Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 1/26/2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) It Was a Warm December for Commodity Resins
Jan 25, 2018 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
There was nothing cold about December for North American commodity resin buyers, as most markets saw plenty of action. -
Republicans Frustrated by Lingering Agency Vacancies
Jan 26, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Anthony Adragna
Republican lawmakers are growing impatient with the Trump administration's delays in nominating candidates for energy-related positions across the federal government, creating a vacancy problem that experts say could lead to missed opportunities to put GOP policies into action. -
Mandatory Reporting Deadlines Approach for Manufacturers, Importers and Users of Chemicals
Jan 26, 2018 | Lexology
By Judah Prero and Byron F. Taylor
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) inventory reset process is now taking place. The reporting deadline for chemical manufacturers and importers is Feb. 7, 2018, and the deadline for all other companies that use chemicals is Oct. 5, 2018. -
(ACC Mentioned) Commentary: It’s Time to Ban Tide Pods for Good
Jan 25, 2018 | Fortune
By Harold I. Zeliger
Recently, videos have circulated on social media showing teens deliberately eating Tide Pods laundry detergent packs. All of this is part of what some call the “Tide Pod Challenge.” -
Chemours Asked to Test Water for Teflon Agent by ‘Concerned’ EPA
Jan 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Kary and Jack Kaskey
Chemours Co. has been asked by federal regulators to test public and private drinking water supplies in West Virginia and Ohio for a chemical it uses to make products including Teflon. -
Plastic Waste Threatens Coral Reefs
Jan 25, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Katherine Bourzac
Coral reefs around the world face an existential threat from overfishing, climate change, nutrient runoff, and ocean acidification. -
‘Go’ or ‘No Go’ Time Close for Appalachian Petrochemicals
Jan 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
The Appalachian region is teetering on the edge of decisions that could lead to a new regional petrochemical industry based on natural gas liquids from the Marcellus and Utica shales. -
Energy Policy in Trump Era Bodes Well for Americans and Business
Jan 26, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Dan Byers
At a Bismarck, North Dakota, speech in May 2016, then candidate Donald Trump outlined his “America First Energy Plan,” an ambitious, reform-focused agenda that declared U.S. energy dominance a strategic economic and foreign policy goal... -
Probe of Deadly Oklahoma Gas Well Blast Opened by U.S. Agency
Jan 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board announced Jan. 25 it was opening an investigation into a natural gas well explosion and fire that killed five oilfield workers earlier this week in eastern Oklahoma. -
Fla. Republican Opposes Changes to Safety Rules
Jan 26, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Kellie Lunney
The Trump administration's proposal to ease some Obama-era offshore drilling regulations would "significantly weaken" safeguards implemented in response to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, a Florida Republican said yesterday. -
Keystone Is Doable With New Route, Transcanada CEO Says
Jan 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Kevin Orland
Keystone XL is feasible even after Nebraska regulators imposed an alternative route. -
Sand, Water, and Horsepower: Welcome to the Year of the Fracker
Jan 26, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
Oil companies are on track to produce a record 10 million barrels of American crude a day, a milestone that could be reached as soon as February largely due to another record that is expected to fall in coming months. -
Fracking Ban for Delaware River Basin Panned at Hearing
Jan 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas
A plan to partially ban hydraulic fracturing in the Delaware River Basin drew little praise Jan. 25, with natural gas drillers saying it goes too far and environmentalists pushing to block even more activities. -
California Refiners Face Tighter Toxic Acid Rules or Outright Ban (1)
Jan 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
Valero Energy Corp. and PBF Energy Inc. refineries in the Los Angeles area could face stricter safety requirements when using hydrofluoric acid or be forced to eliminate its use altogether under a new rule local regulators are weighing. -
Hill Shrugs at $700b Jump for White House Plan
Jan 26, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Nick Sobczyk and Geof Koss
President Trump this week surprised many observers with an increased top line for his forthcoming infrastructure plan, but that doesn't seem to bother senators pushing to get their priorities included in what they hope will be a broad package. -
POLITICO Pro Q&A: Senate EPW Chairman John Barrasso
Jan 25, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Anthony Adragna
Sen. John Barrasso begins his second year atop the Environment and Public Works Committee, and he says he's committed to moving an infrastructure package that he expects will have “presidential commitment and muscle behind it.” -
Union Pacific CEO: Train Braking Technology Is Clogging the Railway
Jan 25, 2018 | Wall Street Jourbal
By Paul Ziobro
Union Pacific Corp. says new technology meant to prevent train accidents is causing congestion on the railway. -
Feds: Amtrak Engineer Missed Speed Sign Before Train Derailment
Jan 26, 2018 | The Hill - Transportation
By Mallory Shelourne
The engineer operating the Amtrak train that derailed in Washington state last month missed an advance speed sign prior to the crash, federal officials say. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Revisions To Waste Air Rule Could Prompt Environmentalist Lawsuit
Jan 25, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA has issued a final rule lifting some air monitoring requirement for off-site waste and recovery operations (OSWRO) in line with an Obama-era consent decree with a chemical industry group committing EPA to the revisions, but the changes could prompt a lawsuit... -
EPA Withdraws Air Pollution Policy
Jan 25, 2018 | Wall Street Journal
By Timothy Puko
The Trump administration is withdrawing a decades-old air policy aimed at reining in some of the largest sources of hazardous pollutants like mercury and lead. -
EPA Ends 'Once In, Always In' Air Policy, Easing Facilities' MACT Mandates
Jan 26, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA has withdrawn its contested “once in, always in” policy that subjected industrial facilities to strict maximum achievable control technology (MACT) air toxics rules for their lifetime even if they reduced and kept emissions below MACT levels... -
Texas Will Keep Enviro Rule Waiver 'as Long as Necessary'
Jan 26, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Corbin Hiar and Edward Klump
Republican Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas today suggested there was no end in sight to sweeping waivers for more than a dozen environmental regulations that he put in place after Hurricane Harvey devastated parts of the state.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) It Was a Warm December for Commodity Resins
Jan 25, 2018 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
There was nothing cold about December for North American commodity resin buyers, as most markets saw plenty of action.
Regional prices for polypropylene and PET bottle resin each ticked up a penny per pound for the month, while solid polystyrene prices saw a 5-cent jump and PVC prices slipped by 1 cent. And while prices for polyethylene were flat, debate about non-market corrections stopped anyone involved in that market from relaxing.
The December move was the third consecutive 1-cent hike for PP, which also had seen a 7-cent spike in September as the market reacted to temporary shortages caused by Hurricane Harvey. All of the cost push for higher PP prices is coming from polymer-grade propylene feedstock, according to Scott Newell, a market analyst with Resin Technology Inc. in Fort Worth, Texas.
PGP supplies have been impacted by the temporary shutdown of a DowDuPont Inc. unit and the delayed start of an Enterprise Petrochemicals unit, both in Texas. As a result of this tightness, PP price hikes of at least 5 cents per pound could hit the North American market in January, Newell added.
North American PP sales grew just over 1 percent in the first 11 months of 2017, according to the American Chemistry Council. Domestic sales grew 3 percent in that period but were softened by a 40 percent plunge in exports. Among major PP end markets, sales into sheet applications grew just over 9 percent in those 11 months.
The 1-cent PVC drop followed flat pricing in November and marked the first regional price decline since November 2016. PVC prices had moved up 3 cents in October after six straight months of flat pricing.
PVC demand has benefited from a strong U.S. construction market. U.S./Canadian PVC sales managed growth of 3 percent in the first 11 months of 2017. Domestic sales growth of 5 percent was weakened by an export sales loss of more than 1 percent. Film and sheet was the fastest-growing PVC end market, with 11-month sales growth of almost 10 percent.
The 1-cent PET hike came amid market chaos tied into the bankruptcy of M&G Polymers and feedstock constraints after Hurricane Harvey. PET prices now have increased for seven straight months, with most customers seeing 8 cents in increases since September.
M&G recently restarted a 1.2 billion-pound-capacity PET plant in Altamira, Mexico, but its 800 million-pound capacity plant in Apple Grove, W.Va., remains down. Competitor and raw materials supplied Inodrama Ventures has offered to buy the Apple Grove unit, as well as an R&D lab in Sharon Center, Ohio. The result of these closings has been tighter PET supplies.
Regional PS prices had been flat in November, but jumped 5 cents in December, following increases for benzene feedstock. Benzene prices in December surged 46 cents to $3.30 per gallon, a one-month jump of 16 percent.
Prior to November, PS prices had increased by 3 cents in both September and October, meaning prices surged 10 cents per pound in the final four months of 2017.
North American PS sales fell almost 1 percent in the first 11 months of the year. A domestic sales loss of more than 1 percent was softened by a gain of almost 12 percent in exports. In spite of the overall decline, regional sales of PS into the electrical/electronic end market surged almost 4 percent in those 11 months.
The North American PE market in December was marked by negotiations over non-market price adjustments. Some buyers received lower prices, while many others negotiated year-end price reductions that weren't reflective of pricing caused by standard factors such as supply/demand and feedstock pricing.
"Although there could be deals in the secondary markets, our experience is that the prime branded market was unexpectedly flat in December," an executive with a resin distribution firm told Plastics News. He added that although many of his firm's customers are seeking "pre-Harvey prices," fundamentals might not support such a large correction. An executive at another resin distribution firm said PE prices for his customers were flat in December as well.
An executive at a major PE packaging firm told PN that "there may have been a few non-market reductions that others are trying to turn into a marketwide decrease of 3 [cents per pound]."
"PE suppliers are flat for December and dug in very firm," added an executive at a major PE film supplier.
Although some regional PE buyers may have seen actual downward market moves for December, Plastics News is showing the overall market as flat for the month. The PN pricing chart likely will show a non-market price adjustment early in 2018, based on price concessions given in late 2017 and in previous years as well.
Prior to December, regional PE prices had been flat in November after increasing a total of 10 cents per pound from August to October, largely as a result of supply tightness from Hurricane Harvey. Looking ahead, PE market leaders DowDuPont and ExxonMobil Chemical have announced attempts to raise prices by 4 cents per pound effective Feb. 1.
U.S./Canadian PE sales were mixed in the first 11 months of 2017. Sales of high density PE were down almost 4 percent as a domestic sales gain of almost 4 percent was wiped out by a drop of almost 28 percent in exports. Water pipe was the fastest-growing HDPE end market for that period, with sales increasing more than 29 percent.
Low density PE sales ticked up more than 1 percent in those 11 months, with a domestic sales drop of more than 1 percent negated by an export sales gain of 9 percent. In spite of the overall domestic sales drop, sales of the material into non-packaging film grew 4.5 percent for those 11 months.
In linear LDPE, regional sales were up almost 2 percent as domestic growth of more than 4 percent was lowered by a 7 percent drop in exports. LLDPE sales into food packaging film were up almost 9 percent in the first 11 months of the year.
In broader feedstock markets, prices for West Texas Intermediate crude oil began December around $58 per barrel but had climbed to $60.25 by the end of the month, for a gain of almost 4 percent. U.S. natural gas prices were around $3.05 per million British thermal units at the start of December. They fell as low as $2.60 during the month before rallying to close the month close to $3.05 again.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20180126/NEWS/180129928/it-was-a-warm-december-for-commodity-resins
-
Republicans Frustrated by Lingering Agency Vacancies
Jan 26, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Anthony Adragna
Republican lawmakers are growing impatient with the Trump administration's delays in nominating candidates for energy-related positions across the federal government, creating a vacancy problem that experts say could lead to missed opportunities to put GOP policies into action.
More than a year after President Donald Trump entered the White House, the administration hasn’t picked anyone to run key positions such as the office overseeing EPA’s Superfund program, a focal point of Administrator Scott Pruitt’s agenda. There’s no one formally selected to lead the Bureau of Land Management or National Park Service, key positions in rolling out Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s public lands plans.
“It has to make it just that much more difficult within the agencies to just be so short-teamed,” Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) told POLITICO.
In total, there are currently no nominees for seven of the 17 slots at Interior requiring Senate confirmation. The figure at EPA stands at six of 13 spots, while 11 of 22 positions at the Energy Department have no nominee. There’s also been no movement on vacancies within the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, including the top spot, the longest that role has gone without a nominee.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment on whether it planned to nominate officials to the vacancies.
Some Republican lawmakers laid the blame on Democrats for drawing out the Senate confirmation process procedurally, which they say created a nomination backlog that has lessened the pressure on Trump to add more names to the waiting list. Others say lengthy confirmation battles that have forced some nominees to wait over a year for a vote have prompted potential candidates to opt of government service.
But whatever the reason, spots critical to the agendas of Cabinet members remain unfilled.
“I hear some of my colleagues just laying the blame right at the feet of the [Democrats], and, when it comes to slowing things down procedurally on the floor, there’s clearly blame there," Murkowski said. "But if we don’t even have the names that we can process through the committee to get to the floor, then you can’t pass that blame off to the Democrats. There are things that need to happen within the administration.”
The lingering vacancies perhaps should not be surprising given Trump’s vows in a November interview with Forbes that he didn't intend to fill out agency staffing. “I'm generally not going to make a lot of the appointments that would normally be — because you don't need them,” Trump said, calling some of the positions “totally unnecessary.”
To date, only 331 Trump administration nominees have been confirmed by the Senate compared to 468 OK'd by the same point in the Obama administration.
Donald Kettl, a professor with the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, said that while there are some signs of a slowdown of nominations in the Senate — it’s taken Trump nominees an average of 72 days for confirmation compared to 54 days for Obama nominees over the same time period — there’s not “a lot of evidence” that difference stems primarily from Democratic intransigence.
“Are the Democrats responsible for some of it? Sure,” he said. “Are they primarily responsible for the pace of the nominations? No.”
Experts say a slow start by the administration in nominating people, delays in completing paperwork for Congress and a packed Senate calendar that included major pushes on health care and taxes also contributed to a slow pace of conformations.
"Democrats are not to blame on this one," Paul Light, a professor at New York University's Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, said. "Although they do have somewhat more freedom to ask nominees to answer written responses to questions and are demanding more formal confirmation votes, Republicans simply did not have the nominees to send to the floor when they had the muscle. Timing is everything here. Again, steady wins the prize."
Still, lawmakers say the lengthy confirmation battles are making harder to attract people willing to serve in government.
“It’s a vicious cycle because if you can’t get the assistant secretary of whatever in, then it’s hard to get the BLM director in,” Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) said. “I know people who have been nominated already who are getting really frustrated. It’s demoralizing. They have real lives. They have bills they got to pay. We need to do better.”
Other lawmakers said that while they’d like to see the slots filled eventually, the immediate impacts on agency work would be limited.
“Would I like to see them? Yeah. Does it hamper the ability to move the agenda? No,” House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) said. “Many of the acting directors that they have right now in those areas are people that I know and respect and they’re moving in the right direction, so I’m comfortable with them.”
Some experts disagree, though, and say relying on acting officials to occupy positions requiring Senate confirmation indefinitely has consequences, since nominees undergo strict scrutiny during the process and must prove their credentials, and acting officials don't have the same political capital to move major initiatives.
"When agencies are unstaffed or lacking qualified leadership, it has an acute, corrosive effect," said William Buzbee, a law professor at Georgetown University. "That kind of effect is felt quite quickly."
Lobbying efforts continue behind the scenes from some lawmakers to get the empty slots filled. Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman John Barrasso(R-Wyo.), for example, said he continues to regularly discuss personnel matters with White House staff.
Some experts say the administration may be intentionally keeping some acting officials in positions since they doubt they could pass congressional muster. They point to Albert Kelly, Pruitt's senior adviser on Superfund issues, who joined the agency just weeks after agreeing to be banned from working in the banking industry.
Cary Coglianese, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said it was "troubling" to see the administration relying so heavily on acting officials since Republicans control the Senate.
"When an administration has a Senate majority of the same party and it’s still worrying it can’t get its nominees through, then it makes you wonder what kind of quality or what kind of views these nominees might have," he said. "It shouldn’t be so surprising that a minority party is going to be employ whatever procedural hurdles or delays they have available to them."
Others blame the continued vacancies squarely on Democratic resistance. Congressional Western Caucus Chairman Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) said the unfilled roles are “no failing” of Trump officials since nominations continue to actually outpace Senate confirmations.
“Vacancies for which there are no pending nominations might be a concern if Senate Democrats were not slow-walking or opposing every nominee proposed — but they are,” Gosar said in a statement. “And while it is obviously preferable that an Administration receive the staffing to which it is entitled, the Trump Administration has been able to make remarkable progress on land, resource and energy issues even in the face of that nomination stonewalling.”
For their part, Democrats say they aren’t surprised by the lagging nominations, and some see it as part of a broader administration to systematically weaken federal agencies through neglect.
“I think they’ll stay vacant for a while,” House Natural Resources ranking member Raúl M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.) told POLITICO. “I almost think there’s a deliberateness not to do that — to let it through atrophy just die on the vine.”
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/article/2018/01/republicans-frustrated-by-lingering-agency-vacancies-308214
-
Mandatory Reporting Deadlines Approach for Manufacturers, Importers and Users of Chemicals
Jan 26, 2018 | Lexology
By Judah Prero and Byron F. Taylor
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) inventory reset process is now taking place. The reporting deadline for chemical manufacturers and importers is Feb. 7, 2018, and the deadline for all other companies that use chemicals is Oct. 5, 2018. Meeting these deadlines is important because a chemical will not be legal for use in the United States if it is not identified, reported (or subject to an exemption) and included in the “active” TSCA inventory.
Background
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act became law on June 20, 2016. The Lautenberg Act is an amendment to TSCA and drastically changes the way the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approves and regulates chemicals and microbials. The most significant change is a new four-step process that EPA must follow to evaluate all chemicals, whether new or existing. EPA first needs to determine which chemicals are in commerce in the United States. Then it must prioritize those chemicals, making a determination which ones require a risk evaluation. EPA must then perform a risk evaluation on high-priority chemicals and, if required, regulate the chemical to ensure safe use.
Right now, industry needs to comply with the first step in the process, known as the “inventory reset.” EPA maintains a list, known as the TSCA Inventory, of all chemicals that were either in existence when TSCA was enacted or approved since that time. If a chemical is not on that list, it cannot legally be used in the United States. EPA is in the midst of determining which chemicals on the inventory are still in active commerce, referred to as the inventory reset.
Chemical manufacturers or importers need to report to EPA any chemical manufactured or imported during the 10-year period prior to June 21, 2016. This reporting must be completed by Feb. 7, 2018. EPA will then compile a preliminary list and give chemical processors — defined as any other entity that uses chemicals — an opportunity to report chemicals not previously identified. That reporting period closes Oct. 5, 2018.
This seemingly small reporting obligation has significant impact: If a chemical is not identified and reported or subject to a reporting exemption, it will not be placed on the “active” inventory, and that chemical will not be legal for use in the United States. This includes all chemicals used in manufacturing consumer electronics, juvenile products, pharmaceuticals, clothing, paints, coatings, adhesives, lubricants, cleaners etc.; even if the end product is regulated under a different statute, the constituent chemicals are still regulated under TSCA and must be included in the inventory.
Common Questions
All companies that manufacture, use, process, import, export or sell products containing chemicals must ask themselves the following questions:Do we know what chemicals we make and/or use in products or are contained in our products? If a chemical is not identified, it won’t be legal for use. If a company does not know what it uses, it cannot guarantee the legal status of the chemicals in its products.What do we know about the chemicals that we make or use or that are in our products? If you do not know the supplier, formulator or distributor, it may be difficult to ensure that the responsible party is indeed reporting. This is a particular concern for entities that import chemicals solely for further distribution. Under TSCA, an importer has the same legal obligation as a manufacturer, and therefore importers need to report. Companies may need to obtain new compliance certifications from suppliers to cover this new obligation.Does anyone else make or use the same chemical? Although the law requires each manufacturer/importer to report, if you are a user and know that there are multiple manufacturers, it increases the likelihood that the chemical is being reported.Is any information we have confidential business information? EPA recognizes that many manufacturers will not divulge the exact identity of chemicals supplied to customers due to concerns about confidential business information. EPA allows for joint submissions, but these submissions need to be coordinated.
As mentioned, the initial reporting period closes in less than a month and the reporting period for chemical processors ends on Oct. 8, 2018. Accordingly, businesses should now consider whether they need to take additional steps to meet these obligations.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=205373f5-9406-455b-a871-1cf11370115a
-
(ACC Mentioned) Commentary: It’s Time to Ban Tide Pods for Good
Jan 25, 2018 | Fortune
By Harold I. Zeliger
Recently, videos have circulated on social media showing teens deliberately eating Tide Pods laundry detergent packs. All of this is part of what some call the “Tide Pod Challenge.”
These pods contain highly concentrated laundry detergent under pressure and explode when bitten into, releasing their toxic contents and causing rapid ingestion and inhalation of dangerous chemicals. In my capacity as a toxic chemical researcher and consultant, I have investigated and seen several instances of the horrendous consequences that result from laundry pack ingestion: permanent burning of the mouth, throat, digestive tract, and lung tissue, and in some cases even death.
Procter & Gamble (P&G), the manufacturer of Tide Pods, as well as other companies selling laundry detergent packs, have acted in the past to stem the misuse of their products. But these safety measures have failed.
It’s clear that laundry pods as they currently exist are too dangerous to be sold to the public. If P&G and other manufacturers can’t figure out a way to reduce the more than 10,000 injuries they cause each year, laundry packs need to be taken off the market.
Pod manufacturers have failed to protect consumers for years. In 2012, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a report outlining how they could pose a serious health hazard to children, especially those under five years old. In response, manufacturers improved the warning labels on packages and backed educational campaigns on the proper use of the packs. In 2015, manufacturers created new standards to address the safety complaints, changing the outer containers of the pods from clear to opaque, making the outer containers more difficult for children to open, coating the detergent pods with a bitter substance, and thickening the pods’ outer film to make them more difficult to puncture.
These steps don’t appear to have helped. According to the American Association of Poison Control Centers, 10,395 laundry pack injuries were reported in 2013; that number rose to a peak of 12,594 in 2015 before dropping to 10,570 in 2017—no progress in four years. They also continue to be especially dangerous to adults with dementia, according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
The Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA) states that consumer chemical products must contain warnings that alert the user to their toxic and physical dangers, take steps to package them so that they are safe to use as marketed, and protect children from ingesting or otherwise abusing them. The American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) Responsible Care Program instructs companies to address any significant hazards posed by their products and make changes in these products and their warnings as new information becomes available.
The problem is that manufacturers have not taken sufficient steps to make these packs unpalatable and less appealing to the people vulnerable to ingesting them. In failing to do so, they have failed to comply with FHSA regulations and ACC guidelines. P&G has faced several lawsuits over these poisonings; I offered expert testimony for one such case. As with most lawsuits of this sort, P&G quietly settled out of court and the terms were not disclosed.
Pod manufacturers claim they are doing everything they can to make their products safe. This simply isn’t true.
First, manufacturers can make a stronger effort to find a substance vile enough to prevent even teens hoping to impress friends from putting pods in their mouths. Even though they coat pods with a bitter-tasting substance, that obviously that hasn’t been sufficient. P&G and others need to do more research and testing to find an outer coating so disgusting that people immediately spit it out when it comes into contact with their mouths.
Manufacturers could also change the pods’ bright, candy-like colors to white, reduce their pleasant smell, and make them feel less squishy, changes that would make pods less attractive to children, teens, and adults with mental disabilities. These companies have resisted pressure to do so in the past; now that we are in a full-blown crisis, they must be open to any idea that could reduce injuries.
All hazardous chemical products introduced to the market are at some point misused or abused, no matter how well designed. But as they are currently produced and marketed, laundry pods are defective products that are inherently unsafe. If P&G and other manufacturers can’t make them safer, then they should no longer be allowed to sell them in stores.
Harold I. Zeliger is a principal at Zeliger Research and Consulting and a consultant with The Expert Institute.
http://fortune.com/2018/01/25/tide-pods-challenge-eating-laundry-video/
-
Chemours Asked to Test Water for Teflon Agent by ‘Concerned’ EPA
Jan 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Kary and Jack Kaskey
Chemours Co. has been asked by federal regulators to test public and private drinking water supplies in West Virginia and Ohio for a chemical it uses to make products including Teflon.
A Jan. 11 letter from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, seen by Bloomberg News, asks for the tests to begin no later than March 31 because the agency is “concerned” that water sources may be contaminated with a chemical known as GenX. The tests will be conducted in communities on both sides of the Ohio River near Chemours’ Parkersburg, W. Va, plant, also known as Washington Works.
The letter cites prior testing and similar issues near the company's plant in Fayetteville, N.C., where Chemours is supplying bottled water to some residents.
The new tests are another chapter in a long saga of regulatory and legal inquiries into chemicals made by Chemours that are used to produce non-stick, grease-proof and waterproof products. Chemours, spun off from DuPont Co. in 2015, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Before GenX, a chemical known as PFOA was used, and then phased out. The class of chemicals, more broadly known as PFCs, have also prompted lawsuits against 3M Co.
PFOA has been linked to health issues including testicular cancer and ulcerative colitis. Pollution from the Parkersburg location spurred personal injury lawsuits and a $671 million settlement; a plant in the Netherlands has also raised concerns about that chemical. Chemours has received a grand jury subpoena for GenX discharges near Fayetteville into the Cape Fear river.
The EPA's concern is “based in part upon the fact that GenX has been detected in three on-site production wells and one on-site drinking water well, at the Washington Works facility,” the agency said in the Jan. 11 letter. It seeks testing of raw and treated water to see if treatment systems are adequately filtering out the chemical, according to the letter.
In 2013, DuPont stopped using PFOA at the Parkersburg plant, according to the EPA's letter. The same year, DuPont announced plans to spin off certain chemical assets as Chemours.
DuPont, now part of DowDuPont Inc., has agreed to share PFOA liabilities with Chemours. Both companies last year received subpoenas from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of North Carolina regarding discharges into the Cape Fear River.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=127424120&vname=dennotallissues&fn=127424120&jd=127424120
-
Plastic Waste Threatens Coral Reefs
Jan 25, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Katherine Bourzac
Coral reefs around the world face an existential threat from overfishing, climate change, nutrient runoff, and ocean acidification. Now researchers have added another hazard to the list: plastic waste. In a survey of reefs in the Asia-Pacific region, marine biologists found that contact with plastic garbage increased corals’ risk of disease from 4 to 89% (Science 2018, DOI: 10.1126/science.aar3320).
Researchers and environmentalists have been sounding the alarm about the 4.8 to 12.7 million metric tons of plastic that lands in the oceans every year. Still, says Douglas Rader, chief oceans scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund and one of the study’s coleaders, the strong connection between coral disease and plastic was extremely surprising. “This is striking, particularly in the context of all the other risks to reefs,” he says.
The plastics study, an international effort involving researchers from Cornell University and collaborators in Indonesia, Hawaii, and Australia, studied 159 reefs in Myanmar, Australia, Thailand, and Indonesia. Researchers looked for signs of disease, including bands of necrotic tissue on the corals. They also noted whether the corals were in contact with pieces of plastic 50 mm in diameter or larger. Courtney Couch, a coral disease ecologist at the Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology who surveyed reefs in Indonesia, says she saw many corals wrapped in plastic fishing lines and plastic bags.
This study is the first to show that plastic waste is associated with risk of disease in a marine organism. Although the researchers didn’t establish a mechanism to explain the correlation, Couch notes that plastic ocean trash can carry pathogens. Plastic also can wrap around coral, which causes stress and in turn leaves the organism vulnerable to infection.
Marine chemist Tracy Mincer of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, who says he reads studies about plastic in the ocean with a skeptical eye, is convinced. “It is a lot of work to do these surveys, and the increased disease susceptibility is a big signal,” he says. The study opens the door to further research on the marine-plastic microbiome and its effects on ecosystems, Mincer says.
Rader notes that some biologists expect the world’s reef ecosystems to almost entirely collapse by 2050. “That’s a profound risk, not just to biodiversity but also to hundreds of millions of people’s livelihoods and well-being,” Rader says. But plastic pollution is a more tangible problem for coral than climate change, Couch says, and can be addressed through better waste management strategies and by using less plastic.
https://cen.acs.org/articles/96/i5/Plastic-waste-threatens-coral-reefs.html
-
‘Go’ or ‘No Go’ Time Close for Appalachian Petrochemicals
Jan 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
The Appalachian region is teetering on the edge of decisions that could lead to a new regional petrochemical industry based on natural gas liquids from the Marcellus and Utica shales.
Gas processing capacities in the region keep growing, and a $6 billion petrochemical project by Royal Dutch Shell Plc may have gone beyond the point where turning back would make any economic sense. Other plans for chemical manufacturing, pipelines, and storage are tentative but close to final investment decisions.
“I think it's fair to say there are investments being made today that will transform the region,” said David Spigelmyer, president of the Marcellus Shale Coalition, a Pittsburgh-based energy industry association.
He's understandably hopeful, given his supporting role, but the governments of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio also are very supportive. They are dreaming of an industry that would step in where steelmaking and other heavy industries have faded. The region could soon learn how substantial those dreams are.
The next big step, according to Spigelmyer and others who spoke to Bloomberg Environment, could be a final investment decision by PTT Global Chemical and Marubeni Corp., which have been considering building a large petrochemical plant in eastern Ohio. A significant and positive project update will be announced early in 2018, PTT said in December.
Fast-Growing Capacities
Natural gas production in the Appalachian region has soared from about 2 billion cubic feet a day in 2010 to an estimated 26 billion cubic feet a day in January, according to the Energy Information Administration.
Gas processing plants have been multiplying in western Pennsylvania, northern West Virginia, and eastern Ohio. The plants separate methane—the dominant component of natural gas—from natural gas liquids (NGLs). Gas processing plant capacity grew from 1.1 billion cubic feet a day in 2010 to 10 billion cubic feet a day in 2016, according to the EIA.
The capacity of fractionation to separate the various natural gas liquids—especially ethane, propane, and butane—also grew in the region. The regional fractionation capacity jumped from 41,000 barrels a day in 2010 to nearly 850,000 barrels daily in 2016 and should reach 1.1 million barrels a day in 2019, according to the EIA.
That 1.1 million barrels a day is expected to include 350,000 barrels a day of ethane. Ethane crackers are large processing units that use heat to convert ethane molecules into ethylene molecules, which then can be fed into another unit for conversion into polyethylene, one of the most common petrochemical building blocks for plastics, resins, and other synthetic materials.
About 70 percent of the primary plastics manufacturing plants in the U.S. are within a seven-hour drive of Pittsburgh, according to Spigelmyer. Savings on transportation time and costs provide an added incentive for regional production of polyethylene, which can be shipped in pellet form by truck or rail.
Shell Cracker in the Works
The most significant development so far has been the multibillion-dollar ethane cracker project being developed by Shell in Monaca, Pa. It has reached a crucial stage, with extensive site preparation completed and the company set to start building the two main units—an ethane cracker to produce ethylene and unit to turn the ethylene into polyethylene.
Shell did not respond to requests about the status of its project, but many people are tracking the work. The company has realigned a highway and a rail line, put in docks, and built foundations, according to Warren Wilczewski, an EIA industry economist.
“It's very difficult to dial that project back to nothing,” Wilczewski said in early January. “They're now on the hook for more than half of the outlay on that project.”
Most of Shell's equipment requiring extensive delivery times may already have been delivered, said Steve Lewandowski, vice president of olefins at consulting company IHS Markit Ltd. And Shell may have taken steps to allow for the option of going beyond what it has announced so far, he said Jan. 22.
“What we understand is they've sort of prepped that site for a second train,” Lewandowski said, referring to a second set of ethylene-polyethylene production units.
Shell has lined up long-term ethane supply contracts with regional producers, and the company's marketers are presumed to be negotiating offtake agreements for companies to buy its polyethylene pellets. It also has plans for building pipelines to ship ethane from regional fractionation plants to its complex in Monaca. And it has paid for the licensing of polyethylene manufacturing technology, Lewandowski said.
Next Big Cracker, Maybe
PTT Global Chemical has spent several years studying the idea of building an ethane cracker complex in Belmont County, Ohio, 50 or 60 miles down the Ohio River from the Shell project. It's said to be a $5 billion project. About $100 million was committed in 2015 to contracts with Fluor Corp. and Bechtel Corp. for the engineering design work that would determine costs more accurately.
PTT is Thailand's largest integrated petrochemical and oil refining company. Japanese conglomerate and trading house Marubeni is the minority partner for the project.
“PTT is getting close to making a final investment decision,” Lewandowski said. “They're still doing due diligence.”
The company said last December that it will have a significant update early in 2018 that “will demonstrate positive momentum” for this project.
The project has the support of Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R), just as the Shell project is supported by Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf (D). Kasich joined the PTT president and CEO for a 2015 announcement of the site selection, and he stressed the elaborate efforts to bring together state, local, and federal officials to back the project for the sake of jobs and economic development.
“We can get the air permits,” Kasich said at the time, mentioning contacts with the Environmental Protection Agency. “We've already checked it.”
The location selected in Ohio is a former oil refinery, while the Shell site in Monaca used to be a metal-processing facility. Former industrial sites needing revitalization abound in eastern Ohio and western Pennsylvania, and there is a reserve of skilled industrial workers.
Ethane Leaving by Pipeline
Ethane also is being shipped out of the region by pipelines to Ontario petrochemical makers, the Gulf Coast, and the port of Marcus Hook, Pa., where the product can be taken to Europe by tanker ship. More pipelines can be built, but the economics favor local use.
The Gulf Coast is the heart of U.S. petrochemical manufacturing, but the pipeline now taking ethane from the Marcellus and Utica shales may be the only one, because it's not a profitable way for the ethane producers. It was merely a disposal strategy for surplus ethane, EIA's Wilczewski said.
Enterprise Products Partners L.P. reversed one of its Teppco pipelines to carry Appalachian ethane to Mont Belvieu, Texas, the main hub for natural gas liquids. The shipping cost on that line, the Appalachia-to-Texas Express (ATEX), is more than $3 per million British thermal units of ethane, and that's close to the selling price of ethane at Mont Belvieu, leaving no profit for the producers.
Producing companies were willing to pay for the ATEX project because they could not simply mix all their ethane into their methane streams as natural gas. The high ethane content would have raised the heat content of the gas beyond pipeline specifications.
Propane Options Discounted
Propane also is common in Appalachian gas and can be used to make propylene and then polypropylene. That, however, would be a much more difficult business proposition than turning ethane into polyethylene, Wilczewski said.
The propane market is so strong and so well-served by railroads to the Midwest and farther—as far as Mexico—that there is less financial motivation for trying to develop Appalachian polypropylene, he said.
Lewandowski at IHS Markit agreed, saying ethane is more of a “stranded product” than propane, a contrast that favors using ethane rather than propane for local chemical manufacturing. The U.S. polypropylene market is not growing much, he added.
More Infrastructure Wanted
The Appalachian region also could benefit from natural gas liquids storage, which would allow for a place to put surplus gas liquids produced but awaiting use. One project has been planned and a broader idea for projects is being explored.
The Mountaineer NGL Storage project, proposed by Energy Storage Ventures LLC with financial backing from Goldman Sachs, would store natural gas liquids underground in Monroe County, Ohio. Energy Storage Ventures has been trying to line up customers.
The governments of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio also are trying to financially support natural gas liquids infrastructure development through what they have named the Tri-State Shale Coalition.
The best idea would be to develop more NGL pipelines and more than one storage site to allow for a trading hub, according to Brian Anderson, a chemical engineering professor at West Virginia University. That would be more efficient and flexible than relying on long-term contracts between natural gas liquids producers and petrochemical makers, he said.
A gas liquids trading hub like Mont Belvieu in Texas, with storage amid a network of pipelines, can allow buyers and sellers to participate in the market when they choose, as volumes become available and prices fluctuate, favorably or unfavorably.
The Trump administration also wants to foster energy infrastructure and economic development. The Energy Department has invited the Appalachia Development Group LLC to apply for a $1.9 billion loan guarantee for infrastructure development. Anderson has been working with Appalachia Development Group, which is made up especially of people who have experience in the chemical industry.
The loan guarantee would ease debt financing for projects.
Seeking Commitments
Part of the holdup for financial decision-making is the chicken-and-egg question of what comes first—infrastructure or petrochemical manufacturing projects to use the infrastructure. Anderson suggested the primary task is to get commitments for manufacturing.
A big ethane cracker facility can take five or six years to build. Pipelines and storage can be built in much less time, so if a commitment is made to build a cracker, the pipelines and storage can then draw commitments and get built in much less time, Anderson said.
Storage would involve creating caverns in salt beds. Water pumped underground can dissolve salt to create the caverns.
Spigelmyer at the Marcellus Shale Coalition offered an additional cautionary note. Political risk remains an issue despite state government support, he said.
He did not single out particular sources of risk, but there's a continuing push in Pennsylvania to create severance taxes for gas production. At the same time, the interstate Delaware River Basin Commissionhas been considering a proposed ban on hydraulic fracturing, a practice that has helped enable the shale gas boom.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=127424106&vname=dennotallissues&fn=127424106&jd=127424106
-
Energy Policy in Trump Era Bodes Well for Americans and Business
Jan 26, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Dan Byers
At a Bismarck, North Dakota, speech in May 2016, then candidate Donald Trump outlined his “America First Energy Plan,” an ambitious, reform-focused agenda that declared U.S. energy dominance a strategic economic and foreign policy goal and promised to lift restrictions on American energy to create a flood of new jobs.
As the Trump administration enters its second year, it makes sense to take stock of progress made on the president’s ambitious agenda. Most people are familiar with the big ticket items, including approval of the Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipelines, clearing the way for oil and gas leasing in the Arctic and outercontinental shelf, and steps taken to repeal and rewrite the Environmental Protection Agency’s onerous and unlawful “Clean Power Plan.”
While these high-profile actions illustrate the president’s consistent emphasis on advancing U.S. energy for economic growth, the collective impact from scores of other measures may be an even bigger part of the energy story of the last 12 months. Our comprehensive Energy Trackerprovides a unique and detailed look at these individual actions that are an easily-forgotten part of the bigger picture.
For example, the tracker shows that, as of his first year in office, President Trump has issued eight executive orders impacting energy (either directly or indirectly through regulatory directives) and four presidential memoranda on energy (all focused on pipelines and permitting). He signed four public laws directly impacting the energy sector (three under the Congressional Review Act and tax reform legislation authorizing leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge).
In turn, executive branch agencies are moving swiftly to implement these directives in a manner that allows for safe and responsible resource development. For example, the Department of Interior is steadily expanding access to U.S. energy resources placed off limits by excessively burdensome Obama-era policies.
To do so, they are advancing new oil and gas leases and repealing or revising rules on everything from hydraulic fracturing and venting and flaring on federal lands to land use restrictions via monument designations and sage grouse regulations. Over at the EPA, reconsideration of major rules related to ozone, methane, regional haze, and “Waters of the United States” are all underway as part of a process that aims to ensure that the U.S. remains a global leader in environmental stewardship while reining in the agency’s overreach.
Even these numerous examples are a fraction of the overall picture. Tracker data shows that, across the government, the Trump administration has finalized action on 17 different energy-related regulatory and policy reforms, released formal proposals addressing seven more areas, and has initiated reviews for potential changes in 16 more areas. (These figures do not include project-specific actions such as leases or permit approvals.)
While much work needs to be done in both the executive and judicial branches to get all of these reforms across the finish line, by any objective measure it is clear that substantial progress has been made. Whatever their ultimate outcome, the number and comprehensive scope of these important pro-energy actions send an unmistakable and powerful signal: American energy policy is and will remain foundational to the Trump administration’s strategy to spur economic growth, jobs and investment.
This continued focus is sure to strengthen and accelerate the industry trends that have led America to become the world’s energy superpower, translating into higher production, lower prices, and greater energy and economic security. That is good news for U.S. energy producers and consumers alike, and it will truly make a difference in the pocketbooks of families and businesses that depend on affordable and reliable energy for their success.
Dan Byers is vice president of policy at the Global Energy Institute at theU.S. Chamber of Commerce.
http://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/370742-energy-policy-in-trump-era-bodes-well-for-americans-and-business
-
Probe of Deadly Oklahoma Gas Well Blast Opened by U.S. Agency
Jan 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board announced Jan. 25 it was opening an investigation into a natural gas well explosion and fire that killed five oilfield workers earlier this week in eastern Oklahoma.
The board, an independent agency that investigates industrial accidents, said it was moving forward with a “full investigation” into the incident, one of the deadliest for the oil and gas industry in years. The Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration is probing the incident as well, a spokeswoman said.
The explosion at the rig owned by Patterson-UTI Energy Inc. was caused by an uncontrolled release of gas that caught fire, according to an initial report by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, the state's regulator of oil and gas operations. A worker at the well, in Quinton, Oklahoma, about 100 miles southeast of Tulsa, tried unsuccessfully to shut it down, the report said. The well is owned by closely held Red Mountain Energy LLC.
Seventeen of the 22 workers at the facility escaped the burning gas extraction rig, which was leveled in the explosion, Pittsburg County Sheriff Chris Morris said. The five employees who were killed were in an area of the drilling rig known as the “dog house” where the rig hands worked, Morris said.
At least 10 workers have died on the job at Patterson-UTI since 2005, OSHA records show.
“Patterson-UTI has embraced a culture of continuous improvement in safety, training and operations,” the Houston-based company's outside spokesman, Brian Brooks, said in a Jan. 25 statement. “In recent years, we have invested millions of dollars on training and protective equipment and worked to instill a companywide culture where safety is the top priority of each employee.”
—With assistance from Sam Pearson (Bloomberg Environment)
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=127424128&vname=dennotallissues&fn=127424128&jd=127424128
-
Fla. Republican Opposes Changes to Safety Rules
Jan 26, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Kellie Lunney
The Trump administration's proposal to ease some Obama-era offshore drilling regulations would "significantly weaken" safeguards implemented in response to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, a Florida Republican said yesterday.
Rep. Vern Buchanan sent a letter yesterday to Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke opposing the department's proposed rule to revise or do away with "potentially burdensome" 2016 regulations on production safety systems and equipment.
"It is not only extremely premature to back off of these newly-implemented safety regulations, but it could also be catastrophic to Florida's pristine beaches and coastal economies," the lawmaker wrote, adding that his constituents were "severely impacted" by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
Buchanan also questioned the department's assertion that the Obama-era standards imposed too much red tape on the oil and gas industry.
"If these safeguards are so burdensome then why is the oil industry enjoying record profits? The U.S. is currently producing over 10 million barrels of oil per day — a level we have not reached since the 1970s, rivaling the world's top producer, Russia," the lawmaker said.
Buchanan's letter was an official comment on the proposed rule that Interior's Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement published in the Federal Register last month. The public comment period on the proposal ends Monday.
One current requirement that could be eliminated under a new final rule directs offshore drillers to obtain third-party certification on the soundness of their critical safety equipment. The administration also seeks to make changes to the production safety systems rule, which oversees the use and maintenance of blowout preventers.
"I urge you to reject these ill-advised proposals," Buchanan wrote. "Don't weaken safety regulations for off-shore oil rigs."
Earlier this month, 21 Republican and Democratic members of the Florida congressional delegation, including Buchanan, sent a letter to Interior opposing changes to the BSEE safety rules put in place after Deepwater.
Buchanan also opposes the administration's proposal to open the eastern Gulf of Mexico off the Florida coast to oil and gas drilling when the current moratorium expires in 2022.
Zinke tweeted Jan. 9 that he was "taking #Florida off the table for offshore oil and gas" and attached a statement saying, "I am removing Florida from consideration for any new oil and gas platforms."
That ignited a firestorm of criticism from many other elected officials in coastal states who want to opt out of leasing in the 2019-24 plan.
But last Friday, Walter Cruickshank, acting director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, contradicted that tweet. He told a House panel that Florida was "still part of the analysis until the secretary gives us an official decision otherwise" (Greenwire, Jan. 19).
Separately, several California Democrats, including Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris, asked Interior yesterday to hold more public meetings in the state on the administration's offshore drilling proposal and how it would affect California.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/01/26/stories/1060072019
-
Keystone Is Doable With New Route, Transcanada CEO Says
Jan 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Kevin Orland
Keystone XL is feasible even after Nebraska regulators imposed an alternative route.
That was the message from TransCanada Corp.’s chief executive officer in the latest indication that the company may lean towards building the pipeline that will ship crude from the oil sands and connect to a network stretching all the way to the Gulf of Mexico. It doesn't mean, though, that the Calgary-based pipeline giant has made a decision yet.
“We're comfortable that they came to a decision that was within their jurisdiction and within the law,” TransCanda CEO Russ Girling said in response to questions during a presentation at a Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce conference in Whistler, British Columbia. “That was what our primary concern was.”
He said the alternate route for the Keystone XL pipeline that was approved by Nebraska regulators doesn't present major issues for construction.
The company won't have significant additional spending and won't need much extra pipe to build along the new route, Girling said. TransCanada's evaluation after the regulators’ decision to allow the alternate route was more about the legality of the decision, he said.
TransCanada will now focus on acquiring land along the new path and obtaining the other permits it needs, he said. The company still hasn't made an official decision on whether to build the project, he added.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=127424118&vname=dennotallissues&fn=127424118&jd=127424118
-
Sand, Water, and Horsepower: Welcome to the Year of the Fracker
Jan 26, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
Oil companies are on track to produce a record 10 million barrels of American crude a day, a milestone that could be reached as soon as February largely due to another record that is expected to fall in coming months.
By the end of the year, fracking intensity is projected to exceed levels reached in 2014 - the height of the so-called shale revolution - as hydraulic fracturing operations use more sand, more water and more pumping horsepower than ever before to free oil and gas from shale rock. The result: U.S. crude production should reach an all-time high with just half the number of drilling rigs used at the peak of the last energy boom.
Welcome to the year of the fracker.
The controversial technology that transformed the U.S. energy industry and reshaped global oil markets has advanced to a new level, becoming more science than art as fracking operations run round the clock, target ever smaller sections of wells with greater precision and greater force, and squeeze more oil out of every well.
"It never stops," said David Adams, senior vice president for completions and production for Halliburton of Houston. "We're pushing the limits."
As fracking plays an even larger role in oil production, it is boosting oilfield services companies like Halliburton that employ tens of thousands of people in Houston and Texas as well as creating more jobs near the state's shale fields, particularly the Permian Basin in West Texas, and increasing the flow of oil and gas to fuel an export boom of crude, chemicals and liquefied natural gas along the Gulf Coast.
It also is intensifying environmental concerns about air and water pollution, the destruction of habitat, the future of endangered species and increased number of earthquakes, which have been tied to the millions of barrels of chemical-laced wastewater that are pumped into deep, underground disposal wells.
As fracking plays an even larger role in oil production, it is boosting oilfield services companies like Halliburton that employ tens of thousands of people in Houston and Texas as well as creating more jobs near the state's shale fields, particularly the Permian Basin in West Texas, and increasing the flow of oil and gas to fuel an export boom of crude, chemicals and liquefied natural gas along the Gulf Coast.
It also is intensifying environmental concerns about air and water pollution, the destruction of habitat, the future of endangered species and increased number of earthquakes, which have been tied to the millions of barrels of chemical-laced wastewater that are pumped into deep, underground disposal wells.
In 2018, there is one fracking fleet for every two drilling rigs, up from one fleet for every four rigs a few years ago. The number of sections, or stages, of a well the get fracked has doubled, from about 25 to 50.
Fracking is powered by fleets of a dozen or more semi-trucks connected to pressure pumps which increasingly run 24-hours a day, seven days a week. The U.S. record for pressure pumping intensity, set in 2014 was about 18 million horsepower. Already this year, frackers have deployed roughly 15 million horsepower and analysts project it could hit 19 million by the end of the year as new fracking fleets are assembled.
Halliburton, which leads North American fracking market, said it built a handful of new fleets at the end of the last year and is likely to add more. Schlumberger, the world's largest oilfield services company, said it may spend $100 million to upgrade and unleash 20 fracking fleets recently acquired from Weatherford International, which has its main operations in Houston.
"It's just massively increased in a short period of time," said James West, an energy analyst at the research firm Evercore ISI. "It's a big industrialization effort."
The fracker rises - again
That effort is only expected to grow with some 7,000 drilled wells waiting to be fracked, nearly double the number in 2014, when oil prices were still at $100 a barrel. ProPetro, a Midland oilfield services company, said it could double its number of fracking crews from 10 at the beginning of 2017 to 20 by the end of this year. ProPetro's 17th fracking fleet is about to come online..
Each fracking fleet requires a crew of about 30 people, about 15 for each 12-hour shift. ProPetro has tripled its workforce in less than 18 months, from 400 to 1,200 - all working in the Permian.
"It's pretty unprecedented to add capacity at that pace," said Dale Redman, ProPetro's CEO and co-founder. "It's been an unbelievable transition to watch."
Houston-based Patterson-UTI Energy is known for its drilling, but the company's fracking revenues exceeded 50 percent for the first time late last year. That trend is expected to continue for the foreseeable future as it keeps starting up more fracking fleets, said Mark Siegel, the company chairman.
"Fracking is becoming an ever-more-important expense of each well," Siegel said.
This week, five workers were killed in Oklahoma in an explosion involving a Patterson-UTI rig. Siegel was interviewed before the tragedy.
Byron Pope, an energy analyst at the Houston investment bank Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co., suggested that fracking horsepower may become a better indicator of U.S. oil and gas production than the rig count, as companies introduce high-tech rigs that can drill more wells that are longer and closer together. The active U.S. rig count was 936 last week, more than double its recent low of 404 in May 2016, but far below the nearly 2,000 rigs that were operating in 2014.
"The rig count is roughly half the prior peak, but horsepower demand is going to get back above that peak," Pope said. "It's silently outpaced the rig count."
The pivot to fracking was anticipated this year, but the big question now is how much activity might accelerate if oil prices stay near $65 a barrel compared to $45 at mid-2017.
Exploration and production companies are expected by analysts to boost spending in U.S. oilfields by least 20 percent this year - likely more - and much of that increase will go to cover the costs of fracking crews working in the Permian Basin and other U.S. shale fields.
"The main issue is oil prices are that much stronger than what everyone was expecting coming into the year," said Bill Herbert, a senior energy analyst at Piper Jaffray & Co. in Houston. "That's huge."
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/fracking-2018-american-crude-oil-production-12524642.php?t=b71b7c1902
-
Fracking Ban for Delaware River Basin Panned at Hearing
Jan 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas
A plan to partially ban hydraulic fracturing in the Delaware River Basin drew little praise Jan. 25, with natural gas drillers saying it goes too far and environmentalists pushing to block even more activities.
“If you allow fracking to occur anywhere in the Delaware River watershed, you will create a public health disaster,” Walter Tsou, former Philadelphia health commissioner and interim executive director of the Philadelphia Physicians for Social Responsibility, said at a hearing on the proposal in Philadelphia.
The Delaware River Basin Commission, the federal-interstate agency that oversees water quality in the Delaware River, proposed a ban on high-volume hydraulic fracturing in the 13,539 square-mile river basin, which spans portions of Delaware, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania and provides drinking water to more than 15 million people. If enacted, it would make official a de facto moratorium on fracking that has been in place since 2010.
The proposed rules have potential to affect the business of companies such as Range Resources Corp., EQT Corp., Rice Energy Inc., Chevron Corp., and Cabot Oil & Gas Corp., which have wells elsewhere in Pennsylvania. The Marcellus Shale formation underlies about 36 percent of the watershed. Fracking is allowed in the neighboring Susquehanna River Basin.
The ban is unnecessary because recent studies show that hydraulic fracturing is not a threat to drinking water or water quality, Jonathan Lutz, associate director of the Associated Petroleum Industries of Pennsylvania, said at the hearing. The industry creates as many as 320,000 jobs directly and indirectly in Pennsylvania, he said.
Industry groups such as the Marcellus Shale Coalition and the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry have called on state leaders to reject efforts to adopt a permanent moratorium on fracking and related activities in the basin.
Ban All Activities: Environmentalists
Environmental groups said a complete ban on fracking is needed. They criticized the proposal because it would allow disposal of fracking wastewater in the basin and would also allow drillers to withdraw water from the basin to be used in fracking operations elsewhere.
More than 11,000 unconventional wells have been drilled in Pennsylvania, state Rep. Greg Vitali (D) said at the hearing, calling for a total ban on fracking activities.
“There should be places in Pennsylvania where fracking does not occur and the Delaware River Basin should be one of those places,” Vitali said.
David Kinney, Mid-Atlantic policy director for Trout Unlimited, said he was concerned about provisions in the proposed rules that allow withdrawal and export of water out of the watershed.
The provisions on water export do not adequately deal with how withdrawals would be regulated or what the impact of withdrawing potentially millions of of gallons of water would have on water resources, such as trout fisheries, Kinney said.
The hearing in Philadelphia was the second in a series of hearings that began in Waymart, Pa., on Jan. 23. Another hearing will be held in Schnecksville, Pa., on Feb. 22 and a conference call will be held on March 6.
“A true ban must not only keep fracking out of the Delaware River Basin, but all of the dangerous industrial activity that goes with it,” Rob Friedman, a policy advocate for the Natural Resources Defense Council, testified Jan. 23 at the hearing in Waymart, according to a statement.
The Delaware River Basin Commission is a five-member agency that includes the governors of Delaware, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, as well as a representative of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers who serves as the federal representative.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=127424112&vname=dennotallissues&fn=127424112&jd=127424112
-
California Refiners Face Tighter Toxic Acid Rules or Outright Ban (1)
Jan 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
Valero Energy Corp. and PBF Energy Inc. refineries in the Los Angeles area could face stricter safety requirements when using hydrofluoric acid or be forced to eliminate its use altogether under a new rule local regulators are weighing.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District is still weeks away from releasing a draft rule, but the latest iteration backs off banning the chemical outright as suggested in April 2017.
A final rule could be adopted as early as July 6, according to the air district that regulates stationary sources of air pollution in Southern California.
Three-tiered Approach
Prompted by public and worker safety concerns after a 2015 explosion, the three-tiered Rule 1410 that the air district is floating would require additional safety measures and equipment six to 12 months after adoption, according to a presentation by the air district.
State-of-the-art sensors, cameras, automated safety systems, and additional barriers at the plants would be required within two to three years, the presentation said. Eight years after the rule takes effect, the chemical would have to be stored in underground tanks, and the refineries’ alkylation units, where hydrofluoric acid is used, would need to be fully enclosed.
Cost for the first phase of the rule would run from $2.5 million to $6 million, according to a study the air district commissioned. The second tier of requirements would cost another $50 million to $100 million, and the final phase $50 million to $150 million.
The refineries could forgo those requirements altogether by switching to an alternative, like sulfuric acid. But the air district's refinery committee wants a more developed proposal.
“Valero will continue to work with district staff,” company spokesman Lillian Riojas told Bloomberg Environment in a Jan. 23 email.
Explosion Triggered Concern
A 2015 explosion at the PBF Energy refinery in Torrance, then owned by Exxon Mobil, revived the air district's decades-old effort to address the public health risks associated with hydrofluoric acid use.
A 40-ton piece of debris narrowly missed a tank holding thousands of pounds of the chemical, which federal investigators declared a “near miss” catastrophic accident.
The chemical has a low boiling point and, if accidentally released, can form a dense, ground-hugging toxic and potentially lethal cloud, which could have migrated to nearby heavily populated areas, according to the air district. Other exposure hazards include severe skin and deep tissue burns, harm to bone structure, damage to the respiratory system, and severe eye irritation.
Around 50 U.S. refineries use hydrofluoric acid or a modified form in their alkylation units to produce high-octane gasoline, according to a United Steelworkers report. The report further said that about 12,000 workers could be exposed to the chemical at 23 of those refineries, where the union is present.
PBF Energy's Torrance refinery and the Valero refinery in Wilmington are the only two in California that use the chemical, but both use a chemical additive to modify hydrofluoric acid.
Other California refineries use less risky sulfuric acid or don't have alkylation units.
Earlier Effort Suspended
Litigation suspended the air district's first stab at forcing the two refineries to abandon hydrofluoric acid by 1998, but a settlement agreement prompted the switch to the modified form of the chemical.
Valero and PBF Energy continue to resist a rule requiring a switch to sulfuric acid or another alternative, which the companies’ studies estimate could cost $600 million to $900 million. They have suggested closing the refineries if forced to stop using modified hydrofluoric acid, resulting in the loss of thousands of jobs.
Both refineries assure regulators they have adequate safety measures and systems.
The refinery committee has “heard and recognized the proven safety record on the use of MHF (modified hydrofluoric acid) and how vital these refineries are to the public,” Riojas from Valero said.
PBF Energy couldn't be reached for comment by Bloomberg Environment.
Residents Want Ban
Local advocacy and community groups, however, want the chemical's use phased out sooner than eight years.
“This most recent proposal is a response to pressure by industry,” according to Sally Hayati, a retired scientist and president of the Torrance Refinery Action Alliance, a group of residents pressing the air district to ban the use of modified hydrofluoric acid.
An air district commissioned found that the modified form of the chemical “has not been proven safe,” Hayati told Bloomberg Environment. “We're not going to roll over and accept anything.”
Community groups want short-term safety measures now, but won't wait eight years for more mitigation, Jesse Marquez, executive director of the Coalition for a Safe Environment, told Bloomberg Environment.
“We want a ban,” Marquez said. “We have research showing the refineries can transition in three to five years and for much less than they say.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=127424114&vname=dennotallissues&fn=127424114&jd=127424114
-
Hill Shrugs at $700b Jump for White House Plan
Jan 26, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Nick Sobczyk and Geof Koss
President Trump this week surprised many observers with an increased top line for his forthcoming infrastructure plan, but that doesn't seem to bother senators pushing to get their priorities included in what they hope will be a broad package.
The White House suggested investing $200 billion in federal money over 10 years, which would turn into $1 trillion total after contributions from states, local governments and the private sector.
Speaking to mayors at the White House on Wednesday, Trump said that total would "probably end up being about $1.7 trillion."
It's unclear how Trump got to the $1.7 trillion figure or whether he was speculating off the cuff. A White House spokeswoman said the president was still planning on a $200 billion initial investment.
But the $700 billion jump over the original proposal wasn't entirely unwelcome on Capitol Hill, even if it left some scratching their heads.
"I don't know where he got that number from, but I do agree that over a 10-year period of time, $1.7 trillion is not unreasonable compared to $1 trillion," said Sen. Mike Rounds (R-N.D.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management and Regulatory Oversight.
"And I actually had a conversation with them where I said I do think we need to look at a larger number than $1 trillion," he added.
Rounds was skeptical that the administration would be able to leverage so much outside money with such a small federal investment. But he said yesterday he might be open to a bigger federal payment up front, so long as Congress can find a way to pay for it.
"We have a good [gross domestic product] today in large part because we have a great infrastructure system," he said. "But on a generation-by-generation basis, you have to maintain it, you have to improve it, you have to modernize it. And it's about time we take a good hard look at it."
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) suggested that the $700 billion increase indicated the president was expanding the areas that will be included in his proposal.
"He's talking about energy, he's talking about a lot of the things that they weren't really talking about earlier," said Inhofe, who chairs the EPW Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure. "So I think it's really an expansion of what he defines as infrastructure."
It's still to be determined whether lawmakers will get to infrastructure during this session of Congress, but in its early stages, the proposal is emerging as a potential vehicle for a variety of issue areas outside of highways, bridges and other conventional infrastructure.
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said yesterday she is highlighting the role of energy as a "basic building block" for infrastructure.
"What I've been trying to remind people is you want these big projects, or you want big construction?" she said. "You can't have big construction if you don't have the energy that comes with it."
Murkowski envisions a broad range of energy projects as potentially in the mix for the infrastructure push, including pipelines and dams.
Inhofe, too, said he would be happy to see energy included in the package.
A leaked draft administration document circulating earlier this week listed electric generation, transmission and distribution facilities as sectors eligible for a rural infrastructure program (E&E News PM, Jan. 22).
That document called for the creation of a new U.S. Treasury infrastructure fund — the Interior Maintenance Fund — that would be paid for by mineral and energy development on federal lands.
The document also calls for the disposition — by executive order — of "federal assets to improve the overall allocation of economic resources in infrastructure investment."
Pressed on the document, Murkowski noted there is widespread uncertainty over the administration's plan but said she'll push as many energy-related provisions as possible.
"We don't know what is real with the infrastructure bill, in fairness," she said. "So let's get as much into these preliminary drafts as possible because it's much easier to be there at the starting point ... than it is to try to insert yourself later on."
Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.), meanwhile, has indicated that autonomous cars could also be in the mix in infrastructure talks.
Thune and Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) are trying to pass what would be the first-ever law to address self-driving cars, but the bill has been held up in the Senate over safety concerns.
An infrastructure bill could be a good place for the autonomous car legislation to ride, Thune said this week (E&E Daily, Jan. 25).Momentum and roadblocks
There is much uncertainty over how much involvement the president will have with the plan and whether Congress will even be able to get to an infrastructure bill this year.
The Senate schedule is packed with nominations, immigration, and budget and appropriations for this fiscal year and next. But Republicans are holding out hope.
"I think Republicans and Democrats both want to come up with a good infrastructure plan," Rounds said. "It depends on whether or not we can get all of our other work done."
It will also depend on what, exactly, the administration proposes and how engaged the president is with the plan, said Thune.
Some of those particulars will come when Trump gives his first State of the Union address Jan. 30, Thune said, and the White House is expected to release a formal plan shortly after that.
"When we get the particulars next week, we'll probably be able to better determine," Thune said. "But I think there is a momentum behind this, and if the president really raised it heavily, there's a good chance it could pass this year."
The draft of the administration's proposal is just six pages and contains no top-line numbers, but lawmakers are expecting the finalized version to be more detailed.
Still, there's skepticism on both sides of the aisle about the initial payment proposals. EPW Committee ranking member Tom Carper (D-Del.) said that while he is anxiously awaiting the proposal, $1.7 trillion might be a pipe dream.
"The idea that somehow you can turn $200 billion in federal funding into $1.7 trillion overall may be the triumph of man's hope over experience," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/01/26/stories/1060072037
-
POLITICO Pro Q&A: Senate EPW Chairman John Barrasso
Jan 25, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Anthony Adragna
Sen. John Barrasso begins his second year atop the Environment and Public Works Committee, and he says he's committed to moving an infrastructure package that he expects will have “presidential commitment and muscle behind it.”
In an interview, Barrasso says he's urged administration officials to press President Donald Trump to “put some meat on the bones” of the infrastructure plan during the State of the Union address, and he wants to set deadlines of two years for federal permit approvals for projects.
And Barrasso is taking part in talks to alter the nation's biofuel program, and if legislation to revamp the Renewable Fuel Standard emerges, EPW would give “serious consideration” to proposals to modernize the program.
The following transcript has been edited for length and clarity.
An infrastructure package is a key priority for 2018. Sen. Jim Inhofesaid he was “frustrated” the White House’s plan has yet to emerge and Sen. John Thune said the president would have to show real leadershipto get something done this year. Do you share their concerns?
At the committee meeting last week we had both Secretary of Transportation [Elaine] Chao, as well as [National Economic Council director] Gary Cohn attending and visiting with us about infrastructure. And this was a bipartisan meeting. We had most of the members — Republicans and Democrats. We’re committed — Republicans and Democrats — to getting something done.
It’s a big priority for the committee. I think we’ve had a very successful 2017 with lots of accomplishments. But infrastructure is clearly a main topic to the point that I believe at our retreat next week, we’re going to be having a discussion on infrastructure again with the secretary of Transportation.
So you’re optimistic about getting something done even though legislating during an election years can be more difficult?
I’m committed to working with the administration and with the Democrats, and certainly with all the members of our committee on both sides of the aisle, to get something done. I think it’s important. We have a need in the community and in the country. There’s no question about it.
And part of what we’re doing with WRDA right now is infrastructure. Water resource development is infrastructure. But you need to deal with the roads, the highways, the bridges, the dams, all of it out there. So, I’m optimistic. We’ll be discussing it at the retreat and I hope the president brings it up in the State of the Union. And I mentioned that to both Director Cohn and Secretary Chao that I think it would be good to have the president put some meat on the bones during the State of the Union address next Tuesday.
Have you ever thought of putting out your own plan since the White House’s timeline seems to have slipped?
We’ve been working on a plan that I’ve been working on with the Democrats as well. Many of the hearings that we have have been infrastructure-related. The president has frequently talked about upgrading the infrastructure of the country, and I think we need a robust infrastructure bill with presidential commitment and muscle behind it. And I believe we’ll get it.
Do you see opportunities in the package that emerges to tweak or revisit provisions of the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Policy Act?
So much of what I’m focused on now are the roads and bridges, but clearly you need to be able to get projects done. You need to be able to streamline this whole process so that projects can be both started faster and finished faster, because you want to make sure taxpayers are getting bang for their buck. You need to have things [so] people feel that they’re not just being dragged out. It just seems silly when you see some project that could take months to complete but years to permit — people get the fact that that’s a sign of Washington not getting its job done.
Things [have to be] approved by a certain period of time — whether that’s two years [or] a shorter period of time. And if they can’t get the permits done, at what point do you say, “Look, people have made their best faith effort and this government couldn’t get permits done?” To me, that says they ought to be approved if the government can’t work its way through the process in a short period of time. Most people around the country don’t think two years is a short period of time but for government that’s setting speed records.
The perennial issue with infrastructure seems to be paying for it, and I would imagine some of the ideas often floated, like a gas tax hike, are probably non-starters for you. Are there other promising ideas you’ve seen to date?
There’s a difference between rural and urban. [Public-private partnerships] can work in urban areas. They’re not going to work in rural areas. So you need federal funding and commitment for rural areas, which aren't going to lend themselves to the partnerships between the public and the private areas. You almost need to look at the two separately and in our discussions with the administration, they do seem to have the two tracks for an urban versus a rural approach. And funding in that.
What’s it been like working with the Democrats so far in this? Have Ranking Member Tom Carper and his staff been open partners and also looking to get something done?
Senator Carper is actually a very good partner to work with. He was here visiting with me today for a half an hour in my office. I go visit with him and we visit on the floor frequently. We had four dozen hearings last year, advanced a lot of nominations, passed a lot of different legislation of all different kinds.
We have all these discussions about how to more quickly update and modernize the permitting process and also how to pay for things. His model and mine are a little different on the funding, but we know we need to get this done and find a way to do this. The EPW committee, from a public works standpoint, has had a lot of success in the past. It’s done a lot of work in a bipartisan way. I think we’ve worked very closely, both sides of the aisle, to make sure the people who came in to testify — and clearly I had a lot of people from Wyoming to talk about rural issues and rural needs and why they’re unique — but I think every member of the committee would say they’ve felt they’ve had an opportunity to bring somebody in from their state to make the case about what their specific needs could be whether it’s highways, bridges, dams, water, ports, you name it.
Have you been participating in the talks between Sen. John Cornyn and other senators on Renewable Fuel Standard issues? And do you think there’s a compromise possible on biofuels that can get through your committee?
I’ve been part of those discussions, yes.
We need a solution to the problem. The way that the RFS program was put into place, in my opinion, did not visualize where we are today, with a greater amount of fuel efficiency, with the number of electric vehicles. So the system that was designed was one that just viewed greater and greater volumes of gasoline being used. And didn’t take into account some of the changes that we’ve seen with technology.
If a refinery goes bankrupt because of a system that the government put in place after the refinery was built, that’s not a system that’s worked. So we need to modernize and modernize this to take into account where we are today with the technology and the vehicles and the amount of fuel being consumed.
[Cornyn's] leading the efforts to develop this bipartisan reform bill that all the stakeholders can support and then once that’s introduced the committee is going to give it serious consideration.
A number of the West Coast states have blocked coal export facilities from being built. Is there a role at all for the federal government to intervene?
I think it’s important to be able to export coal. People around the world want to buy energy from America. The president talks about energy dominance and we need to use the resources that we have in this country. We’ve gone from energy security to energy independence to energy dominance. And to be able to use energy as the geopolitical weapon that it can be and deal with how [Russian President Vladimir] Putin uses energy as a weapon, I think we need to make sure that we have opportunities to sell to other countries what we have in the United States in abundance. It’s good for our jobs, it’s good for the economy. Energy, as a resource, it’s called the master resource for a reason because of what it powers. It powers our economy. It powers our jobs. And powers the military. So it’s an instrument of power. It’s a force multiplier, and I think we should use it as such.
I’d like to see those ports opened up. Many of the workers there want those jobs in those areas but you have this division between the workers — many of whom are union workers — and the environmental extremists who are trying to block them. That’s where the loggerheads is and we’re trying to get those ports open.
What are your thoughts on being EPW chairman after Year One? Are you enjoying the job so far and how do you balance those responsibilities with your time atop the Senate Republican Policy Committee?
Wyoming [is] such an energy state and, to me, the most beautiful state in the country — and maybe one of the most beautiful places in the world. So what you know is from the standpoint from the people of Wyoming, we have protected our environment. We have great respect for our environment and the best stewards of the land are the people that live on the land. We have a long history of doing it right and we have multiple use of the land in Wyoming. Half of the land in Wyoming is run and owned by the federal government, so we know what it’s like to have such a large federal footprint in the state. And we just believe we ought to be able to use our resources and do it in ways that are respectful of the environment as we have done it.
It’s an area that to me is a great deal of focus. It’s something I’ve worked on from the day I showed up in the Senate, the first day I took the oath of office. That hasn’t changed. I’m just able to have additional opportunity to bring people back from Wyoming to testify on the topics that are in front of the committee. So I think that helps lend voice to the vision and the values that we have in Wyoming.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/article/2018/01/politico-pro-q-a-senate-epw-chairman-john-barrasso-309182
-
Union Pacific CEO: Train Braking Technology Is Clogging the Railway
Jan 25, 2018 | Wall Street Jourbal
By Paul Ziobro
Union Pacific Corp. says new technology meant to prevent train accidents is causing congestion on the railway.
The largest U.S. railroad based on revenue is in the midst of implementing positive train control, or PTC, technology, which is designed to automatically stop a train to prevent collisions or derailments. But activating the system in certain areas is causing problems as the railway works out kinks in how it operates.
“As we turn on more of our footprint, that requires us to debug and learn the system,” CEO Lance Fritz said in an interview Thursday, adding that sometimes the new technology “makes a train stop where it’s not supposed to stop.”
Mr. Fritz said the problems have contributed to a slowdown in the network recently, including trains running 5% slower and spending 12% more time in terminals during the fourth quarter. Problem spots are in Chicago, Kansas City and Houston.
Certain areas also have seen a buildup in inventory and the railroad is unable to keep up, he said. “We’re not executing our game plan like we have historically.”
U.S. railroads have spent most of the past decade implementing PTC, which the industry estimates will cost around $10 billion to install and another $500 million to maintain annually. Congress has pushed the deadline to complete installation to the end of 2018.
Union Pacific has installed the technology across 60% of its network where required. It plans to spend another $160 million this year on the project.
Through Oct. 31, Union Pacific had installed the technology on nearly 2,000 out of 5,600 locomotive where it was required, according to the railroad’s latest report to the Federal Railroad Administration.
The service problems caused a rise in Union Pacific’s operating ratio to 62.6% from 62% a year earlier. Railroads aim to reduce the metric, which is a reflection of profitability.
Union Pacific shares fell 5.5% in recent trading to $133.43. They are still up 20% over the past year.
The railroad expects the problems to clear over time. For 2018, the company expects the operating ratio to drop. It also expects more volume to move through its network, higher prices and significant cost cuts.
In its fourth quarter, the company logged a 5% increases in revenue, helped by higher volume, fuel surcharges and prices. Net income rose sharply to $7.3 billion, helped primarily by the recent corporate-tax cut. Excluding that, net income rose about 5% to $1.2 billion.
Union Pacific hasn’t changed its capital-spending outlook as a result of the new tax law, which benefits it and other railroads due to the lower tax rate. It still plans to spend about 15% of revenue on capital expenditures.
The railroad did announce plans to build a new $550 million railroad facility called a hump yard in Texas that will sort long trains. The Brazos yard is being built in anticipation of more business moving through the region. “We see that our existing infrastructure is going to be overwhelmed at some point in the future,” Mr. Fritz said on the earnings call.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/union-pacific-ceo-train-braking-technology-is-clogging-the-railway-1516917109
-
Feds: Amtrak Engineer Missed Speed Sign Before Train Derailment
Jan 26, 2018 | The Hill - Transportation
By Mallory Shelourne
The engineer operating the Amtrak train that derailed in Washington state last month missed an advance speed sign prior to the crash, federal officials say.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which interviewed the conductor and train engineer, revealed the development in a report on the crash released Thursday.
“The engineer said that he saw mileposts 16 and 17 but didn’t recall seeing milepost 18 or the 30 mph advance speed sign, which was posted two miles ahead of the speed-restricted curve,” the safety agency said.
The engineer also misidentified a signal at the 19.8-mile mark for a separate signal, according to the report. He applied the breaks once he saw the 30 miles per hour sign at the 19.8-mile mark, but the train derailed “seconds later.”
The engineer told the safety board that he knew the curve had a 30 miles per hour speed limit and prepared to break one mile ahead of the curve. The train was going 79 miles per hour at the 15.5-mile mark, which was about four miles ahead of the curve.
The NTSB said it conducted the interviews last week, nearly one month after the crash, due to the injuries the two individuals sustained in the derailment.
The December crash south of Seattle left three dead when the speeding train derailed while traveling across a highway overpass.
The derailment spurred House Democrats earlier this month to introduce new legislation to accelerate the implementation of a train safety feature called Positive Train Control (PTC), which automatically decreases the speed of a train traveling over the limit.
The NTSB in a preliminary report released earlier this month said that PTC would have slowed down the train.
The Positive Train Control Implementation and Financing Act would give railroads until the end of this year to enact PTC. It would also allot $2.5 billion worth of grants to aid commuter railroads and intercity railways in implementing PTC.
The bill would also mandate that Amtrak provide updates about the headway it makes enacting PTC in required reports.
Reps. Peter DeFazio (Ore.) and Michael Capuano (Mass.), the two House Democrats who introduced the bill, sent a letter last week to Amtrak CEO Richard Anderson pushing the company to provide updates on its efforts to implement PTC.
http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/railroads/370766-ntsb-amtrak-engineer-missed-speed-sign-before-train
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Revisions To Waste Air Rule Could Prompt Environmentalist Lawsuit
Jan 25, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA has issued a final rule lifting some air monitoring requirement for off-site waste and recovery operations (OSWRO) in line with an Obama-era consent decree with a chemical industry group committing EPA to the revisions, but the changes could prompt a lawsuit from environmentalists who back the monitoring mandates.
In the final rule signed by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt on Jan. 18 ahead of its publication in the Federal Register, the agency ends what it and chemical industry groups say are excessive and unnecessary monitoring requirements for pressure relief devices (PRDs) -- safety devices used to reduce pressure in containers when needed.
Environmentalists or other groups that want to file suit over the revised rule will have a 60-day Clean Air Act window to do so once the agency publishes the rule in the Register.
The OSWRO air toxics rule applies to wide variety of facilities processing both hazardous and non-hazardous wastes, including: hazardous waste treatment, treatment storage and disposal facilities; some hazardous wastewater treatment facilities; some nonhazardous wastewater treatment facilities; used solvent recovery plants; some hazardous waste recycling operations; and used oil refineries, according to the final rule.
The revisions are the culmination of legal action and petitions for reconsideration of EPA's 2015 air toxics rule for the sector, which introduced the monitoring provisions.
The Obama-era rule barred emissions releases from PRDs. However, environmentalists say that removing continuous monitoring requirements makes enforcement of this prohibition impossible.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC), one group that petitioned for reconsideration of the 2015 national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) rule, is dropping legal action it brought over the issue, as agreed under deal negotiated with the Obama administration.
In a Jan. 24 motion, ACC asks the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to dismiss its case, American Chemistry Council, et al. v. EPA, et al., in light of EPA's issuance of the final rule.
In line with its Aug. 7 proposed version of the reconsideration rule, EPA in the final version says the monitoring provisions are duplicative and unnecessary, because of duplicate existing requirements under another NESHAP rule on containers applicable to the sector.
Eliminated Requirements
EPA says in a fact sheet, “This reconsideration final rule will eliminate the continuous monitoring requirements for PRDs on containers. These containers are already subject to the Container NESHAP requirements, which are incorporated into the OSWRO NESHAP and require an initial and subsequent yearly inspection."
EPA adds, “This final rule will save the industry $28 million in capital costs and an additional $4.2 million annually."
Although not a “significant” regulatory action subject to President Donald Trump's executive order 13771, requiring that the agency identify for repeal two regulatory actions for every one it issues, the new rule does count as a “deregulatory” action for which the agency can take credit for compliance with Trump's deregulatory orders, EPA says.
ACC in Sept. 21 comments on the proposed version of the reconsideration rule said, “relevant cost and monitoring data demonstrate that these requirements would be technically infeasible to implement, unnecessarily duplicative of existing regulatory requirements, and costly, while providing virtually no environmental benefit. ACC strongly encourages EPA to [withdraw] the requirements as proposed and refrain from adopting any additional requirements.”
However, environmental law firm Earthjustice on behalf of Sierra Club in Sept. 21 comments signaled a possible legal challenge to the rule revision, saying, “EPA’s proposal is unlawful, arbitrary and capricious because it has failed to show that the container exemption will not cause [HAP] releases directly into the atmosphere.” Earthjustice says, “A total monitoring exemption is equivalent to an unlawful malfunction exemption from the standards, and must be removed from the rule.”
EPA in the final rule responds to these points, saying, “We have determined that the PRD inspection and monitoring requirements . . . that apply to containers at OSWRO facilities and are already incorporated into the requirements of the OSWRO NESHAP are effective and sufficient."
Further, “Removing the continuous monitoring requirements from PRDs on containers is not equivalent to an unlawful malfunction exemption. This action does not alter the OSWRO NESHAP’s prohibition on releases to the atmosphere from all PRDs,” EPA says. “Therefore, malfunctions that cause PRD releases are not exempt from regulation.”
The rule “does not substantially change the level of environmental protection provided under the OSWRO NESHAP,” EPA says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-revisions-waste-air-rule-could-prompt-environmentalist-lawsuit
-
EPA Withdraws Air Pollution Policy
Jan 25, 2018 | Wall Street Journal
By Timothy Puko
The Trump administration is withdrawing a decades-old air policy aimed at reining in some of the largest sources of hazardous pollutants like mercury and lead.
The Environmental Protection Agency said late Thursday it is getting rid of requirements that it forever keep sites classified as “major sources” of hazardous air pollution once they meet that classification. This “once-in always-in” policy punished industry by keeping factories and other sites under heavy regulation even if they made improvements that would prevent them from being major sources of pollution, according to the EPA and lawmakers who had requested the move.
Environmentalists and congressional critics decried the change, saying it is one of the EPA’s bedrock environmental regulations that keeps polluters from trimming back to just below the major-source classification cutoff to avoid requirements that could further lower their emissions.
President Donald Trump has made a rollback of environmental regulations one of his signature issues, carrying out a main campaign promise by withdrawing or rewriting rules designed to fight climate change, coal-ash pollution and coastal flooding, among many others. It is part of a broad attempt to make oil companies, power plants and manufacturers, among several different industries, more competitive by lowering their costs.
The latest change “will reduce regulatory burden for industries and the states, while continuing to ensure stringent and effective controls on hazardous air pollutants,” Bill Wehrum, assistant administrator of the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, said in a statement.
The policy, dating back to 1995, requires facilities that annually emit 10 tons or more of a single air pollutant or 25 tons or more of a group of pollutants to use the maximum achievable technology controls to lower their pollution. Deploying the technology required by that standard can lower pollution by as much as 95%. It applies to nearly 200 pollutants, including arsenic, dioxins, lead and mercury.
Republicans Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia and Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, both from heavy coal-producing states, sent a letter to the EPA earlier this month asking for the change. They said the inability of plants to escape from being classified as a major source removed an incentive to invest and make further improvements.
Environmentalists argue that the opposite is the case, and they have been successful in blocking the rule’s withdrawal in the past. The EPA tried to withdraw the rule during President George W. Bush’s administration, too—when Mr. Wehrum last worked at the EPA in the same office—and Congress blocked the effort. At the time, the Natural Resources Defense Council leaked an EPA internal memo in which regional EPA officials criticized the proposal. They said industrial facilities could “backslide” from having to use the stricter technology controls, which would allow them to increase pollution and still meet the standard.
Thursday’s move, “drastically weakens protective limits on air pollutants…that cause cancer, brain damage, infertility, developmental problems and even death,” John Walke, the NRDC’s clean air director, said in a statement. “And those harmed most would be nearby communities already suffering a legacy of pollution.”
The change will primarily help steel, paper and chemical makers among other manufacturing sites, said Jeff Holmstead, a partner at law and lobbying firm Bracewell LLP, who led the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation during Mr. Bush’s first term. NRDC says hundreds of plants could be affected. The number is unclear, Mr. Holmstead said, and they would all need to go through a recertification process to benefit, he added.
“It certainly does give manufacturing plants more flexibility in terms of how they reduce their pollution,” he added. “It certainly does reduce the regulatory burden.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-withdraws-air-pollution-policy-1516935178
-
EPA Ends 'Once In, Always In' Air Policy, Easing Facilities' MACT Mandates
Jan 26, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA has withdrawn its contested “once in, always in” policy that subjected industrial facilities to strict maximum achievable control technology (MACT) air toxics rules for their lifetime even if they reduced and kept emissions below MACT levels, a major win for GOP senators, the Commerce Department and others who oppose the policy.
In a Jan. 25 “guidance” memo sent to EPA's regional air directors, the agency's air chief William Wehrum rescinds the 1995 policy, clearing the way for plants to reduce their potential to emit (PTE) and escape MACT emissions limits if they keep their emissions below MACT limits. MACT limits apply to “major” sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), defined as those sources emitting in excess of 10 tons per year (tpy) of one HAP or 25 tpy of a combination of HAPs.
“This guidance is based on a plain language reading of the statute that is in line with EPA’s guidance for other provisions of the Clean Air Act,” said Wehrum in a statement. “It will reduce regulatory burden for industries and the states, while continuing to ensure stringent and effective controls on hazardous air pollutants.”
EPA in the statement adds that the policy “has been a longstanding disincentive for sources to implement voluntary pollution abatement and prevention efforts, or to pursue technological innovations that would reduce hazardous air pollution emissions,” saying the move is part of the Trump administration's deregulatory agenda.
Sources that limit their PTE below the major source thresholds will now be considered “area sources” subject to less-stringent air pollution control requirements.
Wehrum in the memo writes, “EPA has now determined that a major source which takes an enforceable limit on its PTE and takes measures to bring its HAP emissions below the applicable threshold becomes an area source, no matter when the source may choose to take measures to limit its PTE.”
He notes, “Congress placed no temporal limitations on the determination of whether a source emits or has” the potential to emit HAPs “in sufficient quantity to qualify as a major source.”
Wehrum in the memo says that “EPA anticipates that it will soon publish a Federal Register notice to take comment on adding regulatory text that will reflect EPA's plain language reading of the statute.”
The notice will give critics of the move an opportunity to comment and potentially lay the foundation for eventual litigation against either the memo or a resulting regulation to implement the decision.
Deregulatory Agenda
Industry groups and others responding to earlier Trump administration solicitations for comment on what deregulatory steps would be helpful cited ending the policy as one step that EPA should take.
For example, the Commerce Department in a regulatory review report last year urged the agency to “review the 'once in, always in' policy to clarify the means by which a facility currently classified as a major source can become an area source,” identifying it as a potential barrier to industry.
Sources told Inside EPA last year that the White House appears to be supporting states' calls to overhaul smaller “in-the-weeds” EPA rules such as the once in, always in policy, in lieu of calls to undo “big ticket” Obama-era policies.
More recently, Senate Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW) Chairman John Barrasso (R-WY) and EPW clean air panel Chairman Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) sent a Jan. 9 letter to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitturging him to end the policy. They argued that the policy serves to discourage, rather than promote, emissions reductions.
But environmentalists in early reaction are calling the policy withdrawal reckless. The new policy will “allow hundreds of U.S. industrial facilities to dramatically increase their emissions of the most toxic air pollutants regulated by the Clean Air Act,” the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said in a Jan. 25 statement.
NRDC Clean Air Director John Walke said, “This is among the most dangerous actions that the Trump EPA has taken yet against public health. Rolling back longstanding protections to allow the greatest increase in hazardous air pollutants in our nation's history is unconscionable.”
Walke promises NRDC “will fight this terrible decision to unleash toxic pollutants with every available tool.” However, because it is a guidance memo rather than a regulation, environmentalists may find the move harder to challenge in court, where it may be more difficult to establish as a “final agency action” subject to judicial review.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-ends-once-always-air-policy-easing-facilities-mact-mandates
-
Texas Will Keep Enviro Rule Waiver 'as Long as Necessary'
Jan 26, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Corbin Hiar and Edward Klump
Republican Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas today suggested there was no end in sight to sweeping waivers for more than a dozen environmental regulations that he put in place after Hurricane Harvey devastated parts of the state.
The governor's disaster proclamation, which he extended for six months on Jan. 17, covers nearly a quarter of the state's 254 counties — including some that are over 100 miles from the Gulf of Mexico.
"With regard to the disaster declaration writ large, in general, we will keep that open as long as necessary to make sure that people are going to be able to have access to all the funding resources that will benefit them," Abbott told reporters at an event in Houston.
The governor also dismissed concerns from public health experts that going for such a long period without many rules for the disposal of disaster debris could put Texans at risk (Greenwire, Nov. 21, 2017).
"Obviously, we want to do all we can to make sure that we both safeguard public health as well as the environment," he said.
Texas regulators are cooperating with their federal counterparts to minimize the dangers to the public, said Abbott.
Specifically, he said U.S. EPA would work in lockstep with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality "to make sure that any environmental issue is addressed."
And the Texas Health and Human Services Commission is working with the Department of Health and Human Services and local authorities "to make sure that all the health care issues are appropriately addressed."
Harvey made landfall Aug. 25 with top sustained winds of 130 mph. The hurricane lingered for days over the southwestern corner of the state, dumping upward of 50 inches of rain in some areas.
The Texas Department of State Health Services has said the storm directly or indirectly killed around 90 people. Harvey also caused almost $200 billion worth of damage, according to estimates from Ball State University's Center for Business and Economic Research.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/01/25/stories/1060071999
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested