Preview Newsletter
NI - ACC PM 9/29/2015
-
Global PFC Group Addresses Best Practice and Inventory
Sep 29, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The OECD and the UN Environment Programme (Unep) have published a report assessing different approaches taken to control per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). -
Evidence for EDCs 'More Definitive Than Ever’
Sep 29, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Evidence that some chemicals disrupt hormones, in a way that causes a range of serious health problems, has become more compelling, says international scientific organisation the Endocrine Society. -
Safer Chemicals Would Benefit Both Consumers and Workers
Sep 29, 2015 | Medical Xpress
By Heather Buckley
Almost every product we purchase, use in our homes, or give to our children contains tens, if not hundreds, of chemicals. -
DOE Seeks to Focus National Lab Research on Top Cyber, Grid Priorities
Sep 29, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Peter Behr
A unique collaboration among the Energy Department's national laboratories is seeking to close high-priority technology gaps facing the U.S. power grid, as it deals with disruptive operating changes and cybersecurity threats. -
Language to Boost LNG Exports Added to House Energy Bill
Sep 29, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
Republican leaders on the House Energy and Commerce Committee have added language to a larger energy bill setting a 30-day deadline for the Obama administration to rule on natural gas export proposals, one of several high-profile additions ahead of a markup scheduled to begin this afternoon. -
Obama Admin Cracks Down on Refinery Emissions
Sep 29, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
Petroleum refineries will be forced to curb toxic air emissions and beef up monitoring under a rule finalized today by U.S. EPA. -
EPA Expects Success from New Methane Rules
Sep 29, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Devin Henry
A top environmental regulator said Tuesday that he expects new federal standards for methane emissions will succeed in cutting down on the potent greenhouse gas. -
EPA Tightens Refinery Emissions Standards
Sep 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
A suite of regulations meant to curb methane emissions from new and modified sources in the oil and natural gas sectors is expected to be finalized by “late spring or early summer” 2016, a senior official within the Environmental Protection Agency's air office said today. -
EPA Prepping Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule Changes
Sep 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The Environmental Protection Agency is preparing changes to how power plants, refineries, chemical plants, underground coal mines and other large facilities report their greenhouse gas emissions, the agency told Bloomberg BNA. -
All Eyes Turn to EPA on New Power Plant Toxics Rule
Sep 29, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Annie Snider
A long-fought battle over new limits on the amount of toxic metals that can flow from coal-fired power plants into U.S. waterways is slated to come to an end tomorrow, but whether the rule's release will truly halt the fight will depend on what the final regulation looks like. -
Jeb Bush Slams Clean Power Plan in New Energy Proposal
Sep 29, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Evan Lehmann
Jeb Bush will propose repealing President Obama's climate rules in an energy plan being released today at an oil and natural gas company near Pittsburgh. -
Freeport-McMoRan Hits New Oil in Deepwater Gulf
Sep 29, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
A new oil discovery in the Gulf of Mexico's deepwater frontier was announced yesterday. -
Texas Congressman Pushes Latest Try to Kill Clean Power Plan
Sep 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) yesterday introduced legislation that would prohibit the use of federal dollars to implement or enforce the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan, which would slash carbon dioxide emissions from the nation's existing power plants. -
Report Says States Should Lead Fight Against Man-Made Quakes But Doesn't Say How
Sep 29, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Mike Lee and Mike Soraghan
OKLAHOMA CITY -- State oil and gas regulators issued a 150-page treatise here yesterday on how to deal with earthquakes linked to energy development but stopped short of making specific recommendations for tackling the problem. -
Smog Kills : Americans Deserve Much Stronger Protections
Sep 29, 2015 | PoliticoPro Energy
By David Baron
One of the biggest environmental fights right now involves the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to strengthen protections against ozone pollution—a proposal that’s in the crosshairs of major polluters and their allies in Congress.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
-
Global PFC Group Addresses Best Practice and Inventory
Sep 29, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The OECD and the UN Environment Programme (Unep) have published a report assessing different approaches taken to control per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs).
The substances are used as ingredients, or intermediates, of surfactants and surface protectors for a wide range of industrial and consumer applications, but are in the process of being replaced because of their ability to persist and bioaccumulate.
With information from 15 countries, the report from the Global Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFC) group –Good Practices and Options to Support Shared Challenges in the Development and Implementation of PFAS Risk Reduction Approaches – aims to provide a snapshot of current activities and inform other countries about options they might take.
It has been presented at the fourth session of the International Conference on Chemicals Management – which is currently underway in Geneva. The group is also presenting options for a global emission inventory for PFASs at ICCM4.
It says:the OECD 2007 list of 920 should be updated;their global production, use and release should be surveyed and the results made public; andsynergies between stakeholders should be made, along with links between existing programmes.
-
Evidence for EDCs 'More Definitive Than Ever’
Sep 29, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Evidence that some chemicals disrupt hormones, in a way that causes a range of serious health problems, has become more compelling, says international scientific organisation the Endocrine Society.
Yesterday – the same day that a key UN conference on global chemicals management opened in Geneva - the organisation published a review of the evidence from the last five years. This concludes that exposure to chemicals, such as bisphenol A (BPA), phthalates, flame retardants and pesticides such as atrazine and DDT, is associated with an increased risk of diabetes and obesity, infertility, hormone-related cancers, prostate conditions, thyroid disorders and neurodevelopmental issues.
“The evidence is more definitive than ever before – endocrine disrupting chemicals disrupt hormones in a manner that harms human health,” said Andrea Gore, professor and Vacek chair of pharmacology at the University of Texas, and chair of the task force that produced the statement.
“Hundreds of studies are pointing to the same conclusion, whether they are long-term epidemiological studies in humans, basic research in animals and cells, or research into groups of people with known occupational exposure to specific chemicals.
“It is clear we need to take action to minimise further exposure,” said professor Gore. “With more chemicals being introduced into the marketplace all the time, better safety testing is needed to identify new EDCs and ensure they are kept out if household goods.”
In the statement, the society calls for:regulation to ensure that chemicals are tested for endocrine activity, including at low doses, prior to being permitted for use;additional research to infer more directly cause-and-effect relationships between EDC exposure and health conditions;advice for the public and policymakers on “how to keep EDCs out of food, water and the air, as well as ways to protect unborn children from exposure”; andchemists to create products that test for and eliminate potential EDCs.
“The science is clear and it’s time for policymakers to take this wealth of evidence into account as they develop legislation,” said society member Jean-Pierre Bourguignon, professor of paediatrics at the University of Liège.
A global issue
The statement executive summary says, although some countries and US states have banned some EDCs, “the fact that EDCs are ubiquitous makes it a global issue that requires international partnerships among developed and developing nations.”
It also backs the “evidence integration” philosophy of the US National Toxicology Program in deciding whether a chemical may have a health impact.
“When high-quality endocrinological studies demonstrate that a chemical interferes with hormone actionin vivo and in vitro at environmentally (human) relevant concentrations, and when we have a high degree of evidence that these hormone systems are essential for normal development, it is reasonable to infer that these chemicals will produce adverse effects in humans,” says the summary.
To back up its call for the provision of “substantial information” before a chemical can be used in household products, it says BPS, which has been used to replace BPA, “is now shown to have endocrine-disrupting activity on a par with BPA”.
-
Safer Chemicals Would Benefit Both Consumers and Workers
Sep 29, 2015 | Medical Xpress
By Heather Buckley
Almost every product we purchase, use in our homes, or give to our children contains tens, if not hundreds, of chemicals. The United States chemical industry alone produced $769.4 billion worth of chemicals in 2012. The electronics that light up our smart phones and make today's cars safe contain metals, plastics, ceramics and a host of other materials. Even plastic packaging is a complex mixture of molecules, and each one plays a role: they provide the strength, color, texture, elasticity and durability we associate with performance.
Few people would say it's worth the risk of a hazardous chemical exposure to check football scores or calm a fussy toddler. And consumers in North America and Europe are starting to expect that regulation will protect us from harmful chemicals in the products we buy. Unfortunately hazardous chemicals are still all around us – every time a child picks up a plastic toy she may be exposed to a myriad of hormone disruptors, neurotoxins, dermal sensitizers, asthmagens, or carcinogens.
Regulators are starting to take steps toward protecting end-users from these risks. Consumer awareness and community activism exert pressure on manufacturers, and early-stage legislation is testing the waters of government involvement in the United States.
But when considering the dangers of hazardous chemicals in our products, manufacturers often underestimate risk by evaluating only the best-case scenario and considering only consumers. How these products are made by real workers in unregulated environments offers a stark contrast.
As chemist pursuing green chemistry – developing chemical processes and products that are inherently safer for humans and the environment – I have seen this problem firsthand. We imagine production lines using top-of-the-line safety equipment, full containment of hazards, and well-trained workers, but this is rarely the reality in our global economy. We need to design products that are inherently safer not just for consumers, but for workers in un- or under-regulated environments.
Acute versus chronic dangers
Our widespread lack of awareness of the risks workers face along the production pipeline hit home for me on a recent visit to India. I was part of a team developing greener building materials for low-income housing. It became obvious that we can't assume recommended safeguards will be universally adopted when chemicals are part of the manufacturing process in under-regulated workplaces.
Safety goggles, gloves, and even shoes are beyond the means of workers in factories like the one where I worked in Ahmedabad, and are rarely mandated or provided by employers. People are working without the simplest protection, at times with chemicals that we know have affiliated health risks.
No one I worked with was overtly disturbed by this lack of protection that delivered to their lungs and skin a daily cocktail of chemical additives. Even in a company producing "greener" building materials made primarily from recycled cardboard, our workers were exposed to hazardous airborne dust and gases, and handled ingredients whose chemical composition was a mystery to everyone on the factory floor.
In my experience, safety has a different meaning to the average Indian laborer than it does to a North American chemist. For them, the acute hazards of even getting to work overshadowed the chronic dangers they were exposed to once they arrived. India has one of the highest rates of deaths from traffic accidents in the world, with over 200,000 per year. 48,000 more Indians die annually from accidents in their workplaces, and countless undocumented injuries destroy people's lives and livelihoods.Activists protest on the anniversary of the Union Carbide pesticide plant disaster in Bhopal.
Furthermore, there are few protections for Indian laborers who become unable to work. Concerns about job security for the working poor overshadow questions of job safety, particularly in the face of invisible, chronic hazards. It's not that workers are cavalier about their health; they just often don't have better options or the power to demand improved conditions.
Workers largely lack protections consumers are starting to demand
In North America, we are gradually becoming aware of the risks to consumers of hazardous materials that are ubiquitous in our homes and workplaces. We know about hormone-disrupting flame retardants in furniture and baby clothing, asthma-inducing diisocyanates in spray foam polyurethane insulation, neurotoxic formaldehydes in particleboard resins, and a host of others.
The growing body of evidence has mobilized scientists, advocacy groups, public health experts, and legislators and has led to such groundbreaking laws as the California Department of Toxic Substance Control's (DTSC) Safer Consumer Product (SCP) regulations. Little federal regulation exists, but the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is also taking action by acting as an information clearing house. At the same time, reforms of the Toxic Substances Control Actcurrently under review could bring more authority to EPA.
It is important that movement toward controlling chemicals in the United States considers those most affected by chronic chemical exposure: not only consumers, but also workers.
Since their passage in 2013, the DTSC SCP regulations have taken a clear stance on the importance of worker safety in California; one of the first three chemical-product combinations regulated was diisocyanates in spray-foam insulation. Studies have shown that workers who install this insulation and therefore experience chronic exposure to diisocyanates have anincreased incidence of allergic sensitization and asthma. There are some risks to building occupants associated with ongoing release of diisocyanates from improperly cured insulation. But in this case, the SCP regulations successfully pinpoint the most at-risk group for exposure to this hazardous chemical, and require suppliers to consider how worker safety is affected by proposed alternatives.
Imports allow us to export work with chemicals
The environment in which diisocyanates and their safer alternatives are used can be controlled in California by active regulation and enforcement. Many of the other chemicals and products of concern identified by the DTSC are manufactured in parts of the world with considerably less safety oversight.
For instance, the US imports about 14 times more clothing, mostly from China and Vietnam, than it exports (by dollar value). Clothing production can include dangerous chemicals, such as formaldehyde additives to create "wrinkle-free" products. By the time a wrinkle-free shirt gets to the store, the levels of formaldehyde it off-gases are likely too small to be dangerous for most customers. But when the finish is applied, workers are exposed to the chemical at significant doses.
Grassroots activism typically focuses on issues close to home such as what babies ingest when they drink from plastic bottles, whether certain soaps produce a skin rash in sensitive children, and what nanoparticle antimicrobials in clothing might do to fish in the local watershed. These are critically important issues and local concerns are often what leads to the creation of legislation such as the Safer Consumer Product Regulations.
But American consumers are not the only ones who need protection. With implementation of the SCP Regulations, the California Department of Toxic Substance Control is poised to be a national and international leader in defining what it means for a product to be "safer". Safety for all people – workers and consumers – and ecosystems as they actually interact with the chemistry at all stages of the product lifecycle should be a priority. The gold standard for safe material formulations should be that they can be manufactured without chronic health impacts on workers, even in unregulated environments.
Toward a truly green chemistryParents' concerns about what their children are exposed to can trigger industry changes. Credit: nerissa's ring, CC BY
During my last days in Ahmedabad, as I was preparing samples to ship back to North America, I felt something soft hit me on the shoulder. In the 110F heat, I was startled to turn around and see one of my coworkers playfully dodging a hail of snowballs. I quickly spotted the source of this mysterious "snow" – we were testing sodium polyacrylate as a processing agent, and a scoopful had fallen into a washbasin. The benign desiccant had quickly swelled to 300 times its original volume. Umya, my assailant, had been the first to recognize its mischievous potential.
As "snowballs" flew through the air, I realized that this was the embodiment of safer chemistry – materials so safe that we could play with them, never worrying that they covered our hair, our hands and faces. No protection necessary.
-
DOE Seeks to Focus National Lab Research on Top Cyber, Grid Priorities
Sep 29, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Peter Behr
A unique collaboration among the Energy Department's national laboratories is seeking to close high-priority technology gaps facing the U.S. power grid, as it deals with disruptive operating changes and cybersecurity threats.
Tomorrow is the deadline for federal laboratories to submit bids for research grants to initiate the program. The grants span a wide agenda of technology issues, including integrating renewable energy generation, storage devices, electric vehicles and "smart buildings" into power networks; improving cybersecurity of utilities' vendor supply chain; and giving control room operators more tools to manage the grid in emergencies. The grants are projected to total nearly $200 million in all over the next three fiscal years. DOE's 17 laboratories have an annual budget of about $13.5 billion.
The project calls for the creation of a single operating plan between DOE headquarters and the laboratories.
"I've only worked here 35 years, and I've never seen something like that, so we're pretty excited about that," said Carl Imhoff, manager of electricity infrastructure at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) and lead lab representative on the consortium.
The push to achieve better coordination among the labs is a response to DOE's initial Quadrennial Energy Review, issued last April, which made grid modernization a top priority.
It also follows a report by Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz's national labs task force warning that a "proliferation of duplicative and burdensome [administrative] requirements are choking the DOE National Laboratories."
Citing tensions "throughout the laboratory complex" over program administration, the task force recommended that the labs' work be tied more closely to DOE and national priorities. Proposals to reform the labs' management have bipartisan support in Congress, but there isn't bipartisan consensus on most national energy priorities (E&E Daily, June 8).
To steer the project, DOE has created the Grid Modernization Laboratory Consortium, which will set priorities and award the research grants.
The grants, due to be awarded in November, will launch the first three years of the project as a single, integrated strategy across DOE, said Imhoff. "It calls for major new approaches, including making cyber and general security and resilience more tightly coupled to grid modernization," he said in an interview.
Imhoff's colleague, Paul Skare, PNNL chief cybersecurity program manager, added, "We are collaborating collectively to make sure that we are able to work in partnership with DOE to identify where the gaps are in the research."
The national labs' agendas on cyber research displays both the ambition and diversity of the projects, some of which are being promoted by the Department of Homeland Security's Transition to Practice (TPP) commercialization program (EnergyWire, July 13).
For example, the CodeDNA technology developed at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory assigns "fingerprints" to families of attack malware and looks for similarities in software code to find new attacks.
DigitalAnts, created at PNNL, employs mobile sensors that "roam" like foraging ants within interconnected computers and devices in a network, gathering and evaluating key operational indicators such as memory or processing activity. When a sensor spots activity out of the ordinary, it triggers an alarm, PNNL said. Sandia National Laboratories' WeaselBoard technology addresses cyber vulnerabilities in grid PLCs (programmable logic controllers) on grid networks. WeaselBoard, when added to a network, analyzes communications between PLCs to spot unusual activity and detect threats.
An underlying assumption behind the QER and the new laboratory project appears to be that the changes underway in the electric power sector are irreversible, no matter what happens to the debate in Washington and the states over the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan to cut power plant carbon emissions.
More solar and wind generation and microgrids are coming, the DOE plans anticipate. Linkages between electricity supply and natural gas deliveries will grow tighter. Smart meters and sensors, and other "intelligent" digital devices on the grid's edge, now numbering in the tens of thousands, will increase to millions, Imhoff said, causing a huge increase in diagnostic information flowing to grid operators.Tides of data
The tide of data changes the nature of the operating emergencies grid operators are likely to face, and the technologies they will need to cope with fast-moving crises.
When the high-voltage network in eastern Ohio was nearing a "cliff edge" collapse on Aug. 14, 2003, grid operators for FirstEnergy Corp. in Akron were flying blind, ignorant of the escalating signs of the approaching Northeast blackout, DOE's investigation of the event concluded. Their control center did not have a map board representing major lines and plants on the wall facing the operators, and critically, their balky control room alarm system and system tracking software failed. But the operators did not know the alarms weren't working.
As the information flow into control rooms escalates, the problem may be too much information, Imhoff and Skare said.
"Much of what we do today is anywhere from 10 seconds to 6 minutes in retrospect in terms of risk and what is that is doing to the system, whether it is hit by physical attack or cyberattack or storms, or just equipment damage," Imhoff said. But digital data is generated in milliseconds. "We're trying to switch that paradigm to more real-time predictive tools that leverage new math and advanced computation, where we can actually see where the system is heading and better detect how to protect it."
Skare said a second challenge is developing a system of alarms that guides operators toward actions that give the grid the best chance of overcoming threats, whether from nature or humans.
The triggering event of the Three Mile Island nuclear plant emergency in 1979 was the failure of a critical pressure control valve, allowing the escape of cooling water required to keep the reactor core from a meltdown, the accident investigation determined. Within seconds, the plant's alarm systems, including a loud horn and more than 100 flashing lights on the control panels, signaled the escalation of the accident. But they only confused operators, said Nuclear Regulatory Commission historian J. Samuel Walker. "I would have liked to have thrown away the alarm panel," one operator said later.
The national laboratory research project must look for ways of presenting information about increasingly complex grid emergencies in ways the operators can handle, Skare said.
"We will be looking at how the brain processes that information, which then identifies which type of data should be put on the screen [to] get the results as fast as you can," he said. "What are the most critical things to pay attention to? Then you have to do the additional analysis to say, how do I absorb that information in my brain" as fast as possible.
Charles Hanley, senior manager of grid modernization at Sandia National Laboratories, said, "It's too early to tell how well this experiment will turn out, but it's definitely a worthy endeavor."
It shows DOE's recognition of the need for a concerted effort to coordinate technology research on the grid's future, dealing with national security threats to a critical infrastructure and opening potentially tremendous economic opportunities if the United States can lead the way on these fronts, Hanely said.
"There are definitely opportunities for false starts and inefficiencies" in the grant process, he said. "Hopefully, it will lead to new, prioritized funding on a national scale."
Part of the project will support innovative grid projects in states such as California, Vermont and New York, DOE said.
"There is going to be a significant challenge, in fact, in how we track these opportunities. In general, the continuing bureaucratic pressures being placed on the labs are indeed affecting morale in a bad way," Hanley added. "But this project really works to enhance morale and cut through some of the bureaucratic overhead issues."
-
Language to Boost LNG Exports Added to House Energy Bill
Sep 29, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
Republican leaders on the House Energy and Commerce Committee have added language to a larger energy bill setting a 30-day deadline for the Obama administration to rule on natural gas export proposals, one of several high-profile additions ahead of a markup scheduled to begin this afternoon.
The manager's amendment to the committee's bill, for which Republicans have long hoped to win bipartisan support, gives the Energy Department a narrower window to rule on plans for export of liquefied natural gas than the bipartisan Senate energy bill.
The House amendment also adds language to repeal a 2007 phase out of fossil fuels in federal buildings; similar language is included in the Senate bill.
The American Gas Association hailed the inclusion of that new fossil-phase-out repeal, as well as "significant changes to" the way DOE handles adoption of codes for energy-efficient buildings. The building-code changes are based on a separate proposal from Reps. Kurt Schrader and Marsha Blackburn.
The House amendment also would set up a new modernization fund for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, eyed for management reform by members of both parties. The House's initial proposal included a "mission readiness plan" for the SPR's future, while the new amendment would allow the Energy Secretary to sell oil from the stockpile in order to achieve the new fund's objectives. The same section of the House amendment would set up a separate grant program for states and localities to increase electricity reliability.
-
Obama Admin Cracks Down on Refinery Emissions
Sep 29, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
Petroleum refineries will be forced to curb toxic air emissions and beef up monitoring under a rule finalized today by U.S. EPA.
Released this afternoon ahead of a court-ordered deadline tomorrow, the rule encompasses New Source Performance Standards and maximum achievable control technology for refineries under the Clean Air Act.
"The common-sense final rule will improve air quality and protect the health of families who live near refineries," EPA said.
There are 142 petroleum refineries considered major pollution sources under the Clean Air Act, as well as seven small area sources.
Among contaminants targeted by the rule: benzene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, nickel and hydrogen cyanide. EPA said the final rule would reduce emissions of toxic air pollutants by 5,200 tons per year, as well as eliminate 50,000 tons of volatile organic compounds annually.
First proposed in May 2014, the rule requires refineries to upgrade emissions controls and to continuously monitor concentrations of benzene pollution levels at their property lines.
Refiners will be required to encircle their facilities with monitors so that they can detect pollution depending on the wind, install technology that can detect benzene at very low levels and take corrective actions if monitored emissions exceed limits.
"This rule will, for the first time ever, provide important information about refinery emissions to the public and neighboring communities by requiring refineries to monitor emissions at their fence lines," EPA said in a statement sent to environmental justice advocates.
The rule will also put in place a national program to reduce smoking flare emissions and emissions by pressure-release devices. Refineries will be required to monitor flares. The rule will limit flaring events to no more than three events in three years per device, EPA said in its fact sheet.
Storage tanks and delayed coking units also face new emission limitations under the final rule.
The oil industry had opposed the refinery regulation's fence-line monitoring and flaring requirements, warning that the agency's proposal overall would cost refiners more than $20 billion on top of millions of dollars in annual costs.
To address concerns raised by the oil industry about real-time monitoring, EPA's final rule allows refiners to choose alternative methods in the short term that will allow for real-time monitoring in the future.
EPA said the final rule will cost $283 million in capital costs and $63 million annually.
The White House Office of Management and Budget hosted a handful of meetings on the final rule this month, including with key oil industry groups, but the release of the standards has been overshadowed by EPA's more contentious proposal to lower the national ozone standard. The final ozone rule is due out this week under a court order (see related stories).
-
EPA Expects Success from New Methane Rules
Sep 29, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Devin Henry
A top environmental regulator said Tuesday that he expects new federal standards for methane emissions will succeed in cutting down on the potent greenhouse gas.
Joseph Goffman, the associate assistant administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Air and Regulation, said Tuesday that the agency’s new methane standards, combined with expanded voluntary programs, will help the natural gas industry reduce its methane emissions.
“If we develop a meaningful expansion of our voluntary programs, we will see industry succeed, both in achieving its voluntary commitments and achieving its legal obligations, while continuing to thrive economically,” Goffman said at an event hosted by The Hill and sponsored by the Environmental Defense Fund.
“That’s the definition of success, as far as we’re concerned.”
The EPA proposed new rules on methane emissions at new natural gas sites in August after pitching a plan to expand its voluntary leak tracking program the month before.
Officials said the new rule would cut between 340,000 and 400,000 short tons of methane annually by 2025, roughly the equivalent of 7.7 to 9 million metric tones of carbon dioxide.
The proposed rule and voluntary programs are part of a government-wide effort to cut emissions of methane, the main component of natural gas and an especially powerful greenhouse gas, by 45 percent over the next decade. Officials hope to finalize the rule by next spring.
Republicans have promised to fight the regulations, which some have characterized as another Obama administration assault on the fossil fuel industry.
Natural gas interests have similarly pushed back against the rule, saying they have a financial incentive to cut down on methane leaks on their own. Many have said a voluntary methane leak program, such as the one the EPA is proposing to expand, is all the industry needs to work on the issue.
But Bob Perciasepe, the president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, endorsed the EPA’s regulatory approach on Tuesday.
“You can definitely get results from voluntary programs, and this has happened time and time again in environmental and other types of programs,” he said at The Hill event.
“However, here you have half a million existing wells, you have several thousand operators out there. You have a very diverse world working on this. I think EPA did the right thing to come up with a mix here of some regulatory, some voluntary.”
The methane effort is part of the Obama administration’s climate agenda, which, along with the EPA’s climate rule for power plants and other steps, has injected energy into the government’s focus on climate change, Goffman said.
“The president, the administrator and the administration as a whole is committed to the kind of follow-through that is needed to achieving a meaningful, long-lasting climate policy,” he said, “that will not only achieve reductions in the short-term, promote innovations and technologies and practices, but will also lay the groundwork for our successors, whether it’s in this decade or the next decades after, to continue to take on climate change.”
-
EPA Tightens Refinery Emissions Standards
Sep 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
A suite of regulations meant to curb methane emissions from new and modified sources in the oil and natural gas sectors is expected to be finalized by “late spring or early summer” 2016, a senior official within the Environmental Protection Agency's air office said today.
Joe Goffman, associate assistant administrator for air and radiation, said the proposed regulations were the latest in President Barack Obama's “very methodical and consistent approach” to addressing emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.
The EPA's approach would combine mandatory and voluntary aspects to drive reduced emissions.“We see an industry that is large and very diverse, and our thinking—and it's been this way for a while—is we need to put in place a diversity of tools,” Goffman said at an event sponsored by The Hill.On Aug. 18, the EPA unveiled a series of proposed rules to curb methane emissions from new and modified oil and natural gas wells. The agency is currently in the midst of a series of public hearings on its proposals and the public comment period will last until Nov. 17.
-
EPA Prepping Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule Changes
Sep 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The Environmental Protection Agency is preparing changes to how power plants, refineries, chemical plants, underground coal mines and other large facilities report their greenhouse gas emissions, the agency told Bloomberg BNA. Laura Allen, an EPA spokeswoman, said the changes would “streamline implementation of the rule, improve the consistency of the data collected under the rule, and implement corrections for minor editorial or reference errors or clarifications to existing requirements.”U.S. industries are required to report their emissions under an agency reporting requirement Congress authorized in a fiscal year 2008 EPA-Interior funding bill (Pub. L. No. 110-161). The proposed rule, which the agency sent to the White House Office of Management and Budget to begin its review Friday, has not previously been listed on the EPA's regulatory agenda. -
All Eyes Turn to EPA on New Power Plant Toxics Rule
Sep 29, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Annie Snider
A long-fought battle over new limits on the amount of toxic metals that can flow from coal-fired power plants into U.S. waterways is slated to come to an end tomorrow, but whether the rule's release will truly halt the fight will depend on what the final regulation looks like.
As new air pollution rules have come online in recent decades, U.S. EPA says some of the pollutants that once went into the sky have simply been shifted to waterways. But wastewater guidelines for power plants haven't been updated in more than 30 years. Today, power plants are the top source of toxic pollutants including mercury, arsenic, lead and selenium, according to the agency.
Environmental groups sued in 2010 to force new technology-based limits for these heavy metals, called effluent limitation guidelines, and EPA settled, agreeing to set them. After a number of deadline extensions, the new rules are due out tomorrow.
What's at stake depends on who you ask.
Industry generally agrees that the limits could use an update but argues that a deviation too far from the status quo could lead to a number of plant closures, especially since the water regulations come at the same time as a number of other new or pending rules.
"The options range from pretty much the status quo to more reasons to shut down coal plants, especially the smaller ones," said Jim an attorney with the firm Sidley Austin. "This is going to simply add to the pile of costs and regulatory requirements ... and additional regulations are going to eventually nudge some companies to believe that they're just not worth the hassle."
But environmental groups argue that no less than the health of waterways and the creatures that rely upon them -- including humans -- hangs in the balance.
A 2013 report from a coalition of green groups found that 70 percent of coal-fired power plants' permits had no discharge limits for toxins that are linked with neurological damage, cancer and fish die-offs. More than a quarter of the plants the groups looked at were releasing such metals into waterways that were already declared impaired (E&ENews PM, July 23, 2013).
Moreover, greens contend that the agency is not required to rely as heavily on cost-benefit analyses for this rule as for others and that there should be a heavier thumb on the scale for environmental protection.
The White House Office of Management and Budget has held at least seven meetings with outside groups on the rule since late July.
Now, the administration must thread the needle.
The regulation the agency proposed in 2013 included eight variations on approaches, four deemed "preferred," for managing three main power plant waste streams: fly ash, bottom ash and wastewater from smokestack scrubbers that capture pollutants such as sulfur dioxide -- called flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastewater.
The new discharge regulations come on the heels of an EPA regulation governing ash disposal and will help shape what industry decides to do with the ash now.
All of the proposed options require fly ash to be dry handled, which would likely mean that plants would turn to landfills to deposit the material rather than coal ash ponds.
But what to do with bottom ash -- the material left at the bottom of the boiler after coal is burned -- has been a flashpoint. Industry argues that it is far less harmful than fly ash and has pushed back hard against requirements for all power plants to convert to dry handling.
Environmental groups argue that it still poses a serious danger to waterways.
"Ultimately, the strength of the final rule, just in terms of the sheer amount of pollution that EPA keeps out of our water, will rely on this stream in particular," said Thomas Cmar, an attorney for Earthjustice's coal program. "How EPA comes down on some of those technical questions about toxicity will ultimately drive what the final rule looks like."
Meanwhile, the proposed rule offered a wide variety of options for how FGD wastewater could be handled. Many of the options would require chemical precipitation and biological treatment -- processes that require large settling tanks and other new infrastructure. Industry, concerned about space limitations at individual plants, has pushed hard for individualized determinations.
Wedeking of Sidley Austin said he could see industry accepting an option that requires such processes at the largest power plants, where industry is willing to make steep investments, but that requiring such approaches across the board would be logistically tricky at plants that don't have much space available.
Aside from which main option EPA chooses, groups are also watching the compliance time frame closely and how the rule deals with legacy wastewater.
But, knowing that no one is likely to get all of what they want, both sides are hopeful.
"We are cautiously optimistic that on the whole the rule is going to require a number of good, environmentally protective things that will require power plants to get rid of a lot of harmful pollution," Cmar said.
Asked if he saw a flood of lawsuits coming, Wedeking said he wasn't so sure.
"There's a way that EPA could do this that largely makes both sides happy," he said. "I just don't know if that's what they will do."
-
Jeb Bush Slams Clean Power Plan in New Energy Proposal
Sep 29, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Evan Lehmann
Jeb Bush will propose repealing President Obama's climate rules in an energy plan being released today at an oil and natural gas company near Pittsburgh.
The former Republican governor of Florida describes the Obama administration as a heavy-handed regulator that goes beyond reasonable steps to protect the environment. "Some [regulations], such as Obama's Carbon Rule, need to be stopped in their tracks," the plan says, according to a summary obtained by ClimateWire.
The plan doesn't highlight renewable energy, a subject Bush spoke about earlier this month when he told supporters in New Hampshire that he believes disruptive technologies could eventually reshape the nation's energy landscape.
But it does call for the repeal of all energy tax breaks, including those on fossil fuels.
"We must create a level playing field for all energy sources including, but not limited to, nuclear, renewables, coal, natural gas, oil and alternative fuels," Bush says in a post on Medium being released this morning, according to The Wall Street Journal. "We unnecessarily drive up energy costs on Americans when we play favorites and suppress the dynamism of free markets."
Renewable energy accounts for about 10 percent of the nation's electricity.
Bush's plan also calls for ending the export ban on U.S. oil, allowing states to drill for oil and gas with less federal interference, and approving the Keystone XL pipeline.
The plan is being released as Bush trails in national polls behind Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina, a trio of candidates with little of the public policy experience described by Bush's supporters as the cornerstone of his campaign. Bush also trails Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, who has previously called for the repeal of Obama's climate regulations, called the Clean Power Plan.
Bush's plan doesn't offer any surprises, some Republican analysts said.An outdated Keystone XL push?
George "David" Banks, a former adviser with the Council on Environmental Quality under George W. Bush and a past aide to Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), is confident that Bush's campaign will put together a comprehensive approach to energy. Banks is not associated with the campaign.
He said efforts to export U.S. oil and gas can resonate with GOP voters because the issue links energy and foreign policy, and it can be viewed as reducing the influence of Russia and Iran by eroding their role as energy suppliers.
The Keystone XL pipeline, meanwhile, is less salient in the energy debate than it was during the last election cycle, he and another GOP analyst said. The expansion of domestic oil production and other factors prompted government energy analysts to predict that the United States would import about 14 percent of its oil from foreign countries by 2020, Banks said. That could erode national security reasons for the pipeline.
"It's not as important as it was," said Banks, now executive vice president with the American Council for Capital Formation. "If I were part of a campaign, I'd probably say, 'Let's not focus so much on Keystone. Let's talk about the creation of a North American energy market to help bolster U.S. energy security.'"
Another Republican energy expert was blunter. The lack of details and the emphasis on Keystone left this person frustrated about the direction of Bush, who is viewed as perhaps having the firmest grasp on policy among the candidates.
"If all you can come up with is what Michele Bachmann came up with last cycle, why should you be taken seriously?" said the analyst, who is familiar with the speech that Bush will give today at Rice Energy Inc.
Bush's speech comes as some within his party are urging Republicans to take an active role in the debate around clean energy and climate change.Poll finds majority GOP support for carbon fees
Polling released yesterday by the ClearPath Foundation, a nonprofit organization created by Jay Faison, who plans to spend $175 million to reach Republicans on climate issues, found that 72 percent of Republicans support accelerating the use of clean energy. It also found that a majority of GOP respondents believe that climate change is happening and that humans are contributing to it.
"Outright dismissal of climate change is very limited, even among conservative Republicans," said Kristen Soltis Anderson of Echelon Insights, which helped conduct the polling. "Where the debate sort of falls apart is you have a lot of this alarmist rhetoric that seems to push away some of these conservatives ... who are willing to acknowledge that climate change is happening and there's a role, even if a limited one, that mankind's activity is playing in it."
The survey found that policies that allow homeowners to install solar panels and sell excess power to utilities are favored by 87 percent of Republican respondents. Additionally, 66 percent of Republicans surveyed support requiring utilities to provide some clean energy to customers, and 58 percent support increased government funding for research into clean energy technology.
"I think it's pretty clear from this poll that Republicans support clean energy. When the discussion is about climate change, that's when they get their backs up. But when it's about the benefits, the innovations, and the idea that clean energy is a future energy, that resonates," said Glen Bolger, a GOP pollster with Public Opinion Strategies.
The survey also found that carbon fees and tax incentives are supported by a majority of Republicans. One question about whether power plants should have to pay for their greenhouse gas emissions and then return some of it to consumers was favored by 54 percent of GOP respondents. Among all respondents, 68 percent expressed support.
The poll surveyed 1,200 registered voters nationwide at the end of August. Its margin of error is 2.8 percentage points.
-
Freeport-McMoRan Hits New Oil in Deepwater Gulf
Sep 29, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
A new oil discovery in the Gulf of Mexico's deepwater frontier was announced yesterday.
The oil and gas arm of global mining giant Freeport-McMoRan Inc. told investors Monday that a rig it contracted with encountered a volume of hydrocarbons worthy of developing further at its Horn Mountain Deep well. The development is in the Mississippi Canyon region of the Gulf just off the southeast tip of Louisiana.
The company said it plans to complete the well and tie back its production to existing Gulf facilities, forgoing the need for another platform. Freeport-McMoRan thinks it can bring the discovery online by the first part of 2017, with initial production estimated at about 30,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day, including liquids and natural gas.
Oil production from the Gulf of Mexico is expected to peak in 2017. The addition of the Horn Mountain Deep well and the anticipated addition of a major Chevron Corp. offshore project in 2018 could cause future production estimates to be adjusted.
In a release, the company said this latest discovery leaves executives there convinced there is even more oil to be found in the vicinity.
"The positive results at Horn Mountain Deep and our geophysical data support the existence of prolific Middle Miocene reservoir potential for several additional opportunities in the area, including the 100-percent-owned Sugar, Rose, Fiesta, Platinum and Peach prospects," the company said.
Freeport-McMoRan also provided an update on a separate Gulf of Mexico project. It said its Holstein Deep project is running on schedule and should be online by the middle of next year.
Despite the collapse in crude oil prices, drilling in the Gulf continues, though at a much more subdued pace.
The offshore rig count in the Gulf is off by about half from where it was at the height of 2014. Last week, oil field services firm Baker Hughes Inc. reported that the rig count for U.S. federal offshore waters actually increased slightly, with the industry adding two rigs to the Gulf of Mexico compared with a week prior.
-
Texas Congressman Pushes Latest Try to Kill Clean Power Plan
Sep 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) yesterday introduced legislation that would prohibit the use of federal dollars to implement or enforce the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan, which would slash carbon dioxide emissions from the nation's existing power plants.The Ensuring Affordable Energy Act of 2015 (H.R. 3626) would also bar the use of federal funds by the EPA for any similar policy options, such as a national cap and trade system.“Clean Power Plan is just another regulation forcefully imposed on the American people and another attempt to circumvent Congress to push legacy-driven agendas,” Poe said in a statement. -
Report Says States Should Lead Fight Against Man-Made Quakes But Doesn't Say How
Sep 29, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Mike Lee and Mike Soraghan
OKLAHOMA CITY -- State oil and gas regulators issued a 150-page treatise here yesterday on how to deal with earthquakes linked to energy development but stopped short of making specific recommendations for tackling the problem.
Instead, the report compiles the science about human-induced earthquakes and offers regulators a range of options.
"It's not a generic rule or proposal that we're suggesting other states follow," said Rick Simmers, who is Ohio's top oil and gas regulator and a co-author of the report. "We have no business telling other states what to do."
The report was developed by States First, a partnership between the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC) and the Groundwater Protection Council (GWPC). It reflects the strong desire of state officials to keep the federal government out of the regulation of oil and gas. That sentiment is avidly shared by the oil and gas industry.
"Management and mitigation of the risks associated with induced seismicity are best considered at the state level, with specific considerations at local or regional levels," the report states.
The report is significant because it acknowledges the link between energy developments and induced seismicity, Scott Anderson, senior policy director for the Environmental Defense Fund's climate and energy program, said in a statement. Oklahoma denied that a link existed until this year.
It "should put to rest the idea that industry and state regulators deny wastewater injection can cause earthquakes," Anderson said.
Scientists have known since the 1960s that injection of industrial waste fluid, whether from drilling or other activities, can cause earthquakes. The fluid can seep into faults, essentially lubricating them and disturbing the equilibrium that kept them from slipping.
The resurgence of the nation's oil and gas industry has brought with it a sharp increase in earthquakes in areas not considered to be very earthquake-prone. Seismologists have pointed most of the blame at deep injection of oil and gas waste fluid for disposal. Most of the fluid is sent to so-called Class II injection wells, which force it into saline aquifers and other underground formations.
The potential responses to man-made quakes listed in the report include "stopping injection and shutting in a well," the report says. Short of that, the report lists extra seismic monitoring, reducing volumes and pressures, and "plugging back" a well to make it shallower.
So far, the states have taken widely different approaches. Kansas, for instance, has focused on the amount of fluid injected, while Oklahoma has focused on the depth of individual wells.
Texas imposed permit requirements on new injection wells, but state regulators decided earlier this year there wasn't enough evidence to close down two wells that a scientific paper identified as the cause of a string of earthquakes.
Arkansas imposed a moratorium on disposal wells in a 1,150-square-mile area after they were linked to a string of quakes in 2011.
Ohio shut down an injection well after a magnitude-3.9 quake struck near Youngstown on Dec. 31, 2011. After that, the state began requiring real-time seismic monitoring for injection wells, along with other types of testing.
Ohio requires oil and gas companies to pay for some of the monitoring, Simmers said. Officials from Oklahoma and Kansas said they've been coping with budget cuts and can't afford to do more monitoring.
Quakes in Arkansas, Colorado, Ohio, New Mexico, Texas and West Virginia have been linked by scientists to disposal. But nowhere has the increase been as dramatic as Oklahoma, where favorably aligned faults and production methods that create unusually large volumes of wastewater appear to have combined to create unprecedented swarms of man-made earthquakes.
The report lists the magnitude-5.7 earthquake near Prague, Okla., in 2011 as the "largest potentially injection-induced" quake, followed by a magnitude-5.3 quake in 2011 near Trinidad, Colo.
Oklahoma had 585 quakes of magnitude 3 or greater last year, compared to an average of about two a year before 2009. This year, the state has already had more than 650. It is by far the most seismically active state in the Lower 48.
-
Smog Kills : Americans Deserve Much Stronger Protections
Sep 29, 2015 | PoliticoPro Energy
By David Baron
One of the biggest environmental fights right now involves the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to strengthen protections against ozone pollution—a proposal that’s in the crosshairs of major polluters and their allies in Congress.
This week the Obama EPA faces a court ordered deadline to set a final standard on ozone, commonly called smog, a greenhouse gas that forms from the exhaust of power plants, factories, cars and trucks. The Administration has a decision to make: will it stand strong and set standards at the protective level doctors say we need to safeguard our lungs? Or, will it cave in to over-the-top and baseless claims by polluters and set a weak standard?
We’ve long known that current smog standards are woefully inadequate. Four times in the last eight years, the EPA’s independent science advisors have unanimously called for stronger standards. But thanks to politics, we’ve remained stuck with standards that allow the air to be so dirty it leaves people literally gasping for breath. When former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson tried to strengthen smog limits in 2011, the White House shot the proposal down, citing economic concerns, after massive lobbying by big oil and other polluting industries.
The science supporting stronger standards is now more compelling than ever. Literally thousands of studies now link ozone to an array of serious health impacts, including bronchitis, asthma attacks, emergency room visits, hospitalizations and premature deaths. The research shows these harms occur at levels well below those allowed by the current standard. Kids, senior citizens and asthmatics are especially at risk.
Given the wealth of the evidence, the decision on whether to strengthen the standard is a no-brainer. The crucial question is how much to strengthen the standards. The current standard, adopted in 2008, is 75 parts per billion (ppb), and the EPA has proposed to strengthen it to somewhere in a range of 65-70 ppb. A standard at the top of that range would leave millions of Americans without the protection that doctors say they need from this dangerous pollutant. The American Lung Association has called for a much stronger standard of 60 ppb, a call joined by the nation’s leading medical and health organizations, including the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Heart Association, American College of Preventative Medicine, American Thoracic Society, American Public Health Association, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, National Association of County and City Health Officials and others.
In light of this strong medical consensus, setting the standard at 70 ppb would be nothing short of a betrayal of Clean Air Act’s promise of healthy air. It would be a capitulation to Big Oil and the manufacturer’s lobby. By the EPA’s own estimates, a 70 ppb standard would allow thousands of deaths and hospitalizations, hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks and more than a million missed work and school days that would be avoided by the much stronger 60 ppb standard doctors say we need. But corporate lobbyists are spending millions to fight any strengthening of protections from ozone. The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and theAmerican Petroleum Institute (API) have been leaders in this charge, claiming—based on wildly inflated compliance cost estimates—that we can’t afford healthy air.
Consideration of costs is flatly illegal in setting clean air health standards: The Supreme Court ruled more than 14 years ago, in an opinion by Justice Scalia, that the standards must be based solely on what’s necessary to protect health with an adequate margin of safety. In any case, the industry claims are baseless. Since 1970, according to the EPA, we have cut air pollution by around 70 percent while the U.S. economy has more than tripled. A study by Synapse Energy Economics just released by Earthjustice finds that a widely disseminated report sponsored by NAM exaggerates the cost of meeting stronger smog standards by more then 700 percent.
The Synapse study further finds “unfounded and unsupportable” claims that a stronger standard would lead to economic harm or job losses.
Equally outlandish are ads by NAM, echoed by the API, suggesting that stronger smog standards must be irrational because some national parks won’t meet them. What they don’t tell you is that, sadly, air quality in most of our parks in anything but pristine, thanks to air pollution blown in from power plants, oil and gas drilling and other industries. A recent report from the National Parks Conservation Association finds that 75 percent of our nation’s parks have air that’s unsafe, at times, even under current deficient standards. The National Park Service has repeatedly called for stronger ozone standards, not only to protect the lungs of visitors, but also to prevent the serious damage that ozone causes to trees and forest ecosystems.
NAM can’t even keep its story straight. Even as it ignores that wind blows air pollution into parks, it’s running new ads blaming China (and the wind) for our air pollution. But the vast majority of the ozone pollution we breathe comes from our own country. And the Clean Air Act has specific provisions to relax compliance obligations for communities that truly can’t meet standards due to pollution from other nations.
Then there are the ads by API claiming we don’t need a stronger smog standard because ozone levels have gone down since 2000, and this shows the current standard “works.” That’s like saying that someone who has cut back from six packs of cigarettes a day to five doesn’t need to cut back any further. What API cannot truthfully say is that the current standard assures safe air: The nation’s leading doctors say it doesn’t.
A parent deciding whether to let an asthmatic child go outside to play needs to know if the level of air pollution poses a health threat, not whether it merely reflects the air quality that polluters are willing to pay for. For six days the week of August 31, the Washington, D.C., region recorded levels of ozone air pollution that doctors say are unsafe for kids, seniors and people with asthma. But because our national smog standards are so weak, the public was told on all but one of those days that air quality was “acceptable.” And that week was hardly unusual: In August alone there were 16 days when people were misled to believe the air was safe to breathe when it wasn’t.
The goal of the polluters’ disinformation campaign is obvious: Churn up enough political noise to scare the Administration away from adopting a truly protective standard. It worked the last time when President Obama gave in to political pressure and rejected stronger standards that his own EPA Administrator said were needed. Let’s hope, this time, the President and the EPA have the courage to do the right thing and fulfill the promise of the Clean Air Act.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Add recipients
Suggested