbell. “If I were advising a client I would tell them to only try to develop something low hazard, because those are the only ones proceeding through right now.” Engler previously worked for 17 years as a senior staff scientist in the EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
At face value, safe seems better. But while new regulations might keep dangerous chemicals in their beakers, other, more innocuous substances often get unfairly flagged as presenting some level of risk. These include genetically modified microorganisms being used to create all kinds of new chemicals. The term GMO might raise the hackles of people fearing gene-hacked corn and frankenfish, but in regulatory lingo it is a really broad term encompassing some really uncontroversial organisms. These include: Yeasts that fart ethanol; fungi that secrete cellulose; algae that poop biofuels; bacteria that digest oil spills; and a host of other commercially useful microbes that have been spliced with genetic material outside their own genus.
A handful of these helpful GMOs have made it through the post-reform Toxic Substances Control Act EPA (some yeasts and a few fungi with extensive histories of safe use). But chemists and companies are concerned that increased data burdens in the new EPA regulations are stifling efforts to engineer solutions from unlikely places, even as advances in gene editingmakes it quicker and easier than ever to do so. In a public meeting the agency convened in December, industry groups urged the EPA to reassess the changes to the new chemicals program.
But besides pulling in additional staff to handle all the new paperwork, there’s not a whole lot the agency can do. The Toxic Substance Controls Act reforms from last summer were passed by Congress, and are therefore law. Even the most regulations-averse EPA head would still be statutorily obligated to enforce the new process. Not even president-elect Trump could undo them, should he decide he wants to Make America Formulate Again.
https://www.wired.com/2017/01/chemical-industrys-bad-reaction-new-regs/
-
EPA Announces Final Ecological Effects Test Guidelines (Series 850) Under TSCA, FIFRA and FFDCA
Jan 9, 2017 | Lexology
By E. Chase Dressman
On Dec. 29, 2016, EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) announced the availability of new final test guidelines in Series 850 Group A, pertaining to measuring the Ecological Effects of chemicals on Aquatic and Sediment-dwelling Fauna and Aquatic Microcosms. The new test guidelines include revised standards as well as several name changes to the Group A sub-categories. OCSPP’s changes to the guidelines will affect the registration of pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the setting of tolerances/tolerance exemptions for pesticide residues under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), and EPA’s decision-making process in determining potential regulation of industrial chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
OCSPP’s test guidelines serve as a compendium of accepted scientific methodologies and protocols for providing data to inform regulatory decisions regarding pesticides and chemical substances under FIFRA, FFDCA, and TSCA. The test guidelines are used by EPA, the public and companies that submit data to EPA. As guidance documents, the guidelines are not binding on EPA or any other outside parties, and EPA is allowed to depart from the test guidelines where circumstances warrant and without prior notice. Nonetheless, the procedures contained in the test guidelines are still recommended by EPA for generating the data that are the subject of the test guidelines (although EPA recognizes that departures may be appropriate in specific situations). Alternatives to the test guidelines may also be proposed by members of the regulated community, and EPA will assess them for appropriateness on a case-by-case basis. Regulated companies, and in particular, pesticide manufacturers, should take note of EPA’s new guidelines when performing testing of chemicals under FIFRA, FFDCA, and TSCA.
You can access the Federal Register Notice here.
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=8941d5fc-ce50-470d-a1d5-97b3f66ad7b4
-
(ACC Blog) Japan Must Have Listened to the Science on BPA
Jan 9, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters
By Steven Hentges, Ph.D
More than 10 years ago, bisphenol A (BPA) was a hot topic in Japan. But these days, not so much. The Japanese government ministries with responsibility for human health continue to monitor scientific developments on BPA in the rest of the world, but without any apparent pressure or need for regulatory action. Likewise, there’s little or no attention to BPA from Japanese consumers or in the media.
What could account for the difference between Japan and other countries where interest in BPA continues, sometimes with a very high level of intensity? Could it be that the Japanese government and people have listened to the science on BPA?
A clue comes from a recently released report from the Japanese Ministry of the Environment (MOE) titled The Exposure to chemical compounds in the Japanese People. For the last 5 years, MOE has been conducting a survey to determine the exposure levels of various chemicals in the Japanese population. The most recent report compiles results for the 5-year period from 2011-2015.
Exposure to BPA was measured by analysis of urine samples, which is considered to be the most reliabletechnique. A primary reason is that BPA is quickly eliminated from the body after exposure in the form of a biologically inactive metabolite that is excreted in urine. Essentially the metabolite concentrates in urine, making it easy to detect, and sensitive analytical methods to do so are well established.
The urine biomonitoring results for BPA are remarkable only in how low they are. In fact, the median BPA level over the 5-year period is more than 3,000 times below a “biomonitoring equivalent” (BE) value for BPA that was recently published in the scientific literature. The BE value, which was calculated by Health Canada researchers based on its conservative safe intake limit for BPA, provides a benchmark to quickly assess whether actual intakes are above or below the safe limit. In the case of BPA, actual intakes are far below the benchmark and well within safe limits.
It’s not just in Japan where exposure to BPA has been demonstrated to be extremely low. For example, a series of biomonitoring studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have demonstrated low exposures in the U.S. population, and a recent study on pregnant women in France showed similar results.
Results from biomonitoring studies are important to help us understand when we should, and should not, be concerned about exposure to a chemical. The results also help to determine when changes in public policy are needed, and when changes are not needed. For both reasons, listening to the science is critical, and it appears that the Japanese have been listening closely when it comes to BPA.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2017/01/japan-must-have-listened-to-the-science-on-bpa/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Specialty Chemicals: Sector is Expected to Regain Momentum This Year
Jan 9, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Marc Reisch
Globally, specialty chemicals output is expected to regain momentum in 2017 after a slower-than-expected increase in 2016, according to the American Chemistry Council. The trade association anticipates a production rise of 3.3% in 2017 after a 2.6% increase last year.
ACC had expected a 3.9% production jump in 2016, but the downturn in oil and gas drilling, a global slowdown in manufacturing, and weakness in China held production back. Observers are now looking for a stronger year for specialties because of higher energy prices, renewed infrastructure spending, and a potential manufacturing uptick, particularly in the U.S. and Asia.
Paint, now a $135 billion-per-year global market, could see 3% output growth in 2017, says Phil Phillips, president of Chemark Consulting. Adhesives and sealants, a $45 billion market, will grow in tandem with paint, he adds.
In the U.S., the incoming Trump Administration is likely to trigger a rise in demand for highway markings and sealants as well as paint used on rail cars, Phillips says.
Pipeline construction projects under the new administration should spur demand for powder coatings used on pipe interiors to increase the flow of oil and gas to their destination, Phillips adds. Similarly, pipeline construction in China to speed fuels to market for a growing middle class will increase coatings demand, he says.
In addition, U.S. infrastructure spending will spur production of additives that aid concrete’s workability and improve its durability, says Ray Will, a director at the consulting firm IHS Markit. U.S. demand for the additives generally grows at about 3% a year, but he predicts a 5% increase this year.
If the Trump Administration renegotiates trade agreements, as it has threatened to do, U.S. exports of specialty chemicals could be compromised, Will warns. On the other hand, if the administration succeeds in expanding the U.S. manufacturing base, then specialty chemical makers will benefit from stronger local demand, he says.
Higher energy prices may be on the horizon if Saudi Arabia is able to get oil-producing nations to limit output. If that transpires, U.S. oil producers will increase their own output, Will predicts, pushing up demand for oilfield chemicals.
Specialty chemical production targeted at consumers will also rise. Kunal Mahajan, who tracks the $9 billion-per-year specialty cosmetic ingredients segment at the consulting firm Kline, says growth for the category is fastest in Asia where consumer buying power is on the rise. Demand for ingredients such as sunscreens, rheology modifiers, and preservatives will grow at about 7% in China and India this year, compared with 2% in the U.S. and other developed countries.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i2/World-chemical-outlook-2017.html
-
Lead Testing for Children 'Inadequate,' Must be Universal — Report
Jan 9, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith
States' blood testing standards for lead in children are failing to assess enough children, according to a report released today by a public health group.
Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families examined all state screening policies and found wide discrepancies: While 10 states and the District of Columbia mandate universal testing, five states have no requirements or recommendations.
Lead is a heavy metal and potent neurotoxin that has been steadily phased out in products such as gasoline and paint. However, it is still found widely in water lines across the United States.
The crisis last year in Flint, Mich. — where lead flooded into faucets after a state-appointed emergency manager switched the source of the city's water supply — has heightened public awareness of lead pollution. As many as 22 million Americans are still serviced by lead pipes (see related story).
"The Flint water contamination crisis made clear that the U.S. has unfinished business with lead," Andy Igrejas, director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, said in a statement. "We have to do a better job of identifying children at risk of lead poisoning, and eliminating the sources."
Public health research demonstrates that children are much more susceptible to the effects of lead because their bodies are small and still developing.
"The patchwork of blood lead screening policies is inadequate and likely misses a significant number of children with elevated lead levels during the critical window when intervention could prevent long-term damage," the report reads.
It says Arkansas, Montana, the Dakotas and Wyoming all lack online recommendations for testing lead in children.
"We found state blood lead testing policies that are all over the map," the report's author, Jen Dickman, said in a statement.
The report charges that no state is in full compliance with federal Medicaid requirements that mandate lead testing for 1- and 2-year-olds, and tells states to "move to universal screening to better protect their children."
Universal screening, the report says, is more economical and thorough than targeted testing, which may miss susceptible populations.
"The only safe level of lead in a child's blood is zero," Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) said in a statement. "Maryland is leading the way with universal screening for children ages 1 and 2, and I believe that all children, no matter what state they live in, deserve to have the same protection."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/01/09/stories/1060048054
-
Obama Admin Spars with Critics Over Methane Rule
Jan 9, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The fate of an Obama administration methane-slashing rule was on the line last week as critics and fans of the regulation argued over whether it should be halted.
With government lawyers, environmentalists and supporting states on one side and industry groups and several opposing states on the other, a federal court in Wyoming heard four hours of arguments over the legality of the Bureau of Land Management's plan to limit methane emissions from venting and flaring at oil and gas operations on public and tribal lands.
Three states — Wyoming, Montana and North Dakota — and two industry groups — the Western Energy Alliance and Independent Petroleum Association of America — made their case against BLM's methane rule Friday at the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming.
A coalition of environmental groups, Justice Department lawyers representing BLM, and lawyers for California and New Mexico lined up to defend the rule.
Opponents say the regulation, finalized last year, is costly and duplicative of industry's own efforts to prevent wasting methane, the main component of natural gas.
They also say the rule is beyond BLM's authority because it is essentially an air quality regulation that should be left to U.S. EPA, states and tribes (Energywire, Nov. 28, 2016).
EPA finalized separate standards for methane emissions from new oil and gas operations earlier this year. That regulation is also facing industry and state challenges in court.
According to attendees of Friday's hearing over whether to grant a preliminary injunction to freeze the rule, District Judge Scott Skavdahl took a particular interest in the argument over BLM's authority.
Davis Graham & Stubbs attorney Eric Waeckerlin, who is representing the industry groups, said Skavdahl repeatedly asked BLM to explain its statutory authority for the methane rule.
Western Environmental Law Center attorney Laura King, who is representing several groups in support of the rule, said Skavdahl was grappling with the question of "whether it was appropriate for BLM to justify the rule" with a cost-benefit analysis that included consideration of air quality and climate impacts.
Lawyers for BLM argued that the agency has authority to issue the rule even without the air quality and climate considerations because the agency has a duty to prevent waste of natural resources. Plus, King said, BLM also has clear authority to consider environmental factors in its oversight of public lands.
Skavdahl is the same federal judge who last year struck down the Obama administration's hydraulic fracturing rule. The litigation over the methane rule includes many of the same players.
"We're optimistic that Judge Skavdahl will take a fresh look at this case," King said.
Skavdahl did not give a specific timeline for a decision but is expected to move swiftly, as the rule is scheduled to take effect Jan. 17.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/01/09/stories/1060048012
-
Giant Petrochemical Project Near Corpus Christi Meets Local Pushback
Jan 9, 2017 | E&E Energywire
The small cities surrounding the site of a proposed $10 billion petrochemical plant near Corpus Christi, Texas, are preparing for major changes.
Exxon Mobil Corp. and Saudi Basic Industries Corp. (SABIC) have selected a 1,400-acre tract between Portland and Gregory as their preferred site, despite community protests that the project is too big and too risky. The plant is expected to generate 11,000 construction jobs and 600 permanent positions, as well as millions of dollars in property taxes.
The project's future is in the hands of the San Patricio County Commission and Gregory-Portland School Board, which will consider tax breaks Exxon Mobil and SABIC say are necessary to start building and hiring. School Board President Randy Eulenfeld said he's weighing the benefits of new jobs and more money for schools against the character alteration the two towns are likely to experience.
"It's about a quiet community ... overlooking a bay becoming more industrial," Eulenfeld said.
One group that opposes the plant, Portland Citizens United, collected more than 2,500 signatures for its online petition to reject the tax breaks.
"It's a big safety risk," said Adair Apple, a member of the organization. "I feel like we're all impacted because it'd be sitting there right outside our city limits."
Gregory-Portland Superintendent Paul Clore said he supports the project after touring another Exxon Mobil petrochemical facility in Baytown, Texas.
"All of it seems to coexist without conflict in that area," Clore said.
Exxon and SABIC said they selected the site because of its proximity to Texas shale fields, ports, railways and highways. The site would host the world's largest ethane cracker, which converts natural gas into ethylene, a key ingredient in most plastics. The plant could open as soon as 2021.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/01/09/stories/1060048008
-
Environmentalists, Oil Industry at Odds Over EPA Refinery Air Toxics Rule
Jan 9, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Environmentalists and the oil industry are at odds over EPA's proposed reconsideration of provisions in its air toxics rule for refineries, with environmentalists calling on the agency to impose tougher controls on the facilities while industry is giving the proposal cautious praise but still seeking changes to specific requirements.
The competing positions are outlined in written comments that EPA recently posted to its docket for the proposed reconsideration rule, after taking public input through Dec. 19. The proposal, issued in October, follows a rule EPA issued in 2015 updating two related air toxics rules known as MACT 1 and MACT 2 and also new source performance standards governing operation of flares, used to dispose of waste gases and destroy air toxics.
Environmentalists petitioned EPA saying that the final rule was too weak in several parts, and the proposal(/node/195537) invited comments on some of the changes made between the proposed and final rules that weakened their stringency, and also sought input on a handful of revisions to the final rule.
These include the number and type of pressure release devices (PRDs) subject to the standards, and those exempted, and the definition of a “force majeure event” that would qualify a rule exempt from air limits; recordkeeping and reporting measures associated with work practice standards; work practice standards for flares; health risks associated with the sector that EPA found “acceptable,” fenceline monitoring requirements; and more.
Although the Obama administration sought the input on the proposed reconsideration of the 2015 standards, it will be up to the incoming Trump EPA to make the final decision on how, and whether, to make any changes.
In Dec. 19 comments, law firm Earthjustice on behalf of environmental and community groups including Sierra Club, Environmental Integrity Project and nine others presses EPA to eliminate what it calls loopholes for excess air pollution from refineries that the groups say EPA unlawfully allowed in the 2015 MACT.
The environmental groups say that while EPA initially proposed to eliminate exemptions for releases from PRDs, the agency in the final rule allows thousands of releases of harmful chemicals from PRDs annually. Also, EPA has allowed exemptions for “smoking” flares, and for ill-defined force majeure events, the groups say.
These changes to the proposal are “arbitrary and capricious,” and will violate the Clean Air Act's requirement, as interpreted by the courts, that pollution limits apply “continuously,” the groups say. This builds the administrative record for a possible legal challenge to a final EPA reconsideration rule for the MACT.
“From 2010 through 2015, Texas refineries alone released nearly 1 million pounds of hazardous air pollution, in addition to other emissions, during non-routine events under the prior startup, shutdown, malfunction (SSM) exemption, which included malfunctions. In most instances, facilities simply reported that emissions were not a violation because they were caused by a malfunction and subject to the affirmative defense,” the groups say.
Regulatory Exemptions
Under rulings from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, blanket exemptions for SSM events are not allowed in Clean Air Act rules. Further, the court also struck down “affirmative defense” provisions that EPA and states relied on instead of blanket exceptions, because the defense deprives courts of the opportunity to decide penalties in the event of a Clean Air Act violation.
Affirmative defenses shield polluters from civil liability in the event of a malfunction considered “inevitable” by regulators, but environmentalists contend that many of these events are the result of poor maintenance and are preventable. EPA is removing the defenses from its rules and is pressing states through a “SIP Call” rule to remove such SSM exemptions from their state implementation plans (SIPs) for air law compliance.
“The sheer frequency of these events at certain refineries and not others illustrates that better planning and maintenance could help prevent these emissions in many instances and almost always minimize the amount of pollution released when an event is absolutely unavoidable,” the groups say.
Among other criticisms, the groups claim that EPA's final rule would allow up to two uncontrolled releases from all 13,000 or more PRDs at refineries every three years, allow up to two “smoking emission events” at every flare every three years, an “infinite” number of exemptions from standards for force majeure events, “which is just a new label for a malfunctions,” and permit for PRD exemptions based on source type.
They further say that EPA's decision to allow a relaxation of new fenceline monitoring requirements for plants that do not experience frequent releases above EPA's fenceline benzene monitoring threshold is arbitrary and capricious, because it compromises enforcement of the MACT without a sufficient supporting rationale. The threshold for benzene, which serves as an indicator for other air toxics, is 0.9 micrograms per cubic meter.
Industry's Input
Industry groups pressed EPA to walk back some of its proposals for revising the 2015 refinery standards because they would have required the construction of hundreds of additional flares to dispose of gases otherwise released by PRDs. This would have cost money, but also resulted in more greenhouse gas emissions from the combustion of gases. Also, prohibiting PRD releases would be unsafe, they said at the time.
EPA then re-worked the rule and in the final version eliminated the need for many more flares, instead requiring work practice standards to manage PRDs.
EPA has further been trying to minimize emissions from flares, which are used to dispose of excess gases and to combust toxics, by requiring refiners and others to take steps to ensure high rates of combustion efficiency.
In joint Dec. 19 comments on the reconsideration proceeding, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), representing refiners, urge EPA to retain work practice standards for PRDs and to resist pressure for tougher controls.
The groups write, “our position that a prohibition on atmospheric PRD releases was not indicative of the best performing facilities, was unachievable due to safety concerns and/or would have been very costly, and would have had negative environmental impacts due to the additional flares that would need to be installed and operated in standby mode, with continuous emissions, to accept the very infrequent PRD releases.”
The refiners strongly support EPA's conclusion that the refinery sector does not pose additional health risks beyond those identified in the original MACT standards, and that the risks are “acceptable.” They further back EPA on range of other issues, for example the definition of “force majeure event.”
“EPA has ample authority and justification for treating force majeure events differently. By definition, such events are outside the control of the owner or operator,” the groups say.
API and AFPM do take issue with some aspects of EPA's final rule, however, and note that EPA has not yet responded to their separate petition for reconsideration of some points. One such area of disagreement relates to fenceline monitoring. “EPA’s reduced frequency of fenceline monitoring provides little in the way of incentive/burden reduction for good performing facilities. API/AFPM recommend that EPA revise the demonstration threshold and the monitoring frequency if performance demonstrates that the action level is unlikely to be exceeded.”
The groups say that EPA's methodology will produce a concentration value of benzene that “is likely to be in the 'noise' range of sampling accuracy and performance, and, consequently, is not expected to provide the incentive/burden reduction for good performing monitors and sites that EPA intended.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/environmentalists-oil-industry-odds-over-epa-refinery-air-toxics-rule
-
Government, Tribe Slam Company's 'Legal Fallacy'
Jan 9, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Dakota Access litigation lit up again last week as the Obama administration and Standing Rock Sioux Tribe tried to block legal maneuvering by the pipeline company.
Lawyers for the Army Corps of Engineers on Friday urged a federal court in Washington to reject a request from Dakota Access LLC to resolve the case in its favor.
The pipeline, which could transport 570,000 barrels of oil per day from North Dakota to Illinois, was held up for months last year while thousands of tribal and environmental advocates protested against it. The Obama administration ultimately decided against granting the final approval needed for the oil line to cross a section of the Missouri River near the Standing Rock Indian Reservation in North Dakota (Energywire, Dec. 5, 2016).
But according to Dakota Access, government officials effectively granted that approval — a federal real estate easement — over the summer when they determined that the pipeline would not cause a significant impact in the area.
In November, the company asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to grant "summary judgment" declaring that the easement had already been issued and construction across the river can move forward. A win for the company would be monumental, allowing the pipeline to cross the river right away. But many experts have said it's a long shot (Energywire, Dec. 6, 2016).
The company's request put both the administration and the tribe on defense. In a brief Friday, government lawyers slammed Dakota Access' theory, arguing that no-impact findings earlier this year dealt only with pipeline approvals under the Clean Water Act and Rivers and Harbors Act. The easement needed to cross Army Corps-managed property is a separate consideration governed by the Mineral Leasing Act.
Though the corps coordinated review for the two authorizations, it did not meld them into a "single, unified decision," the brief said.
"To the contrary, the Corps' granting of a [Rivers and Harbors Act] permission to cross Corps-managed lands at Lake Oahe did not require the Corps to consider all factors necessary to also grant an easement at Lake Oahe, much less grant that easement," government lawyers wrote, adding later: "Put another way, a final agency action granting [RHA] permission is not the same thing as a final agency action granting a Mineral Leasing Act easement."
Lawyers for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, whose opposition to the pipeline fueled widespread protests, made similar arguments last week, calling Dakota Access' request a "legal fallacy — that approval under one statute implies approval under a different statute."
The Standing Rock Sioux and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, which is also a party to the litigation, urged Obama appointee Judge James Boasberg to toss the company's request.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/01/09/stories/1060048013
-
Jan 6, 2017 | Oil Price (in Real Clear Energy)
By Gregory Brew
American LNG exports for 2016, according to the Department of Energy, totaled 109 Bcf through December, averaging about 0.3 Bcf per day. But contrary to expectations when Cheniere Energy first opened its LNG terminal at Sabine Pass, Louisiana at the start of the year, the bulk of those energy exports have not gone to markets in East Asia, passing through the newly-expanded Panama Canal, or to markets in Western Europe.
Instead, the chief recipient of American LNG has been countries south of the border. Chile received nine shipments for a total of 26.4 Bcf. Argentina was second, with six shipments totaling 16.7 Bcf. In total, four countries in South America received fifty-four percent of all American LNG in 2016, with the rest mostly going to the Middle East. By contrast, a single shipment was received by China, two were sent to Europe, and four to India.
But will the trend hold in 2017?
Mexico, undergoing major energy reforms, has seen prices stay steady as domestic supply fails to keep pace with demand. Gas imports to Mexico rose by thirty-one percent in 2016, according to Bloomberg, as deregulation encouraged new pipeline projects and closer ties to the U.S. energy industry. Brazil remains competitive, staying at or around $6 MMbtu for most of 2016. Prices in East Asia, which spiked as high as $20 MMbtu, fell during the year to the same levels as Chile and Argentina. Given their closer proximity, and the heavy competition U.S. LNG encounters from Australia and Qatar for the Asian market, Cheniere’s shipments naturally trended towards Latin American markets.
Latin America looks set to increase its demand for LNG. The enlarged Panama Canal makes exports to Chile and Ecuador cheaper and more attractive, cutting travel time to those countries by more significant margins than travel times to East Asia, according to the EIA.
As early as February 2016, analysts were caught off guard reporting that the first shipments of U.S. liquefied natural gas were destined not for Shanghai, but rather for import terminals on the Brazilian coast.
But long-term money has always been on East Asia as the prime destination for American natural gas exports. In December, Bloomberg reported that ten out of twelve LNG tankers leaving Sabine Pass were destined for East Asia. The shift is being driven by higher demand for heating gas and power plant fuel.
Prices have lurched back up since July, with the spot price jumping to $9.20 in mid-December. After a slow start, the natural gas market looks bullish in 2017, with demand closely pegged to a winter that, if sufficiently cold, could drive prices up. Natural gas futures, according to info from Bloomberg, after plummeting in 2015, rose steadily over the course of 2016 as U.S. natural gas production leveled off, albeit with frequent volatility spikes.
China has just unveiled a massive program for renewable energy as part of its next Five Year Plan. Reading between the lines, it’s clear that China’s recent overcapacity crisis will continue, encouraging it to move away from coal, yet it’s reliance on that fuel and on natural gas will continue long after 2020. But growth in natural gas output, which China boosted by thirteen percent in 2016, will make up changes in domestic demand. That doesn’t change the fact that LNG imports to China hit a record in November, rising forty-seven percent compared to 2015, in part due to colder-than-average conditions.
Even with the growth of renewables in China, which is slated to make up a third of all renewable energy growth worldwide, natural gas demand will increase and supplies from Qatar and Australia, where the huge Chevron Gorgon plant has experienced periodic shut-downs, may not be enough to fill the gap. With half of all future U.S. LNG exports already contracted by East Asian buyers, the analysts who predicted long-term East Asian demand look right on the money. That means the current trend of U.S. LNG exports to East Asia could outlast the initial rush to fill Latin American demand.
Or better yet, Cheniere’s output will be joined by cargoes from the seven other LNG export terminals currently approved for construction by the Federal Government, and will feed both growing Latin Americanand East Asian demand. That coupled with falling supply of U.S. natural gas could tighten the supply-demand balance and raise prices, foreshadowing a potential bonanza for natural gas suppliers and exporters, if economic trends hold. The future could be rosy for American LNG.
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/A-Rosy-Future-For-US-LNG.html
-
A Grim Prognosis for Mission Innovation Under Trump
Jan 9, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Umair Irfan
President Carter installed 32 solar water heating panels on the White House roof in 1979, and President Reagan took them down in 1986.
The decision was symbolic of the ideological divide between the two administrations on energy policy and how the two presidents sought to address challenges like the oil crisis and the lagging economy. Reagan also eliminated tax breaks for wind and solar power and cut the renewable energy research and development budget at the Department of Energy, an agency created under Carter.
"The Department of Energy has a multibillion-dollar budget, in excess of $10 billion," Reagan said in a campaign debate with Carter. "It hasn't produced a quart of oil or a lump of coal or anything else in the line of energy."
With another big ideological shift looming in Washington, from a president who made climate change a priority to a president to who has said he thinks it's a Chinese hoax, many experts are wondering whether another whiplash-inducing turn is in store for energy policy. At particular risk is innovation, since much of clean energy research is predicated on fighting climate change.
In 2015, during the Paris climate talks, President Obama joined Mission Innovation, an agreement among 22 countries and the European Union to double clean energy research and development funding over five years, reaching a combined $30 billion.
"I believe this is going to be one of the most significant public-private partnerships ever forged to accelerate energy innovation on a global scale," Obama said at a launch event for the initiative.
However, the United States is already behind schedule on its journey to double clean energy R&D (Climatewire, Oct. 28, 2016).
It's uncertain what direction the Trump administration will take the program, but the signals sent so far do not bode well for the commitment. To run the Energy Department, Trump has selected former Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), who proposed dissolving the agency in his campaign for president, though famously forgot its name.
Trump has also selected people with strong ties to the greenhouse gas-intensive oil and gas industry for Cabinet posts, like Rex Tillerson, the CEO of the world's largest publicly traded oil and gas company, Exxon Mobil Corp., for secretary of State.
On the other hand, both Tillerson and Perry have a track record of energy pragmatism, with Perry presiding over one of the largest deployments of wind energy in Texas.
"Governor Perry certainly knew a lot about transmission lines to move that wind [energy] from West Texas to the east," said Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz last week at a hearing on Capitol Hill.
Meanwhile, Tillerson invested heavily in energy innovation while running Exxon Mobil, according to Catrina Rorke, energy policy director at the R Street Institute, a libertarian think tank.
"These guys are looking at the business case for what's possible," she said.
Under Trump, DOE will likely see a change in direction from blue sky research toward research aimed at meeting practical energy needs on the market. "DOE hasn't done a really great job of matching its priorities to the gaps in the private sector," Rorke said.
Technologies like carbon capture and storage may continue to receive research investment under Trump or even receive a boost, since such technologies extend a lifeline to the fossil fuel industry in the United States, which has been undermined by low fuel prices (Climatewire, Nov. 16, 2016).
But the hard target of doubling energy research funding is unlikely to register with Trump.
"Mission Innovation itself is not going to be at the heart of the goals of the incoming administration because Mission Innovation is an international agreement, and that process is not part of the priorities for the incoming administration," Rorke said.
The real power: OMB
Whether that will lead to a reduction in clean energy research remains an open question, since the incoming administration hasn't released definite plans for energy.
"It's still too early to say, I think," said David Hart, a senior fellow at the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, a think tank focusing on innovation policy. "We're not yet at that level of detail."
The ultimate fate of Mission Innovation may not be decided at the Energy Department, but at the White House Office of Management and Budget. Trump's pick to lead the office, Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), has a reputation for pursuing deep government spending cuts.
His ranking of clean energy research as a priority will likely determine the future of the United States' international energy research commitment. "The R&D budget goes up and down with national spending," Hart said. Mulvaney's office did not respond to a request for comment at the time of filing.
"I think we're going to see a squeeze," said Hart. "I'm sad about this, but that's where we're at."
The private-sector counterpart to Mission Innovation, an investor consortium led by Microsoft Corp. co-founder Bill Gates called the Breakthrough Energy Coalition, is soldiering on and announced last month that it would launch a $1 billion fund for clean energy investment (Greenwire, Dec. 13, 2016).
A spokesman for Gates declined a request for comment.
New momentum for renewables
As climate change slides onto a back burner in the White House, if not off the stove altogether, other motivations for pursuing clean energy research remain, like maintaining economic competitiveness for the United States.
"The thing is, the United States is not the only country," said John Perlin, an analyst at the physics department at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and a historian of solar energy. "When Reagan took office, almost 100 percent of research and manufacturing for PV [photovoltaic solar power] was American."
Now, a big chunk of research and manufacturing has moved abroad to countries like Germany, Japan and China.
But unlike at the start of the Reagan administration, solar energy has now taken firm root in deserts and on rooftops across the United States and the rest of the world while costs continue to plummet. This momentum would be hard to slow down, and now many private companies are stepping up to invest in clean energy research, development and deployment, fighting to put the United States back in the lead, Perlin said.
The U.S. military is also investing in clean energy research to enhance its energy security and to improve operational effectiveness.
Since the '80s, President George W. Bush in 2002 installed the first active solar electric system on the White House grounds, and in 2014, President Obama installed American-made photovoltaic panels on the White House roof.
Whether the sun will set on solar at the White House is up to the next tenant.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/01/09/stories/1060048035
-
EPA to Issue Regional Haze Regs, Likely Sparking Lawsuits
Jan 9, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA is poised to formally issue a package of changes to its regional haze regulations, opening the door for legal challenges.
The package, various parts of which have drawn opposition from conservation groups, power producers and a coalition of Republican attorneys general, is set for publication in tomorrow's Federal Register. Under a standard Clean Air Act timetable, opponents will then have 60 days to file suit with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy signed the final rule last month after the agency received hundreds of comments on the proposed revisions released in May (Greenwire, Dec. 15, 2016).
The haze program is designed to restore visibility in 156 large national parks and wilderness areas to natural conditions by 2064.
To the dismay of conservation groups, however, the revisions push back the deadline for states to submit the next round of implementation plans from 2018 to 2021. During the public comment period, Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge and seven other Republican attorneys general denounced the revisions as a power grab by EPA (Greenwire, Aug. 15, 2016). Also expressing concerns were power producers like Luminant Generation Co. LLC, which is already embroiled in litigation over EPA's haze plan for Texas and Oklahoma. In its comments, Luminant called parts of the plan unlawful and unreasonable.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/01/09/stories/1060048052
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested