Tuesday, December 17, 2019

Jen Metzger's Fracking Ban Bill on 5 year Anniversary




Today, on the 5 year anniversary of NYs historic ban on Hydrofracking (which really isn't a ban for several reasons, more like an executive moratorium which makes some forms of fracking *possible*...) 

Senator Jen Metzger introduced SB 6906: 

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/s6906

First thing I notice:

1: Includes propane fracking .... GOOD!

However, there are other kinds of fracking, such as fracking with acid, other gelled hydrocarbons (butane?), or explosives.

Requested Change #1: Let's add all nasty forms of well stimulation: acid fracking, fracking with explosives, fracking with ANY gelled hydrocarbons. 

2: This bill makes permanent the TRICKY SWITCHEROO of increasing the threshold of a low-volume frack from 20,000 to 80,000 gallons (1992 O+G GEIS), to anything under 300,000 gallons (2014 SGEIS adopted while "banning fracking"). This makes fracking wells using 80,001 gal to 299,999 gal *possible*, when it was *not possible* under the 1992 O+G GEIS

UPDATE!  I have studied two wells which caused problems in Dimock. (two wells I happened to have a complete file review on, Costello #1 and Costello #2). Each well was fracked twice.  For each well, one of the fracks would have been possible under the

Requested Change #2: RESTORE the limits of a "frack" to 80,000 gallons, as was in the 1992 Oil+Gas GEIS.

References: a: http://www.nofrackingway.us/2012/04/10/grisantis-fracking-loopholes/ (analysis by Chip Northrup) 


3: This only bans High Volume *Horizontal* Hydro/Propane fracking. Many of the failed wells in the Dimock/Springville area which caused widespread water contamination problems were NOT horizontal wells!! They were water-fracked VERTICAL wells!!! 

Requested Change #3: Remove any mention of the word "horizontal".
4: There is NO BAN on Fracking Infrastructure or other harmful side-effects:  Water withdrawals, pipelines, compressor stations, fracked gas power plants, waste transport/disposal, "beneficial use" such as road spreading of brine, "Virtual Pipelines" (#BombTrucks) using either Ultra-High-Pressure CNG Tube-Trailers, or Bulk-Haul LNG, fixing the NYSDOT HAZMAT loophole which exists outside NYC, #BombTrains, etc. 

Final Thoughts:

It's a great start, and IMO NY fractivists should get involved in discussing this bill with your local reps, and possibly supporting some version of it, but it looks like it needs a lot of committee work. 

But it seems clear we DO need a proper LEGISLATIVE BAN!! Let's make it happen! 

BH

--

I am desperate for $ once again... seeking about $700 remaining in my Nov/Dec fundraiser. This is only for my BASIC living expenses and includes $0 for my program expenses, medical emergencies, etc. (I need some emergency dental work which I can't afford). So.... 
Donations are gratefully received in any amount!

Thank you!!

Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, December 11, 2019

There is a problem with this LNG by Rail Special Permit

I've been talking to my friend Ron who is a retired NYSDOT
guy, who was an inspector in the commercial division (big rigs).
Ron also worked for the railroads.

Ron is super smart, and he really knows these US DOT Special Permits (SP).

The Short Answer:
1: It would take enormous expense and effort to meet the permit conditions, so much so, that this SP will likely never be used.

2: There is a legal question as to whether the shipper New Fortress Energy
can legally fill these DOT-113 cars, when the authorization was
granted to permitee Energy Transport Solutions. Are these distinct business
entities? Or the same? (If so, then why the charade of a second fictitious name?)

For reference:
PHMSA Announcement Page:

The Special Permit:

Notice:

1. GRANTEE: Energy Transport Solutions, LLC, Doral, FL

and this:

2. PURPOSE AND LIMITATION:
c. No party status will be granted to this special permit.

This is different from the Special Permit which we see, for example,
with the CNG #BombTrucks. In that case, the SP is issued to the
*manufacturer*. (e.g., Hexagon Lincoln, Quantum Fuel Systems).

Then, any carrier (e.g, NG Advantage, or XNG) can use these
trailers, as long as a copy of the SP is carried on board.

In the case of SP-20534, this permit is issued to a SHIPPER,
Energy Transport Solutions, LLC (ETS).

Because "no party status is granted", this means the permit is
ONLY good for this one shipper.

Ron says this Special Permit ONLY applies to this shipper.

However in the case of the proposed Wyalusing, Bradford Co, PA
LNG terminal, the shipper is New Fortress Energy.

Huh?

Well, it turns out New Fortress Energy has 73 subsidiaries (!!): one is ETS:

This raises red flags for me.  The reasons corporations use multiple
business entities like this (wholly owned subsidiaries, and more complex
ownership structures) is because often they can ESCAPE REGULATION
or LIMIT LIABILITY pretending to be two different business entities.

But other times, (like with this Special Permit), they have to be the same.
This could be a legal challenge. Seems like funny business. 

Ron also says the permit conditions are very strict, and would
be difficult to meet. "This permit could only be used in an emergency
situation".

It requires ETS to provide training to all first responders who
could potentially respond ( @ §7(c)(5) of the Special Permit)
which is potentially dozens of different agencies all along the route.

The permit states that the routes will not be decided by the permit,
but are to be determined by the railroad operator dynamically.

The effort to a) locate every possible first responding agency,
and b) provide training to them, would be ENORMOUS.

The permit also requires that this is a "direct route with no stops".
This means the train will likely be a "Unit Train" with only one type
of cargo, with a common shipper/customer. Point to Point.

It also requires complex telemetry for each car (pressure, leaks, location),
@ §7(a)(3) of SP-20534, which would require a massive back-end tracking system
developed, probably communicating with satellites. 

Perhaps such a system already exists, and it's all just turnkey.
But it looks to me it would take a large amount of planning to
set it up and make this work.

The other problem is availibility of DOT-113 cars.
Ron says they are used in Canada, but not much
in the US, presently, for cryogenic, non-LNG gases. 


Ron says this SP is most likely moot,
that it MOST LIKELY will never be used.

He thinks the AAR (railroad trade association)
had a hand in drafting this permit. This org represents
the railroad operators.

Ron says, "the AAR wants LNG by rail (because it's
revenue for the operators it represents), but they
want this occur in an approved package.

The entire reason why a Special Permit is necessary,
is because the DOT-113 cryogenic tanker is presently
not an approved package for LNG.

Ron says, This Special Permit is an emergency back-up plan,
should the new regulations fail to pass.

We joked at this point about: Emergency? What Emergency?
A stockholder didn't get his dividend in a timely manner?
What is the national emergency for moving LNG by rail?

A major purpose of the PHMSA "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" (NPRM)
for LNG by rail, is to make the DOT-113 an "authorized package"
for shipping LNG by rail.

The railroad operators take responsibility for any HAZMAT shipments
which occur in authorized packages. The potential liability for rail accidents
involving HAZMAT could be $100M or more. So the insurance companies
have a hand in crafting the regs.

You can now comment on the Special Permit:
(it was closed when I looked previously -- so PHMSA has just opened
this up! Maybe due to Senator DeFazio's complaint?)

...as well as commenting on the Regs:

My suggestion is that we focus on making comments on the Regs.
The special permit is likely moot -> would take ENORMOUS effort.

I hope this is helpful,
BH

Please support my work:
I have $760 of unmet bills
(911/DESPERATE NEED HERE!)
 GoFundMe: gf.me/u/wwddpt

Check the Go Fund Me update to see a list
of my present projects. THANK YOU! 



--
William Huston:  WilliamAHuston@gmail.com
Binghamton NY

Public Service Mapping / Videography / Research / Education / Safety Advocacy
Blog -- Facebook -- Twitter  -- Youtube -- Podcast Blog
Document collections: VirtualPipelines -- BHDCSDimockArchive
Please support my work! -- TinyURL.com/DonateToBillHuston



Posted by at No comments:

Monday, December 9, 2019

Bad news: PHMSA approves LNG by rail

https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/safe-transportation-energy-products/liquefied-natural-gas-transportation-rail

Liquefied Natural Gas - Transportation by Rail

On December 5, 2019, PHMSA granted a special permit to Energy Transport Solutions, LLC to authorize transportation of LNG in DOT-113C120 tank cars between Wyalusing, PA and Gibbstown, NJ, with no intermediate stops, subject to certain operational controls.

Links to the special permit and associated documents are provided below:

DOT-SP 20534

Special Permit Evaluation Form

Environmental Assessment

Federal Register Notice – Notice of Issuance of Special Permit Regarding Liquefied Natural Gas

The relevant dockets at Regulations.gov are provided below:

Hazardous Materials: Liquefied Natural Gas by Rail

Draft Environmental Assessment for a Special Permit Request for Liquefied Natural Gas by Rail

Updated: Thursday, December 5, 2019

---------------------------------

Press:




--
William Huston:  WilliamAHuston@gmail.com
Binghamton NY

Public Service Mapping / Videography / Research / Education / Safety Advocacy
Blog -- Facebook -- Twitter  -- Youtube -- Podcast Blog
Document collections: VirtualPipelines -- BHDCSDimockArchive
Please support my work! -- TinyURL.com/DonateToBillHuston






Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, December 5, 2019

The SUNGEEL lithium battery recycling plant proposed for Endicott, NY

Great comment, from Dr. Paul Connett, a local expert on incinerators and Zero Waste.

THANK YOU, PAUL!!

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Paul Connett
Date: Thu, Dec 5, 2019, 11:50 AM
Subject: The SUNGEEL lithium battery recycling plant proposed for Endicott, NY
To: <DEP.R7@dec.ny.gov>, <LupardoD@nyassembly.gov>, 



TO
Joseph M Dlugolenski
NYSDEC Region 7 Cortland Sub-Office
1285 Fisher Ave
Cortland, NY 13045
(607)753-3095

FROM
Paul Connett, PhD,
Binghamton, NY 13905

Dear Mr. Dlugolenski,

I have recently been made aware of a proposal to build a lithium battery recycling plant proposed in Endicott, NY. I am very concerned about this project and I would like, as a member of the Tri Cites area (I live in Binghamton, NY), to request that the NY DEC hold a public hearing on this project. To date citizens have only heard from the company.

My background. I am a retired professor of chemistry, who specialized in environmental chemistry and toxicology. I taught at St. Lawrence University, Canton, NY,  from 1983- 2006. I have been involved in waste management research since 1985 - and this issue that has taken me to 49 states in the USA, 7 provinces in Canada and 66 other countries. From 1985 to 2000 I headed up the group Work on Waste, USA. I have written extensively on the dangers posed by incineration, including co-authoring 6 papers on dioxin published in the peer-reviewed journal Chemosphere. More recently I published the book "The Zero Waste Solution: Untrashing the Planet One Community at a Time" (Chelsea Green, 2013)

My Concerns.

 1) This project is being rushed through with minimal public input.
2) The facility is being built in a highly populated community, whose residents' health has already been compromised by industrial operations (e.g. IBM).
3) Lithium batteries are notorious for being a fire hazard, but I do not see any accident analysis. What hazards would a fire cause to this community if tons of lithium batteries are brought to and stored in this location? This analysis should be required by the NY DEC.
4) Obviously, a lot of attention has been paid to this technology but it does pose risks - and no matter what bells and whistles are put on this plant the ultimate fail safe is its location. In this case the location offers no fail safe - if accidents occur - or even malfunctions and upset conditions - people will be immediately in harms' way. I would like to know the rationale for this siting? Is it the best and safest location that can be found in this area, or in NY State or the region? Or was this siting decision made because Endicott is perceived as a sacrifice area?
5) I note in one of the schematics of the process in the air permit prepared by .Plumley Engineering the label "PCB" occurs. Do these  letters refer to Poly Chlorinated Biphenyls, if so I am particularly concerned a) because they are very toxic in their own right but also b) when they are heated or burned the byproducts poly chlorinated dibenzo furans (PCDFs) are orders of magnitude more toxic than the PCBs themselves. That is why when burned in bulk in hazardous waste facilities they are required to meet a destruction removal efficiency (DRE) of 99.9999.

6) I note that the SUNGEEL facility operating in South Korea has been measured for dioxin - but only a single figure (one test?) has been provided for dioxin emissions - i.e. 0.016 ng I-TEQ/SM3.


QUESTIONS: Was only one test performed on this facility? For what duration?  6 hours? Under what conditions? Such spot tests are notorious for underestimating emissions during start-up, shut-down and upset conditions. As a result in Germany, Belgium and some other countries companies are required to use a 4-week continuous sampling system (the AMESA system). Emissions when estimated using this sampling system emissions can be several orders of magnitude higher than the 6-hour spot tests. Thus the conclusions by  Plumley Engineering copied below -  are not based on adequate science and are cavalier to say the least.





If the company has an operating facility such measurements should be made using continuous sampling over a whole year.

Furthermore, I would like to see dioxin measurements made in several locations in the facility (after the heater) and before and after the air pollution control equipment so an estimate can be made of their removal efficiency.

7. Other emission data. Like the dioxin data the metal emissions appear to be based on single measurements i.e. spot tests. Were they based on one spot test? Or many? If many then one would like to see the range of the results.

8. Thermal release vents (i.e. dump stacks). I saw no mention of these in the permit application, but typically when materials are being heated or burned at high temperatures you need some device to vent the gases in the event of some blockage downstream of the heater or burner. When this occurs there is no mitigation from air pollution control and emissions of both toxic metals and dioxins can greatly increased. We need to know the track record of the company's operation in South Korea in this regard.

9. Nanoparticles. I see no discussion of nanoparticles in the application. This is perhaps the most unexpected and serious problem in any high temperature heating or burning operation. It is only in the last few years that we are beginning to find out the health problems these maybe generating. In just the last few weeks a paper has been published indicating a relationship between 2.5 micron particles and brain cancer.

10. No emission monitoring proposed. I see in the air permit that as far as emissions are concerned no short term or long term monitoring is proposed, instead the facility will be "monitored" using simple operating criteria - temperature at certain points and pressure drop in the baghouse. I do not find this satisfactory or protective of the community. It may be that such simple measurements could be used once a year's worth of data has been complied and correlated with these parameters - but not at the outset. Perhaps that has been done in Korea - but if so the data should be provided.

Conclusion: For all of the reasons above I think it is imperative that the NY DEC either reject the permit application outright or organize a hearing where both the citizens and local decision makers hear about the possible dangers involved in this project.

Sincerely,

Paul Connett,
Dec 5 2019




Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)