Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 1/15/2018
-
Full Committee Hearing to Examine the Domestic and Global Energy Outlook
Jan 16, 2018 | Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
Location: 366 Dirksen / 10:00 AM -
Legislation Addressing LNG Exports and PURPA Modernization
Jan 18, 2018 | House Energy and Commerce Committee
Location: Rayburn 2322 /9:15 AM -
Full Committee Hearing to Consider DOE Nominees
Jan 18, 2018 | Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
Location: 366 Dirksen / 10:00 AM -
CDM, The Future of Federal Cybersecurity?
Jan 17, 2018 | House Homeland Security Committee
Location: House Visitor Center (HVC) / 2:00 PM -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Makers Keen to Get EPA Answers to Aid Compliance
Jan 15, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA should post online answers to chemical manufacturers’ questions, so companies can meet a Feb. 7 deadline to notify the agency about chemicals in commerce, industry attorneys said. -
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Urges EPA to Update Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic Criteria
Jan 15, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A. Miller
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) has urged the US EPA to update its criteria for identifying and evaluating "persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic" (PBT) substances before it completes rapid risk management action on five PBT substances... -
US Mercury Reporting Schedule Set to Clash with State Programme
Jan 15, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A. Miller
The US EPA is facing a dilemma in reconciling the new mercury reporting regime required by 2016's amended TSCA with the existing data collection performed by the Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse (Imerc). -
(ACC Mentioned) Common Household Items Could Contain Harmful Chemicals
Jan 12, 2018 | Legal Reader
By Sara E. Teller
A growing number of scientists, parents and pet owners, advocates, and public officials are becoming more and more concerned about common household chemicals that can prove to be highly toxic. -
Gene Editing a Promising Tool to Study Chemical Health Effects
Jan 15, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Gene-editing technologies have the potential to offer new insights into the ways chemicals affect people and the environment, an EPA scientist said at a recent National Academies workshop. -
Michigan Quickly Enforces New PFAS Standard
Jan 12, 2018 | Inside EPA
Michigan regulators have wasted little time enforcing their new drinking water standard for two perfluorinated chemicals, filing suit under the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) to compel continued cleanup of tannery wastes containing the chemicals... -
(ACC Mentioned) DOE Interest 'Extremely Important' to Making Underground NGL Storage a Reality, Researcher Says
Jan 15, 2018 | WV News
By Linda Harris
It could be anywhere from six months to two years before the U.S. Department of Energy decides whether it will guarantee a $1.9 billion loan for an underground storage hub in Appalachia. -
(ACC Mentioned) Appalachia Hub Gets a Lift
Jan 15, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alexander H. Tullo
An ambitious proposal to invest in infrastructure that would allow a local petrochemical industry to grow out of Appalachia’s vast shale gas resources won preliminary support from the federal government. -
Zinke Talks with More Governors About Offshore Drilling Plan
Jan 15, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has so far spoken with seven governors to hear their objections to his plan to open the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to offshore oil and natural gas drilling. -
Energy Transfer Partners’ Louisiana Pipeline Target of Lawsuit
Jan 15, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
Construction of a federally permitted 162.5-mile crude oil pipeline across the Atchafalaya River in Louisiana could be blocked if environmental groups convince a federal court that the project will endanger the underlying wetlands. -
Trade-Offs for Renewable Energy Sector in New Tax Law
Jan 15, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Lydia O'Neal
The renewable energy sector could face some new obstacles to project financing under the new tax law. -
Oil Sector Keeps Open Mind on Blockchain
Jan 15, 2018 | Platts
By Siobhan Hall, Jack Jordan and Henry Edwardes-Evans
Blockchain, the distributed ledger technology which was possibly the hottest tech topic in the energy sector in 2017, has still to prove itself as more than hype in the oil sector. -
House T&I Dems Intro Ptc Funding, Final Deadline Bill
Jan 15, 2018 | Railway Track & Structures
By Kyra Senese
Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) introduced legislation Jan. 11 aimed at speeding up the implementation of positive train control (PTC) technology that could prevent catastrophic human-caused rail accidents. -
NTSB Issues Safety Recommendations to UP, FRA and AAR
Jan 12, 2018 | Progressive Rail Roading
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) yesterday issued four safety recommendations after investigating two railroad accidents. -
A Deadly Oil Train Disaster That Still Haunts Canada and the U.S.
Jan 12, 2018 | North County Public Radio (NCPR)
By Brian Mann and Martha Foley
This morning in Sherbrooke, Quebec a jury resumes deliberation in the criminal trial of three railroad workers. They're accused of criminal negligence following a deadly accident in July of 2013 that left 47 people dead in a small town in eastern Canada. -
EPA Targets April 30 for Ozone Designations but Withholds 'Exact Details'
Jan 12, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA in a new legal filing says it plans to issue by April 30 all remaining designations for which areas are either attaining or violating the 2015 ozone standard in response to an appellate court order for “precision and specificity” on its timeline... -
Virginia Could Bypass Assembly to Join Carbon Trading Scheme
Jan 15, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
Virginia would be the second-largest state in a Northeastern carbon emission trading program, but its path to joining will likely go through the executive branch rather than the legislature. -
This Is Why New York Is Suing and Divesting from Big Oil
Jan 15, 2018 | Washington Post
By Bill de Blasio
For New Yorkers, late October 2012 was a moment when something fundamental altered. If there were any climate change deniers in the five boroughs before Hurricane Sandy, I don’t think there were too many left afterward.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
Full Committee Hearing to Examine the Domestic and Global Energy Outlook
Jan 16, 2018 | Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
The purpose of this hearing is to examine the domestic and global energy outlook from the perspective of the International Energy Agency.
The hearing will be webcast live on the committee’s website, and an archived video will be available shortly after the hearing concludes. Witness testimony will be available on the website at the start of the hearing.
Opening Remarks
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Chairman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Sen. Maria Cantwell, Ranking Membe, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Witness Panel 1
Dr. Fatih Birol, Executive Director, International Energy Agency
-
Legislation Addressing LNG Exports and PURPA Modernization
Jan 18, 2018 | House Energy and Commerce Committee
TEXT OF LEGISLATION
H.R. 4476, PURPA Modernization Act of 2017
H.R. 4605, Unlocking Our Domestic LNG Potential Act
H.R. 4606, Ensuring Small Scale LNG Certainty and Access Act
-
Full Committee Hearing to Consider DOE Nominees
Jan 18, 2018 | Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
The purpose of the hearing is to consider the following nominations:
Ms. Melissa F. Burnison to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy (Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs); and
Ms. Anne Marie White to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy (Environmental Management).
-
CDM, The Future of Federal Cybersecurity?
Jan 17, 2018 | House Homeland Security Committee
The purpose of this hearing is to understand the current state of the Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation (CDM) program from the perspective of stakeholders. This hearing will explore the industry perspectives on the CDM program, the state of CDM tool acquisition, and what barriers there are, in policy or practice, to rolling out CDM across the federal government.
WITNESSESMr. Frank Dimina
Area Vice President, Federal
SplunkMr. Dan Carayiannis
Public Sector Director
RSA ArcherMr. Gregg Mossburg
Senior Vice President for Strategic Operations
CGI FederalMr. George Romas
Chief Engineer, Cybersecurity
DXC Technology -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Makers Keen to Get EPA Answers to Aid Compliance
Jan 15, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA should post online answers to chemical manufacturers’ questions, so companies can meet a Feb. 7 deadline to notify the agency about chemicals in commerce, industry attorneys said.
“It's imperative EPA release questions and answers as quickly as possible,” particularly related to issues arising for some chemical importers, said Karyn Schmidt, senior director of regulatory and technical affairs at the American Chemistry Council.
The EPA did not respond to requests Bloomberg Environment made asking whether it would post answers to chemical manufacturers’ questions online before Feb. 7. That date marks the deadline by which chemical makers and importers must notify the Environmental Protection Agency about chemicals they've made in or imported into the U.S. since June 21, 2006.The Toxic Substances Control Act amendments of 2016 require the agency to update its official inventory of chemicals that are, or have been, made or imported into the U.S. That list has not been revised since the early 1980s, when the EPA first created it.
Based on the information the EPA receives from chemical manufacturers and may get from paint, cleaning, and other companies that process chemicals, the agency will establish two lists: an active inventory of chemicals that have been in commerce since 2006, and an inventory of chemicals that used to be in commerce but are currently dormant.
Only chemicals on the active inventory can continue to be sold in U.S. commerce, although the process companies can use to move a substance from the inactive list to the active inventory is simple.
The American Chemistry Council, which represents chemical manufacturers, isn't just waiting for the EPA to help. It's also creating a new website to help alleviate a reporting challenging companies have faced.
Saving Time
The final rule (RIN:2070-AK24) describing what companies need to do to notify the agency minimized manufacturers’ burdens as they update the TSCA inventory, Schmidt said.
The EPA also held webinars and established a hotline to assist people, said Maureen Gorsen, a partner in Alston & Bird LLP's Los Angeles office.
“EPA has been highly responsive and is providing a tremendous level of support to filers,” said Martha Marrapese, a partner in the Washington office of Wiley Rein LLP.
The agency can take the many questions it already has answered and turn those into a “frequently asked questions” document that would save both companies and the agency time if there's a last-minute rush to file notifications, Schmidt said. During its webinars, the EPA said it planned to post such a document.
“Manufacturers and importers were really looking forward to having written clarification, so industry would not have to keep asking the same questions over and over again,” Schmidt said.
Companies that have less experience with the EPA's electronic filing system tend to wait until the close of deadlines to submit required information, said Schmidt and several other attorneys.
“I'm hearing of smaller companies that are just getting started, so they will have a challenge to meet the Feb. 7 deadline,” said Mark Duvall, a principal with Beveridge & Diamond PC in Washington, D.C.
Importers
“Our sense is that a sizable number of companies, particularly importers, are still struggling to understand whether they have a reporting obligation,” Marrapese said.
Some importers also are struggling to enter data on the EPA's electronic filing system, she said.
Schmidt described challenges domestic importers and their foreign suppliers are facing as one of the paramount issues the EPA still has time to address before Feb. 7.
Just one type of challenging scenario involves a domestic company that imports one or more chemicals from a foreign supplier, she said. Suppliers, particularly ones providing chemical mixtures, commonly keep the specific identities of those chemicals confidential, she said.
The EPA's process allows them to do that. The domestic importer and foreign supplier jointly notify the EPA about the chemicals’ importation, but only the supplier and the agency know the specific identities of the chemicals in the proprietary mixture.
It's urgent for the EPA to clarify whether the domestic importer will have met its statutory requirement if it has submitted its portion of the notification to the EPA by Feb. 7, Schmidt said. That would protect the domestic company if it took the foreign supplier additional time to submit the chemicals specific names, she said.
“In our view, it should be more than sufficient for the domestic importer to be able to submit it's part of Form A and have met the statutory requirement,” Schmidt said referring to the particular form companies must provide the agency.
ACC's Website
While hoping the EPA will clarify such questions before Feb. 7, the chemistry council realized it could create a website to help any chemical manufacturer—not just council members—comply.
Many chemicals are made by more than one manufacturer. To avoid having industry have to file multiple notices for the same chemical, the EPA's inventory rule has a “one and done” provision. If just one company notifies the EPA that it has made or imported a chemical since 2006, that would be sufficient for the agency to put the chemical on the active inventory.
Any company that relies on the first one's notification must have proof, something called a “Central Data Exchange” receipt, that the first company had submitted its notification appropriately. The receipt does not have any confidential business information on it, Schmidt said. It's just a number.
The challenge has been, she said, that there hasn't been a forum companies could use to exchange those receipts. A website the chemistry council will release will allow chemical manufacturers, importers, and processors to upload and share those receipts. The site is expected to go live Jan. 17, Jon Corley, a council spokesman, told Bloomberg Environment.
Accurate Inventory Important
Chemical manufacturers are asking the EPA to help in a few ways before Feb. 7 to ensure the official inventory is as accurate as possible, Schmidt said."The notification process is extremely import,” she said.
The agency will use the list it will eventually create to help decide which chemicals warrant scrutiny to determine whether they pose an unreasonable risk, she said.
An accurate inventory can also help all parties interested in chemicals understand the number of chemicals that really are in commerce, Schmidt said. The number 85,000 is often cited, but EPA officials have frequently said they expect the number to be far smaller.
“No one benefits from a number that's overinflated or underestimated,” Schmidt said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=126769934&vname=dennotallissues&fn=126769934&jd=126769934
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Urges EPA to Update Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic Criteria
Jan 15, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A. Miller
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) has urged the US EPA to update its criteria for identifying and evaluating "persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic" (PBT) substances before it completes rapid risk management action on five PBT substances, as required by the new TSCA.
The organisation has also encouraged the agency to use only "credible" sources of information on current uses of PBTs.
The Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act requires the agency to take "expedited" action on certain PBTs by skipping their risk evaluation and proceeding directly to imposing rules to reduce their exposure.
Proposed risk management rules are due by 22 June 2019, with final rules to follow within 18 months.
The agency announced in October 2016 that it would take action on the following substances:
· decaBDE, a brominated flame retardant used in textiles, plastics, wiring insulation, and building and construction materials;
· hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD), used as a solvent in the manufacture of rubber compounds and as a hydraulic, heat transfer or transformer fluid;
· pentachlorothiophenol (PCTP), used as a sulfur cross-linking agent to make rubber more pliable in industrial uses;
· tris(4-isopropylphenyl) phosphate (IPTPP), used as a flame retardant in consumer products and as a lubricant, hydraulic fluid, and in other industrial uses; and
· 2,4,6-tris(tert-butyl) phenol, an antioxidant that can be used as a fuel, oil, gasoline or lubricant additive.
The EPA published preliminary information on exposure and use for each of the five, as well as what it expects to consider in the development of the proposed rules. The deadline for stakeholder input was later extended to 12 January.
Despite the deadlines, updating the "outdated" PBT criteria used in the EPA's work plan is consistent with the "scientific requirements" of TSCA and the agency's regulations for implementing it, the ACC said in its comments.
In addition, the ACC says, the EPA should rely on industry reports for its assessments of current use patterns: "Use information provided by industry to a chemical regulatory authority is far more reliable than anonymous postings on websites by unknown sources of dubious accuracy and lacking credibility and unverified sites and sources."
The organisation also warned that the US Department of Health and Human Services Household Products Database has not been comprehensively updated. It should be consulted only as a "starting point in EPA’s inquiry" it argued.
In addition, the ACC said, the agency should acknowledge the "limitations" of information in its Toxic Release Inventory Information (TRI) database and clearly state how it intends to use that information in its PBTs work.
The industry group suggested the EPA consult the REACH database and the Downstream Users of Chemicals Co-ordination Group (Ducc) for information on chemical use in Europe.
Other comments
Among other comments, the International Association of Firefighters submitted comments urging the EPA to consider the risk flame retardants such as decaBDE pose to firefighters who inhale toxic smoke.
And the law firm Akin Gump wrote on behalf of an industry client that IPTPP is used in the aviation sector only in closed hydraulic systems and worker exposure is "very minimal".
"The importance of the reliability and consistency of these products to the industry and end-users cannot be understated," it said.
https://chemicalwatch.com/63022/acc-urges-epa-to-update-persistent-bioaccumulative-and-toxic-criteria
-
US Mercury Reporting Schedule Set to Clash with State Programme
Jan 15, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A. Miller
The US EPA is facing a dilemma in reconciling the new mercury reporting regime required by 2016's amended TSCA with the existing data collection performed by the Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse (Imerc).
The Lautenberg Act requires the EPA to publish a mercury inventory every three years. The initial inventory, published in March 2017, consisted of readily available, previously published data.
The new TSCA requires the ongoing inventory to include data from all manufacturers that use mercury or make products containing it. Rules governing the inventory are to be finalised by 22 June.
And last October the EPA proposed reporting requirements for the new inventory.
But, in the consultation that followed, Imerc pointed out that its 13 member states report on mercury products on a three-year schedule that began in 2001. Data for calendar year 2016 had to be reported by April 2017 and data for calendar year 2019 will be due by April 2020.
The EPA plan for a national registry would run to a different schedule, Imerc said. Data for calendar year 2018 will be due on 1 July 2019, and subsequent reports at three-year intervals will also cover the 12-month period two years earlier.
The proposed regulations exempt companies reporting to Imerc from the federal requirements, it noted. But this would mean that companies reporting to it and those reporting to the national programme would do so in different years, "preventing the US from having an accurate national mercury inventory".Alternatives
If the EPA were to remove this exemption, it would significantly increase the reporting burden on companies, as they would then have to report to both Imerc and the EPA.
Imerc could change its reporting schedule, but this "would have significant financial implications" and it said it "would require dedicated funding" to implement that change.
Finally, Imerc said, the EPA could change its proposed reporting schedule to match its cycle, but "this option could leave EPA vulnerable to potential litigation" for not meeting the deadlines set by TSCA.
Imerc also urged the EPA to reconsider its decision to exempt from reporting manufacturers and importers of products whose mercury source is a component within a larger product. This conflicts with several state laws, it said, adding that the information "helps state and local agencies and others understand which consumer products have mercury in them, track where the mercury is going, and how it is ultimately recovered/recycled".
Finally, the organisation asked that the EPA adopt the reporting units used by Imerc rather than requiring all reporting to be done in terms of pounds.CBI concerns
In other comments, the Hach Company, which produces laboratory reagents used to analyse water quality, asked that the EPA protect confidential business information (CBI) by allowing companies to report the amounts of mercury they use in ranges rather than specific amounts.
Similarly, it said that if companies are required to report on the exact amounts of mercury and mercury compounds exported to specific countries, the EPA should not make that information public.
The Westlake Chemical Corporation also raised a CBI concern, asking that companies be allowed to report total mercury quantities used in a manufacturing process, rather than for individual activities within the process. The corporation uses mercury in its chlor-alkali manufacturing facility to produce chlorine and sodium hydroxide.
Savannah River Nuclear Solutions asked that its facilities be exempt from reporting on mercury they use to process spent nuclear reactor fuel. Under the proposed rule, mercury-containing waste would be exempt unless the mercury is recovered with the intent to use it. The company recovers and reuses the mercury generated in its processing.
https://chemicalwatch.com/63021/us-mercury-reporting-schedule-set-to-clash-with-state-programme
-
(ACC Mentioned) Common Household Items Could Contain Harmful Chemicals
Jan 12, 2018 | Legal Reader
By Sara E. Teller
A growing number of scientists, parents and pet owners, advocates, and public officials are becoming more and more concerned about common household chemicals that can prove to be highly toxic. Their research is geared toward eliminating toxins from homes rather than continuing to allow manufacturers to simply swap out one harmful ingredient for another once the original is banned, which has long been an industry standard.
As an example, in recent history, parents became especially concerned about a popular chemical, bisphenol A, also known as BPA. Once knowledge of its harmful properties became public, the chemical was widely replaced with a close cousin, bisphenol S. This means, baby bottles, utensils, and pacifiers labeled BPA-free could be just as dangerous as they were with BPA present, and recent research has shown this is the case.
And then there are the flame retardants in furniture called polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or PBDEs, that have been proven toxic. When scientists deemed those toxic, the industry switched to Tris, the same chemical prohibited in children’s pajamas. Tris, PBDEs and related fire retardants belong to a class called organohalogens. Just this past September, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) voted to take steps to ban the entire group after scientists testified before the commission to the breadth of evidence linking organohalogens to brain damage, immune disorders, reproductive issues, and even cancer. Dr. Courtney Carignan, who was involved in a study linking one such related group of flame retardants to reproductive issues specifically concluded, “These findings suggest that exposure to PFRs may be one of many risk factors for lower reproductive success.”
In a separate vote, the CPSC banned five types of phthalates from childcare toys and other products. The chemicals were present in common play items such as rubber ducks. Research has shown they can inhibit hormone production and negatively affect the male reproductive system.
The American Chemistry Council criticized the commission’s decisions, however. Bryan Goodman, a spokesperson for the council, said, “Rather than issuing blanket hazard statements about groups of chemicals – some of which can play an important and at times lifesaving role – we should evaluate these chemicals based on their individual toxicological profiles and real-world exposures.”
“There are simply too many of these chemicals in the market and entering the market to regulate them one-by-one,” Robert Adler, a member of the CPSC said. “We’re playing whack-a-mole with the public and our children’s health.” He added, “I have concluded that we must not sit idly by and wait for data on the safety of OFRs [organohalogen flame retardants] that all evidence to date suggests will never come. As one of the witnesses at our hearing pointed out, if we took the tobacco industry’s word on cigarette safety, we would still be waiting.”
The CPSC put out guidelines designed to encourage manufacturers to voluntarily stop adding the chemicals to upholstered furniture, baby and toddler products, mattresses and electronics enclosures. “We make progress with healthier furniture and children’s products,” added Arlene Blum, Executive Director of the Green Science Policy. “But the overall use of harmful chemicals in products continues to increase.”
https://www.legalreader.com/common-household-items-contain-harmful-chemicals/
-
Gene Editing a Promising Tool to Study Chemical Health Effects
Jan 15, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Gene-editing technologies have the potential to offer new insights into the ways chemicals affect people and the environment, an EPA scientist said at a recent National Academies workshop.
These methods can help risk assessors understand, for example, whether people with certain genetic traits or at particular stages of life are more or less vulnerable to a chemical's potential harmful effects, said Stanley Barone, acting director of the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Science Coordination and Policy.
“These are additional tools in our tool box to help us understand adversity, and we'd like to encourage their use,” he said Jan. 11 during a workshoporganized by a National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine committee.
But scientists that want federal agencies to use environmental health data from gene-editing studies will need to use standardized approaches and provide consistent, thorough information, Barone said. For example, they'll need to provide details such as the genes used, genetic changes made, and cells or other biological materials in which the tests were conducted, he said.
Some Companies Well Positioned
Corporations such as Cargill Inc., the Monsanto Co., and Oxitec Ltd., have used gene modification and editing technologies for years to make products including biodiesel, herbicide-resistant crops, and sterile insects, which are designed to limit the spread of diseases.
Some gene modification techniques, like breeding, are thousands of years old, but others such as CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) are relatively new. Like “molecular scissors,” CRISPR techniques use enzymes to add, remove, or alter genes to cause DNA to behave in specific ways.
The workshop focused on using CRISPR and related technologies to study the environmental health effects of chemicals.
Biotech companies, in particular, already have the capabilities and knowledge to use gene-editing tools in new ways, committee member Reza Rasoulpour, global regulatory leader for crop protection research and development at DowDuPont, told Bloomberg Environment.
Suppose preliminary research suggested a chemical might cause a cell's signals to go awry because the molecule binds to a particular receptor, he said. Gene-editing tools could quickly and efficiently modify cells to confirm whether or not the chemical binds to the receptor, Rasoulpour said.
Company toxicologists already have cellular tests that can do those types of studies, but gene-editing techniques enable the research to be done more quickly and precisely, he said. That would help corporate toxicologists ask precise questions about specific biological changes, Rasoulpour said.
Emergent Use in Environmental Health
Nearly every speaker described the use of gene-editing methods for environmental health research as nascent, yet offering more ways to study biological function.
Only a few of the thousands of gene-editing studies published over the last 10 years focus on the environmental and health effects of chemicals, said Luoping Zhang, an adjunct toxicology professor at the University of California, Berkeley. Among those, a 2016 study published in Environmental Science & Technology, described ways triclosan—an antibacterial agent added to soaps and other consumer products—affects human cells, she said.
Richard Woychik, deputy director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, said researchers also can use gene-editing technologies to study specially designed laboratory mice that are genetically diverse and, therefore, potentially more representative of the diversity in the human population.
The methods can help identify which gene variation is responsible for a greater or lesser toxic response to a chemical, he said. That information helps identify vulnerable populations under pesticide and chemicals laws the EPA oversees.
Lesa Aylward, a member of the academies’ emerging environmental health science committee, described the workshop's goals of helping academic, corporate, and federal toxicologists broaden their understanding of gene-editing tools. That knowledge could spark ideas to use the tools in new ways, said Aylward, a principal at Summit Toxicology, LLP's Falls Church, Va. office.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=126769932&vname=dennotallissues&fn=126769932&jd=126769932
-
Michigan Quickly Enforces New PFAS Standard
Jan 12, 2018 | Inside EPA
Michigan regulators have wasted little time enforcing their new drinking water standard for two perfluorinated chemicals, filing suit under the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) to compel continued cleanup of tannery wastes containing the chemicals on the same day that it codified EPA's health advisory levels for the substances.
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Jan. 10 filed suit in federal court under RCRA and the state Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act to ensure Wolverine World Wide, Inc., continued its cleanup of the waste.
MDEQ in a Jan. 10 statement pointed to the newly finalized standards for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) -- two of the most common per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) -- as the basis for its ability to bring the suit.
“Our new state clean-up standard now gives us the ability to take additional legal actions such as this, which provides the state with more options to ensure long-term compliance plans are in place and enforced,” DEQ Director Heidi Grether said.
The state filed the RCRA imminent and substantial endangerment suit the same day it announced it had finalized, effective immediately, a drinking water residential and nonresidential criterion of 70 parts per trillion for the combined concentrations of PFOA and PFOS.
The standard matches EPA's non-enforceable health advisory levels set in 2016 for the two PFAS compounds, and the state says the criterion aims to protect for both short-term and chronic exposures.
In MDEQ v. Wolverine World Wide Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, MDEQ seeks declaratory and injunctive relief requiring Wolverine to take a number of actions. These include investigating and assessing the location and extent of releases or threatened releases of PFAS into the environment; developing and implementing plans for the continued sampling and analysis of impacts to drinking water wells from PFAS released or disposed of by Wolverine; and providing alternate drinking water supplies to users of drinking water wells impacted by PFAS for which Wolverine is responsible.
Additionally, the state seeks to require Wolverine to provide long-term, reliable drinking water supplies to users of drinking water wells to address unacceptable risks posed by a release or threat of release of PFAS attributable to Wolverine.
MDEQ says that while Wolverine to date has been responsive to the state's requests for resources, testing and alternative water for neighborhood contamination attributable to the company, “this court filing is the next step in formalizing the process, timelines and expectations the state has for the company moving forward."
Michigan's establishment of an enforceable PFAS standard fills a gap for the state in the absence of enforceable federal standards, which EPA has signaled no plans to develop despite growing attention to contamination from PFAS. Instead, states are expected to be left shouldering the responsibility for what may become a patchwork of standards.
One environmentalist said last month that more states in the future will attempt to set enforceable regulations, and will look to the leadership of New Jersey and other states to fill this public health need.
Michigan appears to be one of the states looking to fill in gaps, with Gov. Rick Snyder (R) on Nov. 13 signing an executive directive that creates a multi-agency PFAS "Action Response Team" to ensure a timely, uniform and comprehensive response to mitigating PFAS in the state.
There are sites across the state where PFAS was improperly disposed of or used in applications -- such as fire-fighting foams -- that at the time were not known to be a public health risk, Snyder said in a Nov.13 press release.
PFAS have widely been used in non-stick cookware, fire-fighting foam, waterproof rain gear and in other applications. PFOA, in particular, has been linked to adverse health effects, including several types of cancer.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/michigan-quickly-enforces-new-pfas-standard
-
Jan 15, 2018 | WV News
By Linda Harris
It could be anywhere from six months to two years before the U.S. Department of Energy decides whether it will guarantee a $1.9 billion loan for an underground storage hub in Appalachia.
Appalachian Development Group is trying to secure the loan guarantee to help build the hub somewhere in the quad-state region — Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania or West Virginia. ADG recently was invited to continue to Part II of DOE’s vetting process for the loan guarantee, which would facilitate construction of secure storage for high-value natural gas liquids.
ADG CEO Steve Hedrick had said the initial cost for a storage hub would be “north of $3 billion,” but WVU Energy Institute Director Brian Anderson had said costs for a full build-out could eventually reach as high as $10 billion. A federal loan guarantee would help erase some of the uncertainty surrounding financing for the hub, the American Chemistry Council said in a 2016 study.
That study suggested keeping the NGLs in the Appalachian region rather than shipping them to the Gulf Coast could spark as much as $36 billion in investments by chemical and plastics companies and create more than 100,000 jobs in the quad-state area.
Hedrick said ADG has already completed its pre-engineering work needed to satisfy Part I of DOE’s application process. The focus now is on developing the framework for requesting information and proposals for the permitting, detailed design, engineering and construction of the hub.
“ADG will work closely with the DOE on Part II of the application process while simultaneously working to avail the market with the opportunity to secure an equity position in this development,” said Hedrick, who also is president and CEO of Mid-Atlantic Technology, Research & Innovation Center in Charleston. “We all have to be patient as we move forward.
“With the invitation for ADG to now complete part II of the application process and seek the issuance of the loan guarantees, we are excited to take next steps.”
Hedrick said they still haven’t selected a site for the hub, saying their plan is to use the “best available and most technically sound geologic formations, in the most viable geographic locations.”
“This may include hard rock limestone formations, sandstone formations or salt strata,” he said. “All of these geologic formations exist in Appalachia, as was outlined in the geologic study led by WVU and brought forward from Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. While plans are in fact made, it is premature to publicly discuss specific prospective sites until further permitting and engineering has been completed.”
Anderson, who headed that research team, said the announcement that China Energy Corporation had signed a memorandum of understanding to invest up to $84.7 billion in energy projects in the Mountain State hasn’t changed the timeline, but it does bring a sense of urgency to the project.
China Energy’s interest “serves as a significant indicator that the (storage hub) is a critical component of the infrastructure needed for substantial growth in the petrochemical industry in Appalachia,” he said, pointing out it’s a vertically-integrated company that “believes in investing in the supply chain to their proposed petrochemical investments.”
Anderson said the hub would integrate the NGL storage network with surface infrastructure, including pipelines that provide the inter-connectivity between petrochemical sites, fractionation, and storage.
“As such, the flexibility in locations provided by the geology of the region identified in the geologic report last summer is extremely valuable to minimize the disturbance caused by the pipeline network,” he said. “The maximization of the potential growth of the petrochemical industry is less reliant on the location of the storage as it is on the development of available industrial sites and the coordination of the inter-connectivity of these sites through the surface infrastructure associated with the ASTH.
Anderson said DOE’s announcement was an extremely important step to bringing the project to fruition, saying it indicates that the project meets eligibility requirements associated with the Advanced Fossil Loan Program.
“The two primary requirements are that the project will deploy advanced and innovative technologies and that the project will reduce emissions of CO2 and other gases as compared to existing technology,” he said. “The (storage hub) will be incorporating cutting edge technologies that serve to protect the environment and minimize the environmental impact.”
https://www.wvnews.com/news/wvnews/doe-interest-extremely-important-to-making-underground-ngl-storage-a/article_fd0d6d4d-da2d-52d2-bf7c-ba3d125ddd52.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Appalachia Hub Gets a Lift
Jan 15, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alexander H. Tullo
An ambitious proposal to invest in infrastructure that would allow a local petrochemical industry to grow out of Appalachia’s vast shale gas resources won preliminary support from the federal government. Appalachia Development Group says it has been invited to submit a Part II application for a $1.9 billion loan guarantee from the U.S. Department of Energy to build its proposed storage and trading hub, which would provide storage and pipeline transportation for petrochemical raw materials . . .
In May, the American Chemistry Council, a trade group, issued a report that said a $10 billion storage hub could attract $36 billion in chemical projects and generate 100,000 jobs...
§ Access to full text unavailable – subscription required.
Story can be found here: https://cen.acs.org/articles/96/i3/Appalachia-hub-lift.html?type=paidArticleContent
-
Zinke Talks with More Governors About Offshore Drilling Plan
Jan 15, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has so far spoken with seven governors to hear their objections to his plan to open the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to offshore oil and natural gas drilling.
The calls were set up after Zinke’s surprise announcement late Tuesday that waters near Florida would be removed from the plan. That came after Zinke briefly met with Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R), a close Trump administration ally who is likely to run for Senate this year.
Nearly every other Atlantic and Pacific governor jumped on the Florida announcement to demand that they, too, be removed from consideration in the Interior Department’s plan for drilling rights lease sales between 2019 and 2024.
Interior said Friday that in addition to Scott, Zinke has already spoken with South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster (R), who wants his state out of the drilling consideration.
On Friday alone, Zinke spoke with five Democratic governors opposed to drilling: Rhode Island’s Gina Raimondo, California’s Jerry Brown, Washington’s Jay Inslee, Delaware’s John Carney and North Carolina’s Roy Cooper.
Zinke plans to talk to Oregon Gov. Kate Brown (D), another opponent of the plan, later Friday, Interior said.
Coastal governors have argued in recent days that Interior has to remove them from drilling consideration if they object. The governors and legal experts say that the drilling plan could be overturned in court if Zinke doesn’t extend the standard he granted to Florida, which hosts President Trump’s coastal Mar-a-Lago resort.
“Creating a Five Year Program is a very open and public process, and Secretary Zinke looks forward to meeting with governors and other coastal representatives who want to discuss the draft program,” Interior spokeswoman Heather Swift said.
Interior has scheduled 23 public meetings on the program and is accepting comments on www.regulations.gov through March 9, 2018.
“All comments will be considered in developing a proposed program document — the next step in the five-year program — that will be made available for public comment and review by governors of affected states and Congress before final decisions are published,” she said.
Interior is obligated by law to consult with governors, congressional delegations and coastal communities as it crafts its plan.
All Pacific and Atlantic governors have expressed outright opposition or concerns about drilling off their state’s shores, except Maine Gov. Paul LePage (R).
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/368813-zinke-talks-with-more-governors-about-offshore-drilling-plan
-
Energy Transfer Partners’ Louisiana Pipeline Target of Lawsuit
Jan 15, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
Construction of a federally permitted 162.5-mile crude oil pipeline across the Atchafalaya River in Louisiana could be blocked if environmental groups convince a federal court that the project will endanger the underlying wetlands.
A coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit Jan. 11 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for granting a Clean Water Act permit in mid-December to Energy Transfer Partners to dredge and fill the wetlands to build the pipeline. Mining or construction projects that involve dredging and filling of federally protected wetlands and streams must obtain such a permit before construction can begin.
The Bayou Bridge Pipeline currently runs from terminal hub facilities in Nederland, Texas, to terminal facilities and refineries in Lake Charles, Louisiana. The project targeted by this lawsuit would expand this pipeline to connect to an existing market hub in St. James, La.
Upon completion, the expanded pipeline segment would transport up to 480,000 barrels per day from Lake Charles to a terminal near St. James, in proximity to crude oil refineries and crude export terminals. The proposed pipeline will cross the federally protected Calcasieu and Atchafalaya rivers, and the East and West Atchafalaya Basin Levees. It also would cross 14 federal easements in Louisiana.
“We are currently mobilizing for construction and have started pre-construction activities. Bayou Bridge is anticipated to be in service by the second half of 2018,” Alexis Daniel, a spokeswoman for Energy Transfer, the pipeline operator, told Bloomberg Environment in an email.
She added that the company doesn't anticipate a delay in its current timeline but stopped short of commenting on the lawsuit.
Regulatory Finding Disputed
The corps said in an environmental assessment that the project wouldn't cause any harm. But environmental groups dispute that finding, saying the pipeline will “will cross hundreds of streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, and bayous, where both construction and operation of the project presents significant environmental threats.”
The groups alleged that the pipeline construction would create canals and spoil banks that have major ecological ramifications, according to the groups. Spoil banks refer to piles of soil dumped alongside canal trenches.
They said canals disrupt the natural hydrology by transporting and depositing sediments into sensitive wetlands ecosystems, such as cypress-tupelo swamps.
The nonprofit law firm Earthjustice is representing the petitioners, which include Atchafalaya Basinkeeper, the Louisiana Crawfish Producers Association, Gulf Restoration Network, Waterkeeper Alliance, and the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg, the ultimate owner of Bloomberg Environment.
The case is Atchafalaya Basinkeeper v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, M.D. La., No. 18-00023, 1/11/18.http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=126769938&vname=dennotallissues&fn=126769938&jd=126769938
-
Trade-Offs for Renewable Energy Sector in New Tax Law
Jan 15, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Lydia O'Neal
The renewable energy sector could face some new obstacles to project financing under the new tax law.
Alternative energy businesses entered 2018 with immediate gains from the Republican tax overhaul, including retroactive full expensing for capital purchases. But other provisions—such as the new base erosion and anti-abuse tax (BEAT) and the limit on interest deductions—could hobble the sector's project financing methods, industry analysts told Bloomberg Tax.
Interest expense deductions will be limited to 30 percent of earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA), and the limit will apply to a smaller measure of income—earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT)—starting in 2022. Another new limit, capping deductions of net operating losses at 80 percent, could be similarly harmful, though companies can carry forward both NOLs and interest deductions indefinitely under the new tax act (Pub. L. No. 115-97).
The BEAT provision, which applies to payments made to offshore affiliates, could hurt project funding as well. Analysts agreed that U.S. renewables companies have predominantly domestic operations, but the problem here arises from the provision's impact on the financial firms that funnel money into renewable startups. For non-multinational funders, the lower corporate tax rate of 21 percent may also make renewables a less attractive investment.
Dodged a Bullet
The House's version of the tax bill would have shuffled incentives for various energy technologies, but those provisions never made it to President Donald Trump's desk. House lawmakers sought to waive and expand a nuclear tax credit—to the advantage of two nuclear power plants in Georgia, the only nuclear facilities under construction in the U.S. But congressional conferees struck down that provision.
They did the same with House efforts to curtail some renewables credits. The new law leaves in place inflation adjustment for the production tax credit (PTC), as well as the permanent 10 percent investment tax credit (ITC) for solar and geothermal technologies, which the House would have phased out completely by 2028.
The absence of those House provisions pleased lobbying groups like the American Council On Renewable Energy. In its analysis of the law, ACORE wrote that, along with “other industry partners,” it “worked with renewable energy champions in Congress to reject the proposed House language” striking the permanent ITC and diminishing the value of the PTC.
Gary Hecimovich, lead partner on renewables at Deloitte Tax LLP's Washington National Tax practice, said he didn't expect the House provisions to survive conference negotiations, because lawmakers already fought to extend those incentives as part of the 2015 Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes (PATH) Act (Pub. L. No. 114-113).
“Those negotiations were fresh,” he said. “The belief going into tax reform was that they weren't going to reopen those negotiations. The industry line was that the ITC and the PTC had already been tax-reformed.”
Big Perks May Not Apply
It's no secret that much of the private sector welcomed the repeal of the alternative minimum tax (AMT), which kept businesses from shrinking their tax liabilities too drastically with the help of credits, along with the measure allowing temporary 100 percent expensing and the 14 percentage-point cut in the corporate tax rate. But for renewables, the impact of those provisions is more nuanced.
The provision on temporary 100 percent expensing of capital purchases will mean a windfall for capital-intensive renewables—but mainly in the short run. The allowance will wane by 20 percentage points annually starting in 2023, making long-term projects less likely to benefit.
Many small alternative energy companies don't have large enough tax liabilities to take advantage of the federal credits. Their investors—often banks and insurance companies—tend to fund renewables as a way to seize on those credits. But those types of investments, known as tax equity, became far less attractive when the GOP dropped the corporate rate to 21 percent.
“We just lost $100 million in tax equity last week,” Thomans Neyhart, the chief executive of Louisiana rooftop solar installer PosiGen Inc., told Bloomberg. He declined to name the investor. “We can't get past banks’ credit committees anymore.”
Financing Takes BEATing
Industry lobbyists felt somewhat assured that the credits would remain in place, said Shane Skelton, a partner and co-founder of the California-based policy consulting firm S2C Pacific who is now working in energy at investment adviser Veda Partners LLC. But the sub-sector was “caught flat-footed” when it came to the base erosion tax, he said.
Renewable energy companies can rely on debt for project financing, and could be hurt by the lower interest deduction. But like the drop in the corporate rate, the BEAT measure may pose a larger problem because it could put a huge dent in tax equity. Such financing totaled more than $12 billion in 2016, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, and was used by 35 investors last year, according to JPMorgan Chase & Co.
The BEAT tax would boost the tax bills of some of renewable energy startups’ multinational investors, and along with the lower corporate rate, could cause the tax equity market to “tighten,” JPMorgan managing director John Eber said in a Jan. 11 webinar hosted by the law firm Norton Rose Fulbright LLP.
Following protests from the renewables industry over the BEAT provision in the Senate bill, lawmakers modified it to allow companies to use 80 percent of the value of their investment and production tax credits to offset the BEAT through 2025, after which they can't use any portion of the credits.
“Because there will be less equity raised, investors will have to turn to other ways of raising money,” Keith Martin, co-head of U.S. projects at Norton Rose Fulbright, who has lobbied on behalf of renewable energy firms, told Bloomberg Tax.
Electric Cars
The House version of the tax overhaul bill also would have struck down a major incentive for buying electric cars, but Congress didn't include the provision in its final bill.
Under the new law, taxpayers can receive a credit of up to $7,500 for every four-wheel, plug-in vehicle put into service. The credit applies to as many as 200,000 vehicles per electric car manufacturer.
Congressional conferees’ decision to strike the House provision from the package ultimately placed on the president's desk came as a relief to industry groups including the Electric Drive Transportation Association, which counts BMW of North America, Ford Motor Co., Lyft Inc., Toyota Motor Co., and Volkswagen Group of America among its members.
“We are extremely pleased,” Genevieve Cullen, the group's president, wrote in a Dec. 15 statement. “We appreciate the conferees’ support and will continue to work with Congress to advance U.S. competitiveness through electric mobility.”
Still ‘Orphans’
A number of tax credits for “orphan” energy technologies were left to expire or remain expired in the new tax law. These include fuel cells, fiber-optic solar energy property, geothermal heat pumps, small wind systems, thermal energy property, microturbines, and combined heat and power systems. The law also didn't renew or extend temporary tax benefits for a variety of biofuels and forms of diesel fuel, or for hydropower or biomass and waste-to-energy ventures.
Companies that use such technologies, particularly those left out of the 2015 bill that granted credits to wind and solar producers, were hoping for new tax benefits, Martin said.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), along with five Senate Republican co-sponsors, introduced a tax extenders bill (S. 2256) Dec. 20 to address many of those expiring tax credits, but the committee has yet to vote on the measure.
ACORE pointed out the absence of renewed tax credits for certain types of renewable and orphan technologies in its analysis, adding that it would “work with allies to promote extensions for these technologies through separate ‘extenders’ legislation that may be considered very soon.”
With assistance from Lynn Doan (Bloomberg).
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=126769946&vname=dennotallissues&fn=126769946&jd=126769946
-
Oil Sector Keeps Open Mind on Blockchain
Jan 15, 2018 | Platts
By Siobhan Hall, Jack Jordan and Henry Edwardes-Evans
Blockchain, the distributed ledger technology which was possibly the hottest tech topic in the energy sector in 2017, has still to prove itself as more than hype in the oil sector.
While electricity companies and grid operators see huge potential in digitalization in general and blockchain in particular to make power stations and grids more
efficient, for example, the oil sector is keeping an open mind.“We are not abandoning technology efficiencies we’re developing on current platforms,” BP’s head of strategy for IST, Mike Leonard, told the S&P Global Platts Digital Commodities Summit in London in November.
“We’re seeing this as complementary…We don’t have all our eggs in blockchain, but nor do we want to avoid the topic or not take part in it,” he said. “But the more we [talk about blockchain within the company, the more] we’re finding new opportunities to explore different areas of our current technology, which is also exciting, so we may find this emerges for BP specifically in different ways than we expect.”
BP is testing the blockchain concept. It signed up in November to a consortium with fellow oil and gas companies Shell and Statoil, trading houses Gunvor, Koch Supply & Trading and Mercuria, plus banks ABN Amro, ING and Societe Generale, to co-develop a blockchain-based digital platform for trading energy commodities. The platform is to be designed and stress-tested by its investors, but run independently.
“This is about reliability and reducing costs. Many of our back office functions appear not to have changed since 1985. We’re after bottom line savings, but also how this can free up resource elsewhere in the business,” Leonard told the summit. The aim is to move away from cumbersome paper contracts to the authenticated transfer of electronic smart documents.
Leonard declined to speculate on when the first cargo of Forties crude was likely to be cleared through this platform, which is planned to be up and running by end-2018.
The consortium’s long-term aim is to migrate all forms of energy transaction data to the blockchain platform. The next step is to address inefficiencies in cash flow, as faster cash and clearing cycles mean more opportunities to do business.
Blockchain emerged in 2008 as the distributed, decentralized digital ledger underpinning cryptocurrency Bitcoin, recording transactions in an immutable way.
In reality it works like this: an individual (or a machine) registers as a member of a blockchain, which can be public, like Bitcoin, or private, for example like a street of householders or a group of traders. The individual/machine receives an online wallet that can be charged up with a digital currency. The individual/machine can then transact with other members registered to the blockchain.
The blockchain’s network of registered computers continually validates the transactions, building blocks of transactions that are then permanently entered in the ledger. Nobody can change the ledger, it is immutable. It is shared with all members at all times – it is not stored in one place, there is full transparency and, if the blockchain is public, anyone on the internet can view it.
Since transactions are cleared instantaneously using the chosen digital currency, there is no settlement risk. Nor is there any paperwork or middleman fees beyond set up and running costs associated with relatively simple computing.
In a key development step for energy, automated code-based processes, known as smart contracts, can interact with and update the database. This application can be used to provide an automated transaction model with no or limited third-party intermediaries, compared with the traditional transaction model involving a provider, network operator and consumer.
Blockchain’s ability to track the flow of electrons on a distributed grid, for example, enables their secure and transparent trade between consumers (or machines) directly. A practical example of this is European utility Innogy and startup Slock.it’s prototype electric vehicle charging system, Share&Charge, which enables registered users to make micropayments via a smartphone app.
The shipping industry has also started finding ways to make use of the technology to simplify its processes. Container line Maersk, one of the world’s largest shipping companies, is in the process of developing a blockchain initiative with IBM to allow a better flow of information through its systems.
In research from 2014 the companies identified more than 30 personnel and companies— and more than 200 interactions between them—involved in a typical shipment of avocados from Kenya to the Netherlands. Maersk and IBM’s system is designed to guarantee the validity of each transaction while maintaining their privacy.
In short, for energy, for shipping, for agriculture, for all transactional proceedings that lend themselves to digitalization, the technology offers huge potential to cut costs, reduce security risk and eliminate error. And, in the energy sector, the first prototypes are underway—in decentralized networks and in commodity trading.TRADING PROJECTS
Three of BP’s blockchain consortium partners, ING, Societe Generale and Mercuria, carried out a test of a live oil trade between parties with Mercuria at the start of this year. The successful experiment involved a shipment of African crude, which was sold three times on its way to China, and included traders, banks as well as an agent and an inspector, all performing their role in the transaction directly on the prototype Easy Trading Connect blockchain platform, Mercuria said in February.
And in March, banking group Natixis, IBM and Trafigura pioneered the first blockchain trade for US crude oil. They used a distributed ledger platform, built on the Linux Foundation open source Hyperledger Fabric, which they said was designed to be adopted at scale across the entire crude oil trading industry.
European electricity and gas companies have also tested pilot blockchain trading projects. In June, BP and Italy’s Eni completed a pilot program for processing European gas trades using blockchain technology developed by Canada’s BTL Group. This focused on gas trade confirmations, and the plan is to look at expanding it to other back office processes, including netting and generating invoices.
In May, over 20 European energy trading firms joined forces to develop peer-to-peer blockchain-based trading using Hamburg-based IT company Ponton’s Enerchain framework. In October, E.ON and Enel completed a first power trade using the system.
Agriculture had an even earlier pilot, with a wheat trade in Australia settled through blockchain back in December 2016. The deal was “auto-executed” by a smart contract run by commodity management platform AgriDigital, which also has high hopes of expanding into other commodities.CRITICAL MASS CHALLENGE
Achieving critical mass is a common theme in all the pilot platform developers, including the energy commodity trading consortium involving BP, Shell and Statoil, which plans to open its platform to all commodities eventually, pending approvals. “It only works if there is widespread adoption,” consortium spokeswoman Carolien van der Giessen told S&P Global Platts in November.
High Halford-Thompson, CIO of the BTL Group working with BP, Eni and others on the platform to automate gas trading processes, agrees. “The challenge is getting a large enough synchronized group to shift volume onto a new settlement standard,” he told the Platts summit. “You need that critical mass to…drive the rest of the industry to move across.”
If commodities traders do move en masse to decentralized blockchain platforms, that could reduce liquidity on established, traditional platforms – like exchanges.
European energy exchange trade body Europex has warned that decentralized platforms are “dangerous” for wholesale electricity and gas markets, for example, arguing that lots of small set-ups could fragment and distort price signals. This would go against the prevailing EU policy to promote strong wholesale price signals, for example.
For now, though, regulators are more interested than concerned.
Blockchain’s impact on traded markets is still too small to need specific rules, according to EU financial authority ESMA, for example. Regulators are following developments, and the approach is pragmatic. “If you see a problem with the regulatory framework, tell your local regulator,” Clemens Wagner-Bruschek from Austrian energy regulator E-Control told the Platts summit.
Regulators are also interested in how blockchain can streamline regulatory requirements, such as post-trade reporting, but data standards would have to be harmonized first to get real benefits. Meanwhile, the EU’s executive body, the European Commission, is spending €500,000 to set up an EU Blockchain
Observatory and Forum to monitor and assess blockchain developments across the economy, and whether any EU-level response is needed.All of which means blockchain will continue to be high profile in 2018, but the critical mass needed for it to transform energy trading, and potentially regulation, is likely to take several years more—if it comes at all.
http://blogs.platts.com/2018/01/15/oil-sector-blockchain/
-
House T&I Dems Intro Ptc Funding, Final Deadline Bill
Jan 15, 2018 | Railway Track & Structures
By Kyra Senese
Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) introduced legislation Jan. 11 aimed at speeding up the implementation of positive train control (PTC) technology that could prevent catastrophic human-caused rail accidents.
Rep. DeFazio is a ranking member of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and Rep. Capuano is a ranking member of the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials.
The proposed legislation, entitled as the Positive Train Control Implementation and Financing Act, comes in response to the Dec. 18, 2017, derailment of Amtrak Train 501 in Washington, which killed three and injured others.
The National Transportation Safety Board reported last week that the accident could have been prevented by the use of PTC.
"Since Congress first passed legislation to mandate PTC implementation in 2008, some railroads have been diligent in implementing PTC while others have clearly been dragging their feet. Two years ago, Congress granted them more time, pushing the PTC implementation deadline to Dec. 31, 2018," DeFazio said.
DeFazio said that as the deadline approaches, he does not believe many of the railroads are on track to meet the PTC mandate.
"Enough. No more delays, no more extensions, no more excuses from railroads who have had ten years to implement PTC technology," DeFazio said. "This legislation requires that PTC be installed by the end of the year, prevents future extensions of this life-saving technology, and provides critical grants for cash-strapped commuter and intercity passenger railroads to implement PTC."
Rep. Capuano said PTC implementation will significantly improve passenger safety and added that its full implementation must be made a priority.
"This legislation will ensure that PTC is done as quickly as possible and makes resources available to help certain railroads meet this obligation," Rep. Capuano said.
Members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Reps. Rick Larsen (D-WA) and Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY), and the entire Washington State Democratic delegation including Reps. Suzan DelBene (D-WA), Denny Heck (D-WA), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), Derek Kilmer (D-WA) and Adam Smith (D-WA), have co-sponsored the legislation.
The legislation would mandate that the final deadline for implementing PTC be on Dec. 31, 2018. The legislated also would prohibit the U.S. Department of Transportation from granting railroads further extensions on the implementation deadline.
The officials said the bill includes more than $2.5 billion in grants to help passenger railroads meet the deadline for intercity and commuter and passenger railroads to implement PTC.
The legislation would also prohibit commuter and intercity passenger railroads from beginning new service on a route unless PTC is fully implemented and operational, which officials said was also in response to the recent Amtrak derailment.
The legislation also requires that Amtrak report its progress toward installing PTC on routes that it does not own, but are operated by the railroad, such as the Amtrak Cascades line.
http://www.rtands.com/index.php/safety-training/house-ti-dems-intro-ptc-funding-final-deadline-bill.html
-
NTSB Issues Safety Recommendations to UP, FRA and AAR
Jan 12, 2018 | Progressive Rail Roading
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) yesterday issued four safety recommendations after investigating two railroad accidents.
The recommendations stem from the board's investigations of a railroad employee fatality involving Union Pacific Railroad in Kansas City, Kansas, and a BNSF Railway Co. crude-oil train derailment near Heimdal, North Dakota.
In the UP case, a foreman died Sept. 29, 2015, after being struck by a remote-control train during switching operations at the east end of Armourdale Yard, Kansas City. The NTSB determined the accident's probable cause was the foreman being in the gauge of the track for unknown reasons, while a train switching movement was being performed by another crew. Inadequate radio communications and inadequate work coordination between crews working in the yard contributed to the accident.
During its investigation, the NTSB learned that UP employees received frequent, non-critical, man-down alarms, which the board believes likely reduced the attention and reaction crew members made to actual critical alarms.
As a result of its findings, the board recommended that UP develop and implement a modification to man-down alarms that would allow workers to differentiate between legitimate and non-critical alarms, NTSB officials said in a press release.
In the BNSF situation, a broken wheel led to the derailment of six of the 107 loaded tank cars carrying crude oil on May 6, 2015, near Heimdal. No injuries or fatalities were reported; however, five of the derailed cars breached, releasing 96,400 gallons of crude oil that caught fire. About 30 people from the surrounding area were evacuated due to the smoke plume.
The board determined that one of the car's wheels was broken due to a vertical split rim "which led to catastrophic failure of the wheel due to multiple overstress fractures," board officials said.
As a result of that accident, the NTSB issued two safety recommendations to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to research and evaluate wheel impact load thresholds, and to mandate remedial actions for railroads to avoid or identify mechanical defects identified by wheel impact load detectors.
In addition, the board issued a third recommendation calling for the FRA and the Association of American Railroads to collaborate on an evaluation of safe peak vertical load thresholds to determine remedial actions for suspected defective wheel conditions in high-hazard flammable train service.
The NTSB's briefs of both accidents are available online. The Heimdal accident information is available here ; the Kansas City incident, here.http://www.progressiverailroading.com/safety/news/NTSB-issues-safety-recommendations-to-UP-FRA-and-AAR--53664
-
A Deadly Oil Train Disaster That Still Haunts Canada and the U.S.
Jan 12, 2018 | North County Public Radio (NCPR)
By Brian Mann and Martha Foley
This morning in Sherbrooke, Quebec a jury resumes deliberation in the criminal trial of three railroad workers. They're accused of criminal negligence following a deadly accident in July of 2013 that left 47 people dead in a small town in eastern Canada.
The Lac Megantic disaster changed the way we think about the hazardous cargoes that railroads haul through communities across North America, including right here in the North Country. Brian Mann has covered this story for five years now and he joined Martha Foley to talk about this trial and the aftermath of Lac Megantic.
Martha: Okay, first take us back there to July of 2013. What went wrong on that night?
Brian: An U.S.-owned tanker train with the Montreal Maine and Atlantic Railroad was carrying crude oil from North Dakota. It was left by its one-man crew on a hill above the village. It later rolled free, running out of control into Lac Megantic where it derailed and erupted.
Martha: That was so horrific; 47 people died that night. So, five years later, why does this disaster, as horrific as it was - why does it continue to resonate with us now?The hazardous cargo in your backyard
Brian: Well, it was really the catalyst for a new awareness of the kinds of hazardous cargoes that were increasingly rolling right through local neighborhoods and communities all over North America, not just in Canada but in the U.S. and right here in our towns and villages right here in the North Country. We broke the story that companies like the Montreal Maine and Atlantic were using tanker cars that had been deemed unsafe by the U.S. government to carry hazardous materials and yet they were still using them as a standard practice. Since then, Martha, there has been a real push for reform, for new re-enforced tanker cars and better safety rules. The Cuomo administration has done a lot in New York But there are still a lot of questions about how safe these cargo shipments are.
Martha: And now there's this trial of three railroad workers. They're accused of criminal negligence in this and the trial has been underway since September. It's now before the jury. Tell us about that?Criminally negligent - or scapegoats?
Brian: A lot of the controversy with this trial is that Canadian prosecutors focused their attention on these rank-and-file workers, three men who worked for the railroad. One of them, Tom Harding, was the engineer who parked the train the night of the disaster.
The question jurors are facing is whether Harding and two other workers were criminally negligent or whether this accident happened because of lax safety rules and also poor decisions by the American-owned company. And I should say, Martha, that the American owners of this railroad declared bankruptcy right after the accident and they have not faced criminal charges.
Martha: Okay, so a jury is now weighing all that. One wrinkle Brian is that this controversy over these oil tanker cars has continued to matter here in the North Country. A different railroad wants to store its old rail tanker cars, mothballed ones, in the Adirondacks.
Brian: That's right. Since Lac Megantic there've been a lot of changes in the rail transport industry. The accident was one part of that. And it's meant thousands of industrial tanker cars needing to be stored somewhere while their owners figure out what to do with them. So Iowa Pacific has offered some of those rail companies a chance to park hundreds of these cars on a line near the High Peaks Wilderness, near the Boreas River. And as we've covered the last few months, that's just sparked a enormous political fight. So echos of this really continue.
Martha: This jury in Sherbrooke, Quebec - deliberating for a second day starting this morning - any sense for when a verdict might come?
Brian: It's really hard to say. Jurors have a mountain of evidence and testimony from the months of this trial, and some of it's very technical, so it's really unclear now long it will take them to work through that.
Brian Mann has covered the Lac Megantic oil train disaster and its impact since 2013 for us and for NPR.
https://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/story/35429/20180112/a-deadly-oil-train-disaster-that-still-haunts-canada-and-the-u-s
-
EPA Targets April 30 for Ozone Designations but Withholds 'Exact Details'
Jan 12, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA in a new legal filing says it plans to issue by April 30 all remaining designations for which areas are either attaining or violating the 2015 ozone standard in response to an appellate court order for “precision and specificity” on its timeline, but is withholding the “exact details” for another filing it will submit to the court on Jan. 19.
“[T]he exact details of the Agency’s plan for finalizing all remaining designations are still being determined,” EPA explains in its Jan. 12 status report filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in American Lung Association (ALA), et al. v. EPA, et al. The pending case consolidates lawsuits filed by some states and environmentalists over EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's since-withdrawn effort to delay all designations by one year.
Designations of “attainment” or “nonattainment” are required to allow states to craft implementation plans to attain the 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) of 70 parts per billion (ppb), tougher than the prior limit of 75 ppb set by the George W. Bush administration in 2008. Pruitt, who opposed the rule tightening the standard in his past role as Oklahoma's GOP attorney general, has said he is reviewing the decision.
The attainment findings were all due by Oct. 1 last year, but to date EPA has only designated 2,646 counties out of more than 3,100 in total. Petitioners in ALA have urged the court to force quick issuance of the findings.
The D.C. Circuit late last year ordered EPA to state with “precision and specificity” by Jan. 12 when it expects to complete designations, signaling the court may be losing patience with EPA's delay.
Environmentalists and states claim that the agency is behaving as if the one-year extension were still in place and seek a court order explicitly vacating it -- but the Trump administration claims the suit is moot, because it withdrew the delay decision that would have postponed all designations until Oct. 1 this year.
States and environmentalists wrote letters to the court citing language in EPA's fall regulatory agenda that referred to the designations delay, as evidence that the agency views the delay as still in effect.
Designations Process
However, EPA now says that language was a mistake and has been removed. “Contrary to the assertions of Petitioners in their letters of December 18, 2017, a reference to the extension of the ozone designations deadline in EPA’s Regulatory Agenda does not mean that the extension is still somehow in effect. That statement was erroneous, and, in any event could not supersede EPA’s formal withdrawal of the extension,” EPA says.
It adds that the agency plans to complete all the designations by April 30, and that “EPA intends to provide those details to this Court in a further Status Report to be filed on January 19, 2018.”
Environmentalists and states have also filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, again seeking to compel issuance of the designations.
In the status report, EPA says, “If the extension were still in effect, there would be no basis for these actions. These cases are the appropriate forum for addressing this issue, and further reinforce the conclusion that this case is moot.”
EPA issued designations of “attainment” and “unclassifiable” for most areas of the country in November, but left several hundred areas still to designate, where there might be some disagreement with the state's recommendation, including nonattainment zones.
Areas designated attainment or unclassifiable escape tough pollution reduction mandates, but nonattainment areas must impose tougher pollution controls on industry. EPA sent “120-day” letters to states with its proposed attainment status for the remaining areas on Dec. 20 and Dec. 22, EPA says.
States and environmentalists in their district court suits, State of California, et al. v. EPA, et al, and American Lung Association, et al. v. EPA, et al., have filed motions seeking court orders making the April 30 target mandatory. EPA says it needs another week to respond to those motions, per the order the the district court, and will then also inform the D.C. Circuit of its response in district court.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-targets-april-30-ozone-designations-withholds-exact-details
-
Virginia Could Bypass Assembly to Join Carbon Trading Scheme
Jan 15, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
Virginia would be the second-largest state in a Northeastern carbon emission trading program, but its path to joining will likely go through the executive branch rather than the legislature.
The state has proposed regulations to join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a nine-state carbon dioxide trading program for power plants, and the election of Gov.-elect Ralph Northam (D) means “our rule stands on stronger ground than it did before,” Michael Dowd, director of the air and renewable energy division of the state Department of Environmental Quality, told a Jan. 11 webinar sponsored by C2ES.
Republicans narrowly retained control of the state General Assembly in the November 2017 elections, making it unlikely a cap-and-trade bill would pass.
Virginia joining the trading program would have a significant impact on the program because the state has a relatively high reliance on coal and oil for electricity. Virginia would become the second largest state in RGGI, in terms of carbon emissions from the power sector.
New Jersey is also expected to join the initiative this year; that state had been part of the initiative before now-outgoing Gov. Chris Christie (R) pulled out in 2011. New York is the initiative's largest member.
Northam said Jan. 9 he will propose legislation to have Virginia join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, an indication that the state will pursue two paths toward becoming the first Southern state with a carbon trading program.
Dominion Energy is still reviewing Virginia's proposal, but “we expect to fully meet whatever regulatory requirements that result,” company spokesman Robert E. Richardsontold Bloomberg Environment in an email.
Complicated Path
Virginia's approach to joining RGGI will be somewhat complicated, given statutory and political constraints. The regulations, which are subject to a 90-day public comment period that began Jan. 8, will mirror RGGI's program with one exception.
Virginia will use what economists call a “consignment auction” model, as opposed to the direct auction used by RGGI's current nine states. Dowd said the state can't use a direct auction model without legislative approval.
“The whole point of the rule was to do it within the existing state authority,” he said. “Our goal was to mirror RGGI.”
Under the regulations, carbon allowances will be allocated for free to electric power companies based on their generating output. Companies would then be required to “consign” the allowances to the quarterly RGGI auction for sale.
Dowd said the proceeds of the sale of allowances will be returned to power generators, which, under Virginia law, must then pass them on to ratepayers. Under RGGI, power generators must purchase allowances and the auction proceeds are used by states for energy efficiency, renewable energy, and similar programs.
“With output-based free allocation and consignment, the utilities would not have net costs of allowances to pass on to customers except any they needed in excess of those granted freely,” William M. Shobe, director of the Center for Economic and Policy Studies at the University of Virginia, told Bloomberg Environment in an email.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=126769936&vname=dennotallissues&fn=126769936&jd=126769936
-
This Is Why New York Is Suing and Divesting from Big Oil
Jan 15, 2018 | Washington Post
By Bill de Blasio
For New Yorkers, late October 2012 was a moment when something fundamental altered. If there were any climate change deniers in the five boroughs before Hurricane Sandy, I don’t think there were too many left afterward. Forty-four lives taken; flood, fire, stretches of our electrical grid blacked out; and around $19 billion in homes, businesses and infrastructure damaged.
New York City stared climate change in the face then. And now, we’re doing something about it. We understand that climate change is an existential threat, but we do not accept that it is inevitable. We know many of our national leaders are in denial, but we will not wait for their help. Together, New Yorkers have a loud voice and deep pockets, and we intend to use them.
America’s largest city, 8.5 million strong, is taking decisive action on two separate fronts. We are demanding compensation from those who profit from climate change. And we plan to withdraw our formidable investment portfolio from an economic system that is harmful to our people, our property and the city we love and invest it in more productive ways.
This week, the City of New York filed a lawsuit in federal court against the five investor-owned fossil fuel companies: Exxon, BP, ConocoPhillips, Shell and Chevron. We are seeking billions of dollars in damages from these giants because they are central actors in this crisis. We’re proud to join cities like San Francisco, Oakland and Santa Cruz in taking on Big Oil in court.
Hurricane Sandy might have been covered on the Weather Channel, but volatile storms like that aren’t simply weather. For decades, Big Oil ravaged our environment. They knew what they were peddling was lethal, but they didn’t care. They used the classical Big Tobacco playbook of denial, denial, denial, and all the while they did everything to hook society on their lethal product.
Have they been punished for it? No. In fact, they’ve made trillions.
Think how cynical that is. Then take a look around you at the results. Swaths of California have gone up in flames. We are seeing snow in Florida. The Arctic ice is melting. The island of Puerto Rico, so important to us as New Yorkers — our sixth borough — is still reeling from Hurricane Maria.
Today, we are saying, “No more.” The time is long past due for Big Oil to pay the bill and take full responsibility for the devastation they have wrought. That by itself will be a major step forward, but it isn’t enough. We know we have more to do. We are going to stop investing in the fuel of yesterday, so we can have a better tomorrow.
The City of New York, its pension funds and the entities that control those funds are working to agree to divest from approximately 190 companies that own fossil fuel reserves. In total, the sum of investments we intend to divest adds up to around $5 billion. No other large city and no other state in this union has taken this action yet. We will be the first, but we hope we aren’t the last. And I want to be clear about something: There is no contradiction between making wise investments for our people and our pensioners and protecting the planet they live on.
We take these two groundbreaking steps now, but they are by no means the first steps we have taken in this fight. We are already committed to a series of ambitious projects aimed at lowering our emissions and creating a livable environment for the New Yorkers of tomorrow.
We will reduce the emissions our city produces by 80 percent by 2050. We will honor the Paris agreement to limit any temperature increase in the world to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius. We will demand that the most-polluting large buildings in the city, which are responsible for 24 percent of all our greenhouse emissions, lower their output or face major fines.
We will build a city that is more resilient in the face of rising waters and more powerful storms.
One thing I always try to get across to people is that this is a battle that never ends. It’s not like there is going to be a day when we can say, “We’re done. Climate change has ended.” Maybe some place in a distant future that moment will occur, but not for you and me. This is a fight that we will have to continue to wage, and we shouldn’t be afraid of that.
We know we’re going to face opposition. We know powerful interests and cynical people will push back and hard. But we also know New York City has a special responsibility. We are a beacon to the world. People watch us. We didn’t choose this battle, but we accept it willingly. We have to get it right and show what can be done.
If you are a state, a city, a town or an employer, I hope you’ll join us. The time has come to fight as if our lives depend on it. Because they do.
Bill de Blasio is the mayor of New York.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/01/12/bill-de-blasio-this-is-why-new-york-is-suing-and-divesting-from-big-oil/?utm_term=.3f582fea8068
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested