ACC PM 3/11/16

Industry and Association News

1. How Fisk Johnson Works to Keep the Shine on Family Business

   Mar 10, 2016 | Wall Street Journal

   By Ellen Byron
   
   
   H. Fisk Johnson, the fifth-generation family member to run S. C. Johnson & Son Inc., isn’t known for flash. But lately, the chairman and chief executive has chased the spotlight as an agitator of the household-staples industry, pushing for more disclosure of products’ ingredients.

Chemical Management News

2. (ACC Mentioned) Industry Troubled by Differences in US/Canadian CBI Approach

   Mar 11, 2016 | Chemical Watch

   By Kelly Franklin
   
   
   Concerns have emerged at differences between US and Canadian approaches to managing confidential business information (CBI) in their hazard communication programmes. These have surfaced during discussions taking place on the US-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council's (RCC) draft 2016-17 work plan for workplace chemicals.
3. Prop. 65 Set to Become Bigger Business Burden

   Mar 11, 2016 | The Orange County Register

   By Jeffrey Herold
   
   
   Our experience highlights the biggest problem with the law: Warning consumers about nonexistent health risks causes consumers unnecessary worry and businesses unnecessary expenses.
4. TSCA Reform: Administration Letter Submitted to Congress on TSCA Reform Legislation

   Mar 11, 2016 | The National Law Review

   By Government Regulation
   
   
   A January 20, 2016, letter from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy provides the Administration's reaction to, and comments on, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform legislation that has passed both the House and the Senate in somewhat different forms. The differences between the bills are currently being sorted out and reconciled.
5.  The Pediatrician Who Helped Uncover the Dangers of Lead Has Some Advice for Flint

   Mar 11, 2016 | The Nation

   By Ava Kofman
   
   
   When Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton faced off in Michigan last Sunday night, the nation’s eyes were once again on Flint, the majority-black city whose residents had been exposed for months to lead-laced tap water.
6. These Plastic-Eating Bacteria Could Help Cut Down on Waste

   Mar 11, 2016 | Washington Post

   By Rachel Feltman
   
   
   Recycling is so 20th century. According to one new study, there could be a new way to cut down on plastic waste: bacteria that consume one of the major components of our old bottles and clothes.

Energy News

7. Largest U.S. Grid Operator Plows Ahead on Rule Planning

   Mar 11, 2016 | E&E Energywire

   By Rod Kuckro and Peter Behr
   
   
   The Supreme Court's stay of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan is not altering plans by the nation's largest power grid operator to move ahead with an analysis of compliance options for the 14 jurisdictions within its 243,417-square-mile footprint.
8. Timeline for EPA's Methane Crackdown Remains Unclear

   Mar 11, 2016 | E&E Climatewire

   By Niina Heikkinen
   
   
   U.S. EPA said yesterday it will for the first time regulate existing sources of methane from the oil and gas industry.
9. New Obama Methane Goals Threaten Shale Oil/Gas, Industry Says

   Mar 11, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence

   By Joe Fisher
   
   
   Stymied, for now, in attempts to further regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at the utility level, the Obama administration Thursday announced plans -- in collaboration with Canada -- to target methane emissions from existing oil and natural gas production/transmission facilities.
10. Project Called Possible 'Game Changer' for Gas Breaks Ground

    Mar 11, 2016 | E&E Greenwire

    By Christa Marshall
    
    
    A major utility is supporting a new type of "zero emissions" power plant that aims to revolutionize natural gas generation.
11. Europe Prepares to Receive First-Ever Shipment of U.S. Shale Gas From Appalachia

    Mar 11, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence

    By Jamison Cocklin
    
    
    Marking another milestone this year for the U.S. shale industry, the first shipment of ethane gas produced in the Appalachian Basin set sail on Wednesday from Sunoco Logistics Partners LP's Marcus Hook Industrial Complex for a 3,800-mile journey to Norway.
12. Jordan Cove Still Viable LNG Export Project, Backers Say

    Mar 11, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence

    By Richard Nemec
    
    
    While acknowledging that the global liquefied natural gas (LNG) market is hurting, the Canadian-based backers of the proposed $7.5 billion Jordan Cove LNG export project along the south-central Oregon coast said Thursday their project continues to move ahead as it awaits a final FERC approval.
13. Science Advisers Want EPA to Change Water Impact Analysis

    Mar 11, 2016 | E&E Energywire

    By Mike Soraghan
    
    
    U.S. EPA's science advisers want the agency to change how it analyzes the problems with drinking water associated with hydraulic fracturing.

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Environment News

14. Obama and Trudeau: The Passing of the North American Climate Mantle

    Mar 11, 2016 | E&E Climatewire

    By Jean Chemnick
    
    
    President Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau vowed yesterday to spend their one overlapping year in office working to jointly cut carbon emissions and encourage the rest of the world to follow suit.
15. Exxon Mobil Plant Continues to Violate Clean Air Act -- Lawsuit

    Mar 11, 2016 | E&E Greenwire

    By Sean Reilly
    
    
    A Louisiana environmental group is suing Exxon Mobil Corp. over alleged Clean Air Act violations at its Baton Rouge chemical plant that have continued despite a 2014 settlement with state regulators.
16. With Drinking Water, Safe Enough Is the EPA’s Goal

    Mar 11, 2016 | Wall Street Journal

    By Jo Craven McGinty
    
    
    When Americans turn on the tap, they expect a stream of fresh, clean water. After all, that’s what the Safe Drinking Water Act promised four decades ago.

Industry and Association News

1. How Fisk Johnson Works to Keep the Shine on Family Business

   Mar 10, 2016 | Wall Street Journal

   By Ellen Byron

   H. Fisk Johnson, the fifth-generation family member to run S. C. Johnson & Son Inc., isn’t known for flash. But lately, the chairman and chief executive has chased the spotlight as an agitator of the household-staples industry, pushing for more disclosure of products’ ingredients.

   ​Under his leadership since 2000, the company has lobbied for stricter chemical regulation and more transparency from manufacturers. Since 2009, S. C. Johnson has released ingredient information for most of its products, including its latest collection of Glade air fresheners, which list 100% of its fragrance ingredients—a move intended to nudge competitors such as Procter & Gamble Co., which in recent years has disclosed fragrance ingredients and last month released a list of chemicals it excludes from scents.

   Mr. Johnson says consumers mistakenly perceive natural products as always good for them. “Some of the most toxic, most carcinogenic​materials out there are natural,” he notes.

   S. C. Johnson, founded 130 years ago, is the​privately held maker of Windex cleaner, Pledge polish, Ziploc bags and Raid insecticide, and garners an estimated $10 billion in annual sales. With 13,000 employees and operations in more than 70 countries, the company remains in​the Johnson family’s control in their hometown of Racine, Wis.

   In an interview, Mr. Johnson, who is 58 years old, discussed the dynamics of family business and the advantages of keeping the company privately held. The following are edited excerpts:

   WSJ: Why do you believe it is important to disclose product ingredients?

   FJ: There’s an incredible amount of misinformation about the ingredients that go into household products, their safety and environmental profile. As a result, trust in the safety of household products has been declining. In the absence of information, people think the worst. For decades we’ve constantly looked at the ingredients that go into our products and screened out things that we aren’t comfortable with. We’re also lobbying for changes in chemical regulation. In the U.S., it is 30 years old and needs to be updated.

   WSJ: Will that risk revealing sensitive recipes?

   FJ: In my view, it won’t. With the analytical methods available today, you can, in a matter of minutes, analyze components and detect them down to a very low level. There are certain things in fragrances that are probably at levels below the detectable limit. How big a difference that makes in the olfactory sensation you get is open to debate​because they are at such a low level. We need to disclose.

   WSJ: What freedom does being privately held give you as a company?

   FJ: It’s a huge advantage because we don’t have to worry about next quarter’s earnings or what Wall Street analysts are going to say. We can really plan for the long term. We don’t have to worry about an activist buying a stake in our company and saying we have to merge or split. We don’t do quarterly reports. We do budgets that are a year out. I can’t imagine what a public company does to hit quarterly earnings the way they want.

   WSJ: Several of your competitors have tried to get smaller lately. A lot of brands are on the block. Are you happy with the size of your company?

   FJ: While it’s important in some respects to be focused, we have the capacity to get significantly larger. You have to do it in a way where you maintain your nimbleness and your innovation.

   WSJ: The documentary “Carnauba: A Son’s Memoir,” that you made with your father as he retraced his father’s 1935 journey to Brazil to find a sustainable wax source, is an extraordinary example of executive image-building. In this film, your father speaks openly about his struggle with alcoholism. Did that shape the way you want to communicate as a leader?​ ​

   FJ: I don’t think about image-building for myself. I’m not trying to craft or project an image other than what is me. The making of the movie was one of the most impactful things in my life, an incredible bonding experience with my father.

   I have a stack of emotional, moving letters that my father received about the movie and how it changed people’s lives. People who sought to reconcile their relationship with their parents after watching the movie, people who sought treatment for their drug addiction​or alcoholism. It’s helped people who work in the company feel they are a bigger part of the family.

   WSJ: At family gatherings, any ground rules about when business can’t be discussed?

   FJ: I always like to say that the family and the business go hand in hand, you can’t separate the two. That’s both a great advantage and it​can be a little challenging at times. One of my key objectives is to ensure the family is proud of the company and feels a part of it. The moment the company​becomes more of a financial investment for the family, we may as well go public, honestly. The family never sees the value of the equity because that​gets passed on. We see ourselves simply as a steward of that equity as it moves from one generation to the next.

   WSJ: How did you get your job, and who will succeed you?

   FJ: My father made it very clear that no family member could work for another family member in the same generation. We all [he and his three siblings] joined the company under the assumption that most of us were going to leave and do something else. What ended up happening was that my father spun off a number of business units into separate enterprises. Each of us ended up in our own separate family enterprise. There was some planning and some serendipity.

   No one in the next generation is working in the company yet because of their ages, but we spend a lot of time talking about succession. We​want them to get a few years of working outside the company and we want them to​get an M.B.A.

   WSJ: How are you preparing your 16-year-old daughter?

   FJ: I really try to take her out and around, as do my siblings with their children. I brought her to our Mexican subsidiary so she can see what the company has done​to help the community there. I bring her through our manufacturing facility in Wisconsin quite frequently. A lot of it, like it was for me, is seeing and listening to the dinner-table conversations. You live and breathe the company as you grow up.

   Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

2. (ACC Mentioned) Industry Troubled by Differences in US/Canadian CBI Approach

   Mar 11, 2016 | Chemical Watch

   By Kelly Franklin

   Concerns have emerged at differences between US and Canadian approaches to managing confidential business information (CBI) in their hazard communication programmes. These have surfaced during discussions taking place on the US-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council's (RCC) draft 2016-17 work plan for workplace chemicals.

   Under the RCC, the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Osha) and Health Canada have established a regulatory partnership to try minimise differences between their hazard communication approaches.

   Both have updated their hazardous communication regulations in recent years to bring them in line with the UN Globally Harmonized System (GHS) of chemicals classification and labelling.

   But Health Canada told stakeholders last week there are no plans to propose a legislative change that would allow it to harmonise the differences.

   CBI approaches

   Under the US’s Hazard Communication Standard (HCS 2012), a manufacturer may provide an ingredient concentration range on its safety data sheet (SDS) in lieu of an exact concentration. However, it must include a statement that the exact concentration has been withheld as a trade secret.

   However, under Canada’s Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS 2015) a manufacturer cannot submit a concentration range for the purpose of protecting formulation details unless it undergoes a CBI claim process. This was established under the country's Hazardous Materials Information Review Act (HMIRA).

   The previous version of WHMIS had permitted manufacturers to disclose concentration ranges prescribed by the regulation, without having to submit a CBI claim.

   Critics say the WHMIS 2015 approach will require manufacturers to submit new CBI claims to protect formulation details. This approach is costly, will put Canadian suppliers and importers at an economic disadvantage, and could result in a backlog that delays products being imported into the country, they say.

   Critics say the WHMIS 2015 approach will require manufacturers to submit new CBI claims to protect formulation details. This approach is costly, will put Canadian suppliers and importers at an economic disadvantage, and could result in a backlog that delays products being imported into the country, they say.

   ‘No plan’ to amend HMIRA

   Jacques Cerf, a consultant to the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada (CIAC), told Chemical Watch that it has been discussing these concerns with Health Canada.

   According to Mr Cerf, the agency has told industry that HMIRA would need to be amended in order to change the requirement.

   But Daniel Wolfish, the director of WHMIS, said in a recent RCC work plan stakeholder webinar that “there is no plan to present to our minister or to Parliament a new act or an amended act.”

   Responding to questions around the CBI variance, Mr Wolfish said: “My view is that if I was to be moving to present a proposal to my minister, I would need to have a very strong case as to why ... it would be a priority in the early months of a government that has an ambitious agenda on a whole bunch of health and safety issues.

   “The system we have is enforced for the protection of worker health and safety.”

   Worker safety at play

   Some industry groups question whether agency review of substance concentrations is necessary for worker safety.

   In a letter to Health Canada by last year the American Chemistry Council (ACC) said “requiring the exact concentration percentages on SDSs does not enhance this information or protections for workers.”

   Mr Cerf agreed it is unnecessary for the agency to review an SDS which only withholds a concentration range as CBI.

   “The chemical identity of the hazardous ingredient is disclosed, and it’s not reducing the level of protection for workers because you put 1%-10%” instead of an exact concentration value, he said.

   The ACC thinks the CBI issues could be addressed within the existing HMIRA, says regulatory and technical affairs, Alexa Burr.

   Work continues

   Mr Wolfish said Health Canada is “keen to work with stakeholders around [the CBI requirements], and how [we can] make those requirements work in a more effective or efficient, and more timely way.”

   "We do need to respect the direction and role of Parliament, and we do feel it is an important protective regime," Daniel Wolfish

   But, he added, "we do need to respect the direction and role of Parliament, and we do feel it is an important protective regime.”

   Health Canada released a guidance document on the issue last July, and Osha said it plans to update its FAQs with additional information on the differences.

   Comments on the RCC 2016-17 work plan can be submitted until 31 March. The final plan is expected by 30 June. Its release will follow a 4-5 May binational stakeholder event in Washington DC.

   Return to headline | Return to top

3. Prop. 65 Set to Become Bigger Business Burden

   Mar 11, 2016 | The Orange County Register

   By Jeffrey Herold

   Want to send a chill down any California business owner’s spine? Just mention the words “Proposition 65.” For nearly three decades, trial lawyers have abused the state’s well-intentioned chemical warning law to force in-state and out-of-state businesses to pay millions of dollars in settlements and attorneys’ fees. And despite a pledge by Gov. Jerry Brown to reform the law, newly issued regulations from the state mean Prop. 65 is about to get worse, not better.

   Most Californians couldn’t explain Prop. 65 if asked, but the signs and labels, “Warning: this product contains a chemical known to the state of California to cause cancer” are everywhere. We can’t pump gas, buy coffee or order a drink at a bar without being warned of possible exposure to toxic chemicals. Though most consumers shrug off these warnings, the law has huge implications for businesses.

   Under the law, California has created a list of more than 800 chemicals it says could cause cancer or reproductive problems. If a retailer or manufacturer sells a product containing one of those chemicals – regardless of whether a consumer could actually be exposed to the chemical – and it doesn’t have a California-approved warning label, it can be sued.

   In fact, manufacturers can be sued even if they had no idea their product was being sold in California. Settling these lawsuits has forced some small and medium-size businesses to declare bankruptcy. Filing these lawsuits is so lucrative that there are numerous law firms who specialize in Prop. 65 lawsuits, using the law as a business plan to extract six-figure settlements from unassuming businesses.

   In 2014, my company was sued under Prop. 65 for selling a golf club cover containing a phthalate, DEHP, without a proper warning label. I researched DEHP to make sure we weren’t putting our customers at risk.

   I couldn’t believe what I found. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, environmental levels of DEHP are not thought to be harmful. Most of what’s known about the health effects of DEHP came from studies where rats and mice were fed the chemical, most often in amounts “much higher than the amounts found in the environment.”

   Golf club covers aren’t typically eaten, yet, this lawsuit cost my business thousands of dollars in lost time, attorneys’ fees and other costs.

   Our experience highlights the biggest problem with the law: Warning consumers about nonexistent health risks causes consumers unnecessary worry and businesses unnecessary expenses.

   Now, new regulations from California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment will make it even harder for businesses to comply with Prop. 65. OEHHA is creating a website for consumers, detailing exactly which chemicals are in which products and how much of that chemical is present. OEHHA also proposes revamping the Prop. 65 label entirely to include a hazard symbol and listing at least one chemical contained in the product.

   These changes still don’t address the fact that, in most cases, the risk to consumers’ health by using a Prop. 65-labeled product as intended is virtually nonexistent. Yet warning labels aren’t allowed to put the risk in context.

   OEHHA’s changes won’t help Californians make better choices for their health, but they will require businesses to purchase new signage, revamp their labels, pay for more product testing and increase the threat of lawsuits. It’s time for Gov. Brown to make good on his pledge to cut down on frivolous Prop. 65 lawsuits before out-of-control litigation forces more businesses to close.

   Return to headline | Return to top

4. TSCA Reform: Administration Letter Submitted to Congress on TSCA Reform Legislation

   Mar 11, 2016 | The National Law Review

   By Government Regulation

   A January 20, 2016, letter from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy provides the Administration's reaction to, and comments on, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform legislation that has passed both the House and the Senate in somewhat different forms. The differences between the bills are currently being sorted out and reconciled. The bills at issue are the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015 (H.R. 2576) and the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S. 697). Details can be found in our H.R. 2576 and in our S. 697 memos discussing each of the bills.

   EPA's letter cites the Administration's Essential Principles for Reform of Chemical Management Legislation (2009) (Principles) and reviews the bills' provisions against those points. It also provides a reaction to several aspects not touched on in the Principles, and offers to work with Congress on "more technical drafting issues" during the reconciliation process.

   Specific points touched on in the Administration letter include the following:

   Deadlines for Action. The Senate bill is identified as preferable, as it provides certainty about the progress that EPA is required to make in reviewing chemicals.

   Elimination of the "Least Burdensome" Requirement. This point relates to the provision in TSCA Section 6 that many believe has contributed to EPA's problems in successfully using TSCA to regulate existing chemicals. The letter recognizes that both bills include new, different considerations for EPA to apply when selecting among risk management measures, and indicates a preference for the approach in S. 697. The letter notes that the House bill leaves some uncertainty as to how many cost effective options EPA would need to review and reject as inadequate before selecting a non-cost effective option.

   Prioritizing Chemicals for Review. The letter focuses on the provisions in both bills that allow industry to identify priority chemicals for EPA review, and warns about the potential for such a provision to overrun EPA's ability to prioritize and manage chemical reviews. It indicates a preference for the Senate bill that has language capping the number of such reviews, and also requires that industry pay the costs of such reviews as well as the costs of taking needed regulatory actions.

   Sustained Sources of Funding. The letter points out potential limitations in the fee provisions in the House bill and expresses a preference for S. 697's approach, which explicitly adds new fee collection authority for a variety of activities, including reviewing Confidential Business Information (CBI) claims, and assessing and regulating chemicals. The letter also requests that EPA receive broad authority to use the fees to cover Agency costs. Several potential implementation challenges are identified for the Senate bill concerning spending caps and minimum appropriation requirements for assessing fees.

   Implementation Challenges. The letter warns against imposing extensive, overly prescriptive requirements on EPA to develop more policy and procedure documents, as such requirements could "frustrate" EPA's timely implementation of the substantive requirements. The letter notes S. 697's "pressing deadlines" and specific requirements for the development of various documents, and points to the body of existing policy, procedure, and guidance documents that EPA has developed over the years. In this instance, the letter indicates a preference for the approach in H.R 2576 which limits the requirement for development of new documents to the "extent necessary."

   Safety Standard. The letter encourages the revised statute to apply the new safety standard consistently throughout the statue. It goes on to discuss how the approach in the House bill, which limits the application of the safety standard to Section 6 on existing chemicals, could create uncertainty as to what standard would apply under other provisions of TSCA that involve "unreasonable risk," and discusses ways that this uncertainty might be remedied. The letter discusses the possibility that the House bill could apply different standards to Section 6(a) rulemakings that involve "non-cost-effective requirements" determined under Section 6(c) versus the Section 6(a) rules that do not present this issue. It also notes other possible "confusion" relating to the control of persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals as provided in the House bill.

   Regulatory Flexibility. The letter indicates that the approach in the House bill of retaining the current TSCA Section 6(a) menu of regulatory requirements, while extensive, is not comprehensive and indicates a preference for the inclusion of a "catch-all" regulatory authority, as found in the Senate bill.

   Safety of New Chemicals. The letter states its support for the approach in S. 697 that requires an affirmative safety determination on new chemicals, which it describes as being consistent with the Administration's Principles regarding new chemicals.

   Transparency and CBI. The letter indicates that both bills make improvements to substantiation requirements for CBI claims. It also indicates its support for a greater ability to share CBI with others when necessary to protect public health and safety. At the same time, it raises concerns with a provision in the House bill that allows "molecular structure" information to be claimed as CBI.

   Authority to Require Development of Information. While recognizing that both bills give EPA new authority to require testing, the letter raises questions about the approach in the House bill and suggests that it could have the effect of perpetuating the difficulties EPA has encountered under TSCA Section 4.

   Chemicals in Articles. The letter states that the articles provisions in the bills may make it more difficult for EPA to review and regulate risks from chemicals in articles. The letter goes on to discuss EPA's concerns regarding several of these provisions.

   Enforcement Improvements. While the Administration's Principles do not touch on this aspect, the letter indicates support for the provisions on civil and criminal enforcement in the Senate bill.

   Federal-State Relationship. The letter discusses several aspects of preemption as it appears in the two bills. It states that the intent of the comments is to note provisions that "could benefit" from drafting changes to better reflect Congress' presumed intent, as well as scope provisions that could result in permanent preemption of state action on risks not addressed by federal regulation. Specific comments concerning clarification of the drafters' intent include preservation of existing state laws/regulations and the scope of potential preemption of state environmental laws that "actually conflict" with an EPA "action or determination." The letter indicates support for the approach in S. 697 that clarifies that preemption extends to state laws adopted under the authority of federal law, as well as state laws that are adopted using a state's own authority or that are adopted to meet a need under federal law. The letter discusses several aspects of the scope issue and indicates support for the approach in S. 697 that limits preemption to the particular risks actually considered in the EPA assessment or action. The letter also notes that, while the House bill does not require an affirmative determination on new chemicals, it nonetheless would preempt state regulation for all uses of a new chemical.

   Commentary

   It is good that the Administration is engaging with Congress on its efforts to sort out and reconcile the differences between the two bills. The points raised are generally useful and should be helpful in sorting out the issues discussed. We particularly appreciate the points regarding implementation challenges that we agree are formidable. At the same time, the letter takes a narrow approach that remains focused on the Administration's Principles.

   Return to headline | Return to top

5.  The Pediatrician Who Helped Uncover the Dangers of Lead Has Some Advice for Flint

   Mar 11, 2016 | The Nation

   By Ava Kofman

   When Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton faced off in Michigan last Sunday night, the nation’s eyes were once again on Flint, the majority-black city whose residents had been exposed for months to lead-laced tap water. The two candidates had both made Flint’s water crisis a crucial campaign cause, and the debate was a chance to showcase their outrage—both called for the resignation of Governor Rick Snyder—and perhaps win over a few Michigan voters before the Wednesday primary. But when resident LeeAnne Walters asked Clinton and Sanders whether they, as President, would remove lead service pipes from public water systems across the country, her question served as a sobering reminder that the threat goes well beyond Flint. The city’s toxic water crisis could happen again—and has happened before.

   In February, The Nation sat down with the doctor who is largely responsible for our present-day knowledge of lead’s extreme toxicity. Dr. Philip Landrigan, a distinguished pediatrician and epidemiologist at Mount Sinai Hospital, first noticed the effects of lead on children in the late 1960s, when he was a pediatric resident at Boston Children’s Hospital. Many children came in complaining of headaches and dizziness. Some were comatose. But it wasn’t until working on a case for the Center for Disease Control in El Paso, Texas—which was home, at the time, to a large smelting plant—that he correlated small amounts of lead exposure in children with a loss of IQ points.

   Landrigan’s studies in the early 1970s played a pivotal role in the government’s mandate to phase out lead in gasoline and to ban lead paint. In the past decade, an impressive series of studies building on Landrigan’s work have demonstrated that lead is toxic to children even at the lowest levels measurable in the bloodstream. Nonetheless, state officials ignored the findings of Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha, a pediatrician at Hurley Children’s Hospital in Flint, when she alerted them that the proportion of children under five with elevated levels of lead in their blood had almost doubled since the switch to the Flint River.

   Landrigan spoke to The Nation about how far we’ve come in understanding lead’s toxicity and how far we have to go in protecting communities.

   Ava Kofman: When you published the results of your initial study, did people believe you? 

   Philip Landrigan: It depended on who you spoke to. People in the scientific community believed me. The lead industry rejected the findings out of hand, saying that they were foolish, that they were biased, and that they were the consequence of a whole series of other factors: socio-economic status, race, inadequate parental education. They offered many different explanations to try to discount our findings. Another thing that the lead industry did was that they found paid experts to testify against us and write papers against us.

   AK: As someone who’s been working on this issue for decades, what was your initial reaction when you heard about Flint and the water poisoning there?

   PL: Well I had a couple reactions. The first was this terrible sense of deja vu, that it was “deja vu all over again” as somebody said a long time ago. [Laughs]. The second was that it reminded me that as bad as Flint is, it’s hardly isolated. We still have a huge problem of lead poisoning in this country. The CDC’s latest numbers indicate that more than 500,000 children [between the ages of 1 and 5] have elevated blood lead levels over today’s standards. There was a big survey of housing done a few years ago by a man named David Jacobs. It’s probably a little bit out of date, but not that much. He found that thirty-eight million housing units in the United States contain lead, and in nearly two-thirds of those—so twenty-four million—the lead is in a deteriorating state, where it poses a hazard to children. So we still have a big problem.

   AK: When you first heard about the efforts of Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha in Flint, Michigan to study and distribute the results of her studies on the city’s mass lead poisoning, did you see a lot of parallels to your own work convincing authorities in Texas?

   PL: Oh yeah, it was a clear parallel. I’ve never met her—we have corresponded by email in the past couple of weeks—but she seems like a very good and admirable person. She deserves full marks for her courage, for her persistence, for having skillfully brought the issue to the surface.

   AK: If you were to implement wider policy changes to make sure this doesn’t happen again, what would those be?

   PL: Well the simplest thing would just be to have a national testing program to test the water. We have the technology to do it. And you don’t have to test every house in a big [water] system: you can just test systems. But you have to do the testing in the home, and the reason for that is most—Flint’s the exception—but most of the time lead in drinking water is not present at the source. In most systems, the lead gets in either from the pipes under the streets in some of the older cities in the country, or, from the so-called service pipes that serve the homes that either are lead pipes or lead sodder.

   AK: What can these children and families expect as they grow older and hit teen years and adulthood?

   PL: Unfortunately, lead causes brain injury. It can erode a child’s IQ. It can disrupt a child’s behavior. The good news is that the pediatric community, the community of child psychologists, and others who care about children’s development have developed some marvelous tools over the past twenty years for educational enrichment of children who have been damaged by lead or by other chemicals or by other problems beyond chemicals. And so I don’t think we should give up on these children at all. We shouldn’t throw up our hands and say that “These children are damaged for life.” That’s a terrible thing to do to these children. To say that “these kids are irretrievably damaged” sends totally the wrong message.

   But the message that does have to be put out is that, first of all, these children deserve proper neuropsychological evaluations paid for by either the state or the federal government. It certainly should not come out of the pockets of the family. Secondly, if children are found to have problems, they should be provided with proper enrichment educational programs, and the sooner the better, because as you might well imagine the more quickly the intervention begins, the more effective it’s going to be.

   In other words, there’s inevitably going to be a lot of finger pointing, a lot of people saying, “Who’s to blame?” It’s going to take time. Lawyers are going to get involved, courts are going to get involved, I understand all that. But somebody should have the courage to step in right quickly and say, “Let’s start the intervention programs for the children now, and we’ll find the money.” That’s what I would do if I were in the position to do it.

   But there is another issue, and that is that besides being able to cause brain injury in children, lead also can increase the risk for hypertension in adults, and for kidney injury, and the combination of hypertension and kidney injury has been well-documented to increase risk for heart disease and stroke. And around the world, lead is a major cause of heart disease and stroke as a consequence of hypertension.

   AK: Why is there such a difference in the physiology of children that causes lead to affect them more than the bodies of adults?

   PL: It’s all about human development. The human brain goes through this extraordinary development starting in about the fourth or fifth week of pregnancy, going through pregnancy and going through the first few years after birth… The engineering is extraordinary! It makes the desktop computer look like a child’s toy. But the price of that incredible complexity is great vulnerability. So if anything—whether it’s lead or an organic phosphate pesticide, or the ethyl alcohol from a glass of wine—if any of those toxic chemicals get into the brain while that complicated development is going on, the damage can be very severe. Later on in life, at five years of age, or at twelve years of age, the brain architecture is more or less settled and it takes a lot more lead to cause harm. Lead is still toxic to the brain at any age, even as adult, but it takes a lot more lead as a person gets older. So that’s why the brain damage is the great risk at the front end of life.

   AK: How would you characterize the past several decades’ efforts to get lead out of the environment?

   PL: Overall, it’s been an incredible success story. When we took lead out of gasoline and paint starting in 1976, what we saw over the next decade was a more than a ninety percent reduction of the incidents of lead poisoning in blood levels. People that studied the link between lead and IQ have found that American pre-school age children in the mid-’90s have IQs about two-to-four points higher than they would have in the mid-1970s.

   AK: What you think of the broader regulatory frameworks to address toxic chemicals in the environment right now, namely the Toxic Substances Control Act?

   PL: Well, basically, the current regulatory framework is nonexistent. So back in 1976, we passed TSCA [the Toxic Substances Control Act], which at the time was thought to be great legislation. The chemical industry opposed it bitterly, but then they managed to gut it after it was passed. In the nearly 40 years that TSCA has existed, it’s succeeded in getting a total of five chemicals off the market. And in that time, 20 to 25,000 new chemicals have come on the market, so it’s clearly legislation that’s not working. As I’m sure you’re aware, there are efforts in the Congress now to come up with TSCA reform, called the Safe Chemicals Act.

   AK: Your work as a practicing clinician and as a researcher have had great effects on policy. What do you see as the best way that doctors can serve as advocates for policy change and what do you see as the limits of that advocacy work?

   PL: Well, first of all, if doctors and scientists in general are going to be effective advocates they have to be good scientists. There are people who can be grassroots advocates who work at the community level who do marvelous work who are not scientists and don’t pretend to be, and they have a very important role. But when a doctor or scientist wants to become an advocate, they have to remember first and foremost that they’re a scientist: they have to stick to their data. They have to distinguish very clearly between what’s fact and what they would like to see happen, but be based in facts. And if a person is careful and thoughtful, they can do that.

   It’s also important, probably like almost anything else in life, to be strategic. You have to pick your battles. You have to do [advocacy] at the right time. But I’ve always thought that when a doctor—and especially a pediatrician—learns the tools of what I call evidence-based or science-based advocacy, that that person can be extremely effective. Doctors are still respected in American society, pediatricians in particular. And when a doctor gets up and says something like “Lead is a problem,” the way Mona Hanna-Attisha did in Flint, people listen. She did something that not everybody will do, and that’s that she took the next step and went public. 

   Return to headline | Return to top

6. These Plastic-Eating Bacteria Could Help Cut Down on Waste

   Mar 11, 2016 | Washington Post

   By Rachel Feltman

   Recycling is so 20th century. According to one new study, there could be a new way to cut down on plastic waste: bacteria that consume one of the major components of our old bottles and clothes.

   The study, published Thursday in Science, focuses on a newly-discovered bacterium called Ideonella sakaiensis. It was found outside of a bottle recycling plant, and it seems to have evolved a pair of enzymes it uses to break down polyethylene terephthalate or PET, a polymer so widely used to make plastic that about 50 million tons of it are made every year.

   Because 311 million tons of plastics are produced worldwide each year — and very little of that amount makes it to recycling plants — scientists are always on the lookout for new, better ways of making PET break down when it inevitably ends up in landfills, but it's tough stuff.

   "You may think this is the rerun of an old story, as plastic-eating microbes have already been touted as saviors of the planet," the University of Hull's Mark Lorch, who wasn't involved in the study, wrote for The Conversation. "But there are several important differences here. First, previous reports were of tricky-to-cultivate fungi, where in this case the microbe is easily grown. The researchers more or less left the PET in a warm jar with the bacterial culture and some other nutrients, and a few weeks later all the plastic was gone."

   The impressive results don't mean that we can start tossing plastic bottles into landfills all willy-nilly: It's going to take some more work before the bacteria are ready to tackle our messes. For now, they still have a hard time breaking down the highly crystallized form of PET used in most hard plastics.

   “It’s difficult to break down highly crystallized PET,” study author Kenji Miyamoto of Keio University told The Guardian. “Our research results are just the initiation for the application. We have to work on so many issues needed for various applications. It takes a long time."

   And there are other potential hiccups: If plastics were broken down using bacterial processes, they might release unsavory molecules and compounds into the environment that would otherwise stay locked up.

   But even if there's no direct use for Ideonella sakaiensis in our environment, the bacteria's mechanism for consuming PET could be used to develop synthetic plastic-chompers in the lab. And the bacteria's existence is a great sign: PET has only been around for about 70 years, and this indicates that at least one organism has already evolved the ability to consume it. It's likely that there are other microbes out there doing the same thing for PET and other kinds of plastics — and one of those species could wind up revolutionizing the way we recycle.

   Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

7. Largest U.S. Grid Operator Plows Ahead on Rule Planning

   Mar 11, 2016 | E&E Energywire

   By Rod Kuckro and Peter Behr

   The Supreme Court's stay of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan is not altering plans by the nation's largest power grid operator to move ahead with an analysis of compliance options for the 14 jurisdictions within its 243,417-square-mile footprint.

   States that are part of the PJM Interconnection are "still interested in hearing from us what our results show from this Clean Power Plan analysis," said Denise Foster, PJM's vice president for state and member services.

   And that goes even for states that have officially ended their stakeholder process, she said.

   The states "want to stay active with their peer group, thinking about what modeling efforts are out there and wanting to understand what those results are showing, because ultimately the stay could be lifted and they'd have to submit a plan" to EPA, Foster said in an interview.

   The grid operator serves all or parts of Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia.

   PJM's posture on the EPA rule to curb carbon from power plants mirrors that of the two other large, multistate regional transmission organizations, the Midcontinent Independent System Operator and the Southwest Power Pool.

   During a joint meeting Wednesday, those two made clear they would continue crunching numbers and work together to send the same message to states looking to ensure against power outages and price hikes as they shift away from coal and toward lower-carbon electricity sources under the rule (EnergyWire, March 10).

   The PJM analysis was requested by members of the Organization of PJM States Inc., which is made up of utility regulators from the regional transmission organization's 14 jurisdictions, Foster said.

   PJM has a "really good working relationship" with the state regulators, but in the last two years, the organization has had to "expand our focus and bring in the energy offices and the environmental agencies," Foster said, because of how the Clean Power Plan and the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule could affect power plants.

   The details of scenarios and questions to be answered by the analysis were recentlypresented to PJM stakeholders. The presentation offers a timeline that envisions completing a "compliance analysis assessment" by April 30 and publishing a "compliance pathways report" by May 31.

   Additional grid reliability analysis would continue through the third quarter along with coordination work with MISO focused especially on possible impacts in states where PJM and MISO share management of the grid.

   Getting ahead of the plan

   PJM is stretching its planning process to try to get ahead of changes the CPP may impose, and it will be creating scenarios to anticipate possible clusters of power plant retirements and major new transmission projects that will be needed, said PJM planning Vice President Steven Herling.

   "Even if the CPP is still on hold, things will start to happen," Herling said in an interview. Months before EPA's mercury and toxics standards were formalized in 2011, some generators "saw the handwriting on the wall" and prepared to retire plants. "We expect to see a similar reaction to the pendency of CPP," Herling said.

   "We are going to be working very closely with all our states to understand what their needs are," he said.

   A decade ago, transmission planning was reactive, built around estimates of load growth and reliability requirements. "We don't anticipate [generating plant] retirements and go out and build transmission to deal with them," he added. "Our process has been to wait until a generator identifies to us that they are retiring, then we do the planning to accommodate that retirement."

   Now, grid security, aging power lines, new technology issues and increased fuel competition combined with environmental regulations are altering the grid and PJM has to get a jump-start on change, he said.

   "We'll start running some of these scenarios, and they will touch on all of the issues, including CPP," Herling said. "With CPP, at some point -- and this is going to take a little while to sort out -- we're going to have to work closely with the states to figure out how they intend to satisfy the requirements of CPP.

   "There are parts and pieces that will start to jell. Whether the states on a formal basis are planning or not planning for how they're going to deal with CPP, we will still do some outreach for a lot of reasons." PJM will have similar discussions with generator owners and transmission developers.

   "We're going to have to anticipate to the best of our ability which generation is at risk. And ideally, what we would like to be in a position to do is to identify the transmission that would meet both the states' needs and be able to deal with [CPP] retirements. If we can convince the states that it's consistent with meeting the goals of their energy policies, then we'd be in a position to move forward."

   PJM intends to update its members on the status of its CPP analysis during a regular monthly webinar, Foster said.

   "And then when we delve a little deeper -- particularly on the transmission planning analyses portion -- the transmission and expansion advisory committee is going to be our focal point," she said.

   Return to headline | Return to top

8. Timeline for EPA's Methane Crackdown Remains Unclear

   Mar 11, 2016 | E&E Climatewire

   By Niina Heikkinen

   U.S. EPA said yesterday it will for the first time regulate existing sources of methane from the oil and gas industry.

   The announcement came as part of a new joint U.S.-Canada pact to cut domestic emissions of the potent greenhouse gas (Greenwire, March 10). Both countries agreed to reduce emissions from the oil and gas sector by 40 to 45 percent below 2012 levels by 2025.

   Scientists and environmentalists praised the decision as an important step toward reducing U.S. emissions and meeting America's pledge toward the global climate accord struck last year in Paris.

   "Today's announcement is a strong signal that these two neighbors are committed to following through on climate commitments," said Rachel Cleetus, lead economist and climate policy manager at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "As neighboring countries that trade significantly in oil and gas, it's important that they bring the industry along together. This is an opportunity to harmonize how methane is addressed in the sector."

   Industry officials and many Republicans, meanwhile, blasted the move. Sandra Snyder, counsel at Bracewell LLP, said new EPA regulations would likely increase costs for the industry.

   "I would emphasize that even if industry is already taking steps to capture and sell more product, the manpower to carry out the regulatory burdens is not insignificant," she said.

   "When companies own tens of thousands of wells, documentation and record-keeping becomes a real issue," she said. "A system is required to manage all of that information, and additional training is required to ensure that record keeping is conducted properly."

   EPA is expected to begin work on the new regulations "immediately," according to a joint statement from the U.S. and Canadian governments.

   Rule 'will spill into the next administration'

   Starting next month, EPA will begin a formal information-gathering process that the agency is aiming to complete by later this year. Then the agency will begin creating a proposal for regulating existing methane sources in the oil and gas industry.

   Meanwhile, Environment and Climate Change Canada will work to publish an initial phase of methane emissions regulations by the beginning of next year.

   There is no public timeline yet for whether or not EPA regulations on existing sources could be completed before President Obama leaves office.

   "It's clear this will spill into the next administration," said Cleetus. "I think the EPA will continue to work on regulations, but there's no question we need an administration in place that understands the importance of climate action.

   "We've seen that the Obama administration's commitment has been able to move forward regulations that have been years in the making, like the Clean Power Plan," she said.

   Others say it's possible that pressure from the administration could lead to final proposed regulations by the end of this year.

   "Our policy is they should complete the information-gathering as soon as possible," said Conrad Schneider, advocacy director at the Clean Air Task Force. "We want the EPA to ask for information that is readily available."

   That could speed up the process and help to get regulations completed during this administration and at the same time create as tight a proposal as possible.

   "There are many thousands of well pads across the nation that are currently unregulated, despite their harmful emissions; evidence shows that operators of these wells can easily bring down emissions with proven approaches, as has been shown in Colorado and Wyoming already," Schneider said.

   "A regulation covering existing sources should go further, however, and regulate emission points from the well pad, the gathering pipeline system, midstream processing and the transmission pipeline infrastructure," he said.

   Methane a powerful slice of U.S. greenhouse gases

   According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, in 2014, the number of producing natural gas wells alone was over 1 million in a total of 32 states and the Gulf of Mexico.

   Regardless of how quickly EPA is able to come up with a final proposal, supporters of more regulation on the oil and gas sector agreed that the agency's commitment to address existing sources of methane is an important step for protecting the environment.

   "Methane is an incredible problem and something that really needs to be addressed to reach the Paris target," said Robert Howarth, a professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell University.

   While CO2 makes up a much larger percentage of overall greenhouse gases, methane's heat-trapping properties make it a significant environmental threat, Howarth said.

   If methane's environmental impact is evaluated over a 20-year time scale, the gas has more than 80 times the ability to trap heat of carbon dioxide. Even when considered over 100 years, it is still has about 25 times the heat-trapping capacity of CO2.

   According to EPA, methane constitutes about 10 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, making it the second most common greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide. The oil and gas industry by itself is the largest man-made source of the gas, pumping 29 percent of total U.S. methane emissions into the atmosphere.

   Howarth noted that the CO2 pumped into the atmosphere will remain there for hundreds of years. That means even if countries drastically cut CO2 emissions, people would still experience climate change because of the accumulated emissions already in the atmosphere.

   "Methane, on the other hand, is just in the atmosphere for about 12 years. It's a much shorter time span, but if we respond to methane now, we actually slow global warming now," Howarth said.

   What's next, 'regulating cows'?

   That is important for meeting the Paris accord's target to keep global temperatures from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. The planet may reach that temperature increase in a little over a decade.

   "If we reduce global human-caused methane by a third, we buy several decades of time," he said.

   Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) also pointed to the impact of methane on global temperatures as an important reason to begin regulations that she referred to as "long overdue."

   "I think most people don't know that the atmosphere is finite. It's like a shell around Earth, so that all this carbon and methane doesn't disappear. It remains in the atmosphere. So you keep adding it up, and at some point, you've got a toxic level that has major effect," she said.

   The oil and gas industry argue that creating regulations on both new and modified sources of methane and existing sources will put an undue burden on producers and slow the U.S. energy boom.

   "Industry-led efforts are a proven way to reduce methane," Kyle Isakower, vice president of regulatory and economic policy at the American Petroleum Institute, told reporters in a press call.

   He cited EPA's greenhouse gas inventory that found methane emissions from "hydraulically fractured natural gas well completions and work overs" had gone down by 79 percent and methane from field production of natural gas was down 38 percent since 2005.

   "This is a direct result of industry innovation. And this is all while natural gas production has soared to record highs," he said.

   Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) questioned why the Obama administration is targeting oil and gas.

   "What about cows? They produce methane, too, so are they going to regulate cows?" he asked.

   Return to headline | Return to top

9. New Obama Methane Goals Threaten Shale Oil/Gas, Industry Says

   Mar 11, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence

   By Joe Fisher

   Stymied, for now, in attempts to further regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at the utility level, the Obama administration Thursday announced plans -- in collaboration with Canada -- to target methane emissions from existing oil and natural gas production/transmission facilities.

   "The [Environmental Protection] Agency [EPA] will begin with a formal process to require companies operating existing oil and gas sources to provide information to assist in the development of comprehensive regulations to reduce methane emissions," the agency said.

   The move follows the stalling of the administration's utility-focused Clean Power Plan, which has been blocked by the Supreme Court and faces an uncertain future (see Shale Daily, Feb. 10). The American Petroleum Institute's (API) Kyle Isakower, vice president of regulatory and economic policy, said API only heard about the administration's latest GHG intentions Wednesday night.

   "Additional regulations on methane by the administration could discourage the shale energy revolution that has helped America lead the world in reducing emissions while significantly lowering the costs of energy to consumers," Isakower said. "The administration is catering to environmental extremists at the expense of American consumers."

   The effort to reduce oil/gas industry methane emissions is part of a much broader U.S.-Canada agenda on climate change announced by President Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Thursday at the White House.

   "Building on a history of working together to reduce air emissions, Canada and the U.S. commit to take action to reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, the world's largest industrial methane source, in support of achieving our respective international climate change commitments," the leaders said.

   Obama and Trudeau committed to reducing methane emissions by 40-45% below 2012 levels by 2025 from the oil and gas sector, as well as explore opportunities for additional methane reductions. EPA had previously sought such a reduction through limiting emissions from new sources. Thursday’s action adds the potential to limit emissions of existing sources.

   "An existing-source [methane] proposal may be months away,” analysts at ClearView Energy Partners LLC said in a note Thursday, “but we would be surprised if the scope of an eventual rule deviated significantly from either the EPA's Aug. 18, 2015 proposal to regulate methane from new and modified oil and gas wells [see Shale Daily, Aug. 18, 2015] or the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Jan. 22 proposal to regulate venting and flaring on federal and tribal lands [see Shale Daily,Jan. 22]. Both rules proposed to address: (1) compressors; (2) pneumatic devices; (3) leak detection and repair; and (4) well completion. In addition, the BLM proposed to address: (5) storage tanks; and (6) liquids unloading."                  

   For its part, Environment and Climate Change Canada said it intends to publish an initial phase of proposed regulations for methane by early 2017.

   Building on the U.S.-Canada Air Quality Agreement, both countries intend to pursue programs, policies and strategies, and share experiences on reducing oil and gas methane emissions as they implement their respective federal regulations, beginning this year, they said in an announcement.

   "...Canada and the U.S. will work together to improve methane data collection and emissions quantification, and transparency of emissions reporting in North America, and share knowledge of cost-effective methane-reduction technologies and practices.”

   The agreement “...addresses one of the most serious aspects of our climate crisis: methane emissions from the oil and gas industry,” said Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp. “Methane is responsible for about a quarter of today's warming, and the U.S. and Canada are the second- and fourth-largest emitters of oil and gas methane, respectively."

   The pro-energy industry Institute for Energy Research (IER) said the move by the Obama administration is "...designed to cut off access to America's abundant, affordable energy resources...

   "The plan concocted by President Obama and PM Trudeau isn't about methane emissions," said IER President Thomas Pyle. "Even as energy production has increased, America's oil and gas producers are reducing methane emissions because they have an incentive to do so. This regulation is about increasing the cost of producing natural gas and oil. And for all the damage this regulation would cause, it would have no impact on the climate."

   Pyle said an earlier statement by Obama that the country "can't just drill" its way to lower gas prices has proven to be wrong. "The rise in U.S. and Canadian energy production is the reason why natural gas, oil and gasoline prices are so low, he said. "Since 2008, 97% of the total increase in world oil production came from the U.S. and Canada alone."

   The leaders also said their countries would jointly endorse the World Bank's Zero Routine Flaring by 2030 Initiative, reflecting increasing concern about the impacts of oil and natural gas flaring, particularly in sensitive regions such as the Arctic.

   EPA's information collection request (ICR) on oil/gas methane emissions will allow it to "gather important information on existing sources of methane emissions, technologies to reduce those emissions and the costs of those technologies in the production, gathering, processing, and transmission and storage segments of the oil and gas sector," the agency said.

   "There are hundreds of thousands of existing oil and gas sources across the country; some emit small amounts of methane, but others emit very large quantities. Through the ICR, EPA will be seeking a broad range of information that will help us determine how to effectively reduce emissions, including information such as how equipment and emissions controls are, or can be, configured, and what installing those controls entails."

   API is skeptical, to say the least, of anything that could add costs to the operations of oil and natural gas producers. Isakower told reporters Thursday during a briefing that the industry already is doing its part to bring down methane emissions from operations.

   "America is already leading the world in reducing greenhouse gas emissions," Isakower said. "Even as oil and natural gas production has risen dramatically, methane emissions have fallen, thanks to industry leadership and investment in new technologies.

   "Let's not forget that the safe and responsible development of energy from shale has helped the U.S. cut CO2 [carbon dioxide] emissions to near 20-year lows. The last thing we need is more duplicative and costly regulations that could increase the cost of energy for Americans and that could potentially drive up greenhouse gas emissions."

   National Association of Manufacturers' Ross Eisenberg, vice president of energy and resources policy, also praised private-sector emissions-reduction efforts and the role of technology in the same.

   "Manufacturers have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 10% since 2005, while our value to the economy has increased by 19% over the same time period," Eisenberg said. "Our ability to produce more and grow the economy while lowering emissions is dependent on access to reliable and affordable energy. The shale revolution has served as a major bright spot for manufacturers and has been a key driver in new investments across the country that have added hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs."

   EPA will also be seeking information that will help the agency identify sources with high emissions and the factors that contribute to those emissions. The ICR will likely apply to the same types of sources covered by the current and proposed New Source Performance Standards for the oil and gas sector, as well as additional sources.

   "We'll be talking with industry, environmental groups, state, local and tribal air agencies, and communities to walk them through the process and to hear feedback and insights on our plans," EPA said.

   The ICR process, which is governed by the Paperwork Reduction Act, provides the public opportunities to review drafts of the information collection request. EPA will begin the ICR process next month, signing a draft information collection request that will be made available for public comment. The agency will revise that draft as necessary based on comment and send it to the Office of Management and Budget for additional review and input.

   Once the collection request is approved -- which can include surveys and required emissions monitoring -- it will go to industry, which is required to respond and attest that the information it provides is accurate. EPA's goal is to receive the first phase of information later this year.

   It is not clear how far the the administration will get toward its goal before the clock runs out on the Obama presidency. A proposed rule could be issued by the end of the year, but a new Republican administration would, presumably, be less likely to pursue methane regulation.

   "Natural gas producers are deeply committed to continuing the trend of cutting methane emissions that they have sustained for the last decade," Natural Gas Supply Association spokeswoman Daphne Magnuson said in an email. "Even as production increased to record levels, we watched as emissions from natural gas production decrease, due to voluntary activities on the part of the industry.  At the same time, increased use of natural gas contributed to a 20-year low for carbon dioxide emissions."

   The move by Obama and Trudeau won praise from environmentalists.

   "For the first time, the United States is taking concrete measures to rein in methane leaks from existing oil and gas infrastructure that will protect the atmosphere and people’s health," said Sam Adams, U.S. climate director for the World Resources Institute.

   "The oil and gas industry wastes more than 9 million metric tons of methane pollution annually, which is enough to power over 6.5 million homes in one year. Measures to reduce methane leaks from natural gas systems pay for themselves in three years or less. One recent study estimates that vast majority of natural gas developments can eliminate leaks at an average cost of a penny per thousand cubic feet. The business case is obvious: avoiding leaks means that more product can be delivered to consumers.”

   Return to headline | Return to top

10. Project Called Possible 'Game Changer' for Gas Breaks Ground

    Mar 11, 2016 | E&E Greenwire

    By Christa Marshall

    A major utility is supporting a new type of "zero emissions" power plant that aims to revolutionize natural gas generation.

    This week, North Carolina-based NET Power announced it has broken ground on a demonstration plant in La Porte, Texas, that would eliminate the traditional smokestack and aims to slash costs of curbing power plant emissions by using carbon dioxide, rather than steam, as a firing fluid to drive a turbine.

    The $140 million demonstration also would generate CO2 that could be either sequestered or piped for use in enhanced oil recovery, to create a low-emissions generating plant, in theory. Because the plant would release pure CO2 ready for sequestration, it could eliminate the need for expensive capture equipment. It also reduces the need for compression, as the CO2 is being released at pipeline pressure, not atmospheric pressure.

    "NET Power is the first technology that allows policy and economics to work together, instead of against each other, to ensure the world meets our climate targets," NET Power CEO Bill Brown said in a statement. Executives from participating companies attended the groundbreaking this week.

    The funding comes from Exelon and CB&I. Toshiba is manufacturing a new supercritical CO2 turbine and combustor for the project.

    NET Power is planning to test its "Allam technology," which would burn natural gas with oxygen instead of air. The project would use high-pressure CO2 instead of steam. On a website outlining the mechanism, NET Power said the project also could operate without the water needs of a typical steam-operated plant.

    "Instead of driving a steam cycle and losing heat energy up a stack, NET Power keeps heat within the system, meaning less fuel is needed for the turbine to reach the required operating temperature," the website states.

    The plant also may save large amounts of water in comparison to traditional plants of the same megawatt size, as steam is not the main driver of the turbine, according to NET Power.

    John Thompson, director of the fossil transition project at the Clean Air Task Force, said the project is being watched closely.

    "If everything they say is true, it's a game-changer," he said. "If half of what they say is true, it's a really big deal."

    NET Power said it is "engaged with customers" on building a larger commercial-scale project.

    Return to headline | Return to top

11. Europe Prepares to Receive First-Ever Shipment of U.S. Shale Gas From Appalachia

    Mar 11, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence

    By Jamison Cocklin

    Marking another milestone this year for the U.S. shale industry, the first shipment of ethane gas produced in the Appalachian Basin set sail on Wednesday from Sunoco Logistics Partners LP's Marcus Hook Industrial Complex for a 3,800-mile journey to Norway.

    The shipment marks the first time that U.S. shale gas has been exported to Europe. The JS INEOS Intrepid left the complex near Philadelphia on a clear, warm day loaded with nearly 173,000 bbl of ethane bound for INEOS Group Ltd.'s Rafnes ethane cracker. The 591-foot ship left the terminal with a message, "Shale Gas For Progress," pasted along its side in large white block letters.

    The journey is expected to take nine to 10 days and according to MarineTraffic.com, as of Thursday, the ship was on course with an average speed of 10.2 knots.

    Saying that it was the end of a "hugely ambitious project that has taken us five years" to complete, INEOS Chairman and Founder Jim Ratcliffe added that "this is an important day for INEOS and Europe. We know that shale gas economics revitalized U.S. manufacturing and for the first time Europe can access this important energy and raw material source, too."

    INEOS, with ethane crackers in Scotland and Norway, became the first European company to contract for U.S. feedstock in 2012, when it agreed to transport Range Resources Corp. production received through Sunoco's Mariner East (ME) 1 pipeline (see Shale Daily, Sept. 28, 2012). Range is the anchor shipper on that system with 20,000 b/d of propane capacity and 20,000 b/d of ethane capacity. Range spokesman Matt Pitzarella confirmed Thursday that the ethane was produced by Range in the Marcellus Shale of Southwest Pennsylvania.

    When it signed on as ME 1's anchor shipper, Range said it expected propane deliveries to Marcus Hook to begin in the second half of 2014 and ethane deliveries to start in the first half of 2015. Wednesday's exports came after minor delays on the system, which commissioned propane in late 2014 and only just started to ship ethane at the beginning of February. The company said on its year-end earnings call that the European exports would begin earning it higher netbacks for its liquids this year (see Shale Daily, Feb. 26a).

    Sunoco spokesman Jeff Shields said he wasn't entirely sure when the next exports are scheduled to leave Marcus Hook, but added that they are going to "become continuous" from this point forward. INEOS also has a contract for ethane that it signed with Consol Energy Inc. in 2014 (see Shale Daily, Feb. 14, 2014).  

    “Exporting natural gas to U.S. allies abroad from Pennsylvania marks a historic achievement, boosting America’s energy security while directly benefitting consumers and our environment,” said Marcellus Shale Coalition President David Spigelmyer. “This first ethane shipment -- one of many more to come -- reflects the fact that shale development continues to revitalize the greater Philadelphia region and the commonwealth.”

    This week's ethane exports come on the heels of the first cargo of  liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Cheniere Energy Inc.'s Sabine Pass terminal. About 3 Bcf of U.S. LNG set sail from the terminal on the Gulf Coast headed for Brazil last month (see Daily GPI, Feb. 24).

    Designated as "Dragon" class by the ships' designer, Evergas, which specializes in petrochemical and liquid transportation, the ethane carriers are among the largest of their kind in the world. The 87-foot wide INEOS Intrepid is one of four specially designed ships that will form part of an eight-ship fleet chartered by the company (see Shale Daily, June 17, 2015).

    INEOS expanded its Rafnes site in Norway and its Grangemouth cracker site in Scotland to provide more ethane storage to feed those plants. The Norway site was also upgraded to handle receipt of the ships. Exports are expected to grow, too. Sunoco is still developing its ME 2 pipeline, which would transport ethane, butane and propane from processing and fractionation complexes in Eastern Ohio, Western Pennsylvania and West Virginia to Marcus Hook.

    The pipeline's start-up has been delayed until next year to secure necessary permits (see Shale Daily, Feb. 26). Sunoco is also still conducting an open season for a third pipeline, Mariner East 2X. All three pipelines, combined with Mariner West, which moves Marcellus ethane to Michigan and the Canadian border, would have a capacity of up to 800,000 b/d.

    Marcus Hook, a former oil refinery, is being repurposed for natural gas liquids (NGL) storage, processing and distribution to domestic and international markets.

    “The opening of the Mariner East pipeline represents a vital first step in redirecting Pennsylvania’s abundant NGLs to critical markets here at home,” said Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf about the first phase of the ME project and the local benefits it would provide, too. “Sunoco Logistics is making a $3 billion investment in Pennsylvania’s energy economy by keeping Marcellus Shale resources for manufacturing right here in Pennsylvania, rather than sending this business, revenue and jobs to other states.”

    Return to headline | Return to top

12. Jordan Cove Still Viable LNG Export Project, Backers Say

    Mar 11, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence

    By Richard Nemec

    While acknowledging that the global liquefied natural gas (LNG) market is hurting, the Canadian-based backers of the proposed $7.5 billion Jordan Cove LNG export project along the south-central Oregon coast said Thursday their project continues to move ahead as it awaits a final FERC approval.

    Calgary, Alberta-based Veresen Inc. CEO Don Althoff pointed to "steady progress" last year by the longstanding Jordan Cove project, including a final environmental review by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (see Daily GPI, Sept. 30, 2015). Althoff spoke on a quarterly earnings conference call in which Veresen recorded adjusted net income of $15 million (5 cents/share), compared to $9 million (3 cents) for 4Q2015.

    Althoff called the Jordan Cove project, which aims to sell Canadian and U.S. Rockies gas supplies to Asian markets, "a very attractive project for Veresen even in the context of today's global LNG dynamics."

    The FERC final environmental impact statement (EIS) on the export terminal and connecting pipeline was cited as a key regulatory milestone last year in the midst of other steady progress. Veresen now expects FERC's final order for the project to come  "in due course," Althoff said.

    "Based on the conclusions in the final EIS, we are comfortable with the mitigation conditions recommended," said Althoff, noting a team in Houston is now finalizing the plant's design and engineering, procurement, construction (EPC) contract.

    Althoff thinks the current downturn in capital markets has created "an opportunity to optimize capital costs for the project and improve the strength of the terms in the EPC contract.

    "Commercially, Jordan Cove is also making good progress in finalizing the key terms to strengthen the EPC contract," Althoff said. "We are in the process of finalizing term sheet agreements with an initial lead customer."

    He said Veresen at the same time is having negotiations with other customers, which also are progressing.

    Jordan Cove expects to get supplies from both Western Canada and the U.S. Rockies. It is seeking a Canadian National Energy Board (NEB) export license. Project backers have told the NEB that most and potentially all of its LNG will be made from Canadian-sourced gas.

    Veresen-Jordan Cove's target supplies can travel most of the way to the proposed Oregon terminal on current export legs in the TransCanada and Spectra pipeline systems between BC, Alberta and the U.S. Pacific Northwest. Its proposed Pacific Connector pipeline link will interconnect with the established pipeline grid at Malin, OR, near the Oregon-California border, a hub for both Canadian and Rockies supplies.

    Jordan Cove, if built and operated, would be among the largest commercial ventures in Oregon's history, with the capacity to export up to 1 Bcf/d. A second export project, Oregon LNG, at the mouth of the Columbia River on the Oregon side, is still awaiting its final FERC EIS, after finishing a series of public hearings on its draft EIS last year.

    Return to headline | Return to top

13. Science Advisers Want EPA to Change Water Impact Analysis

    Mar 11, 2016 | E&E Energywire

    By Mike Soraghan

    U.S. EPA's science advisers want the agency to change how it analyzes the problems with drinking water associated with hydraulic fracturing.

    In its June study largely dismissing concerns about threats to drinking water, the agency said the number of problems was "small compared to the number of hydraulically fractured wells."

    But in a teleconference yesterday, scientists on the Science Advisory Board panel reviewing the study said that's not a good comparison.

    "It doesn't measure the extent of impact on people's drinking water," said panelist Peter Bloomfield, a statistics professor at North Carolina State University.

    For example, he said, if there are 50 oil and gas wells in an area and one contaminates an aquifer, 2 percent of wells malfunctioned. However, the entire aquifer could be in jeopardy.

    Industry representatives on the panel noted that a leak wouldn't necessarily ruin the whole aquifer. But other panelists agreed with Bloomfield that the comparison with the total number of fracked wells isn't valid.

    "It's not really appropriate to compare these two different things," said panelist Dan Goode, a research hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey.

    The comparison was included in EPA's press release about the study, along with the statement that researchers found no "widespread, systemic" drinking water problems linked to fracking.

    The "widespread, systemic" line has already come under fire from the panel of the agency's Science Advisory Board, which is conducting a peer review of the June study.

    Most panel members say that the assertion, interpreted by many as a clean bill of health, is too vague and not supported by the rest of the 998-page report.

    But a handful of industry members of the panel have signed onto a dissent by panelist Walt Hufford, director of government and regulatory affairs for Talisman Energy USA Inc., supporting the conclusions (EnergyWire, March 8). Three other panel members have signed onto his dissent.

    Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Environment News

14. Obama and Trudeau: The Passing of the North American Climate Mantle

    Mar 11, 2016 | E&E Climatewire

    By Jean Chemnick

    President Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau vowed yesterday to spend their one overlapping year in office working to jointly cut carbon emissions and encourage the rest of the world to follow suit.

    The North American leaders unveiled a joint set of announcements that were more sweeping than anticipated. They featured a new commitment by both countries to put forward industrywide regulations for oil and gas methane and a comprehensive plan for the Arctic that opens the door for substantial new environmental constraints on shipping and oil and gas production in that region (Greenwire, March 10).

    Arriving in Washington, D.C., for the first state visit by a Canadian prime minister in nearly two decades, Trudeau played up his political similarities with Obama.

    "The president and I agree on many things, including, of paramount importance, the direction we want to take our countries in to ensure a clean and prosperous future," he said.

    Obama said they share concern for the Arctic and sea-level rise and determination to see last year's Paris climate deal implemented.

    But while the two liberal politicians are on the same page when it comes to climate, they're in very different places in their careers. Some advocates said they see in the Obama-Trudeau "bromance" a passing of the torch on what has become a signature issue for both men.

    "I think there's huge opportunities for collaboration that we haven't used for the last decade," said Merran Smith, executive director of Clean Energy Canada. "Both Obama and Prime Minister Trudeau are really interested in getting action, in doing things, in getting results.

    "I think Obama and Trudeau have like-minded commitments to clean energy, to climate," she said. "And even though Obama's not there for much longer, there are things he can do to collaborate and to move that agenda forward."

    Trudeau's D.C. trip came on the heels of meetings with provincial ministers to start work on Canada's first-ever national climate change policy. Obama, meanwhile, inaugurated his own Climate Action Plan nearly three years ago at Georgetown University. His administration has since promulgated a slate of rules and played a leading role in brokering a global climate agreement, and is now contemplating finishing touches to a legacy in the nine months before he leaves office.

    Trudeau said he is grateful to "draw on" what he called Obama's "experience and his wisdom as I face the very real challenges that our countries -- and indeed our world -- will be facing in the coming years."

    And Obama -- who was once himself panned by opponents as too young and inexperienced for the presidency -- jokingly referred to himself at one point as "an elder statesman." He said he'd advised the 44-year-old Trudeau privately to decide early in his term whether to dye his dark hair to hide the inevitable grays.

    "At a certain point, it's too late; you'll be caught," he said.

    White House to write long-term CO2 strategy

    White House officials said yesterday that the U.S.-Canada agreement would not be the last bilateral effort of Obama's term. The administration has made similar announcements with countries like India, Brazil and -- perhaps most importantly -- China.

    But while a few are longer-term, many of yesterday's objectives are intended to be met in 2016.

    In addition to the methane and Arctic commitments, the new prime minister and outgoing president yesterday reaffirmed pledges to align new greenhouse gas emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles and efficiency. They proposed to boost production of renewable energy and vowed to secure international agreements this year to phase out heat-trapping hydrofluorocarbons under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and establish a carbon offset program for civil aviation.

    They also outlined a series of efforts related to the Paris Agreement, which 195 nations struck last year. The two countries pledged to work together to flesh out the deal's language creating an international market mechanism for emissions credits, which Canada negotiated. And they pledged to complete their midcentury greenhouse gas strategies this year, years earlier than provided under last year's deal.

    That pledge would ensure that Obama's White House writes the blueprint to effectively zero out U.S. emissions on a net basis by 2050. That's the level environmentalists say would be the U.S. contribution to the agreement's goal of keeping warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius. The United States has promised an 83 percent reduction by midcentury, but greens say that would fall short.

    On a call with reporters yesterday morning, John Morton, the White House National Security Council adviser on climate and energy, said the two leaders hope other major economies will also accelerate development of their long-term strategies.

    "We want to lead other countries in showing that the development of those plans is a priority," he said.

    The strategy will be written this year by the same White House team that produced the United States' intended nationally determined contribution (INDC) ahead of Paris -- a sketch of how the Obama administration sees the United States cutting greenhouse gases between 26 and 28 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2025.

    Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists, said that the United States and Canada could provide a template other countries could use in writing their own long-term plans.

    "It could be quite significant, and obviously, the administration would like to do this before they leave office next January," he said, adding that it would be advantageous for Canada to develop its plan in coordination with the United States.

    The 34-year plan for U.S. emissions will include more details than the INDC, projecting future progress on technology development, emissions from sectors that have yet to be regulated, land-use change and agriculture, Meyer said.

    'Canadianizing' lessons from the U.S.

    Trudeau's election transformed U.S.-Canadian relations on energy and climate overnight.

    While the question of whether to permit the Keystone XL oil pipeline cast a shadow over Obama's relationship with former Prime Minister Stephen Harper for years, no such tension exists in the Obama-Trudeau relationship.

    "I want to assure the American people that they have a real partner in Canada," Trudeau said yesterday.

    The Canadian leader's support for the Alberta-to-Texas pipeline did not come up yesterday, despite Obama's move to block it. And neither commented on U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's statement the day before that no new pipelines would be needed to transport petroleum across the U.S.-Canadian border.

    Trudeau's visit came after a meeting with provincial leaders in Vancouver, British Columbia, to begin work on the country's first national climate policy. Ministers set the goal of keeping post-industrial warming to "less than 2 degrees and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5 degrees" Celsius -- an aspirational target enshrined in the Paris deal.

    "We've certainly never had that level of consensus before," said Erin Flanagan of Canada's Pembina Institute.

    Federal and provincial officials now have six months to craft proposals in four areas -- clean technology, innovation and jobs, carbon pricing and mitigation -- with the goal of finalizing the package at a summit in October.

    Trudeau's hope of a nationwide carbon pricing floor has met with opposition, but 80 percent of the country's population is already covered by non-federal carbon pricing programs.

    Canadian environmental and energy policy is frequently set by the 10 provincial governments rather than at the federal level, which is why provincial buy-in is so key to this pan-Canadian climate effort. In fact, British Columbia's announcement last week that it would follow Alberta's lead and promulgate oil and gas methane restrictions seems to have allowed Trudeau to join with the United States yesterday in committing to regulate the sector.

    The United States under Obama has moved the ball further than Canada under Harper in many of the areas outlined in yesterday's accord -- a gap greens say Canada could quickly close.

    U.S. EPA is already set to finalize rules for new and modified oil and gas operations this spring and pledged yesterday to start work on rules for existing ones.

    But it is doubtful whether the agency will finish that work by the time Obama exits the White House next January, leaving existing operations in the United States unregulated. Meanwhile, Trudeau's government should have little difficulty in following through on its regulatory agenda now that the country's two highest-producing provinces are on board.

    "This is a good, quick win for Trudeau," said Drew Nelson, senior manager of natural gas at the Environmental Defense Fund. He added that Canada could surpass the United States if the latter takes too long to regulate existing sources.

    North American action could spur other countries to also curb their petroleum methane leakage, he said, doing as much to contain warming as if the world shuttered one-third of its coal plants.

    Canadian greens spoke approvingly of EPA's Clean Power Plan and last year's extension of tax credits for renewable power -- policies that have boosted the U.S. green energy industry while the same industries have stagnated north of the border.

    "This meeting with President Obama, the timing is great, because your country has made some great steps forward on climate action," said Clean Energy Canada's Smith. "There are things for Canada to learn, and some of them we can emulate. We can Canadianize them, as need be."

    Coordination between the two countries can help Canadian producers sell their product in the United States, which will also help ease the cost of Clean Power Plan compliance, she said.

    U.S. changes could derail the agreement

    But U.S. climate policy could change dramatically if Republicans win the White House this November, leaving the two neighbors again at odds.

    Obama said yesterday that presidents generally follow through on international commitments made by their predecessors, even of a different party.

    "As somebody who came in after an administration that politically saw things very differently than I did, what you discover is that -- for all the differences you may have in your political parties -- when you're actually in charge, then you have to be practical," he said. He followed through on agreements reached under the George W. Bush-era, he said, even if he wasn't enthusiastic about them.

    "But you're always concerned about making sure that the credibility of the United States is sustained," he said.

    But Republicans on Capitol Hill and the campaign trail have targeted U.S. involvement in the Paris Agreement, saying it should have been submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent.

    And EPA's bid to regulate more sources for petroleum methane is also likely to raise GOP hackles, especially if a Republican president enters the White House before the rule is final.

    Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) said the methane rule sounded like another effort "to finish off fossil fuels." Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said it isn't needed, as the industry is already making strides to conserve its product.

    "They're making efforts to rein it in, and we're seeing the benefit. And so now what we're going to have is these new regs, undefined, but a top-down approach that has never really been that helpful. So yeah, I'm worried about it," she said.

    Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), a staunch supporter of the now-defunct Keystone XL project, laughed off Kerry's comment that no new pipelines are needed.

    "Of course we need to continue to invest and upgrade and have more energy infrastructure," he said. "That's how we get our country to energy security."

    Return to headline | Return to top

15. Exxon Mobil Plant Continues to Violate Clean Air Act -- Lawsuit

    Mar 11, 2016 | E&E Greenwire

    By Sean Reilly

    A Louisiana environmental group is suing Exxon Mobil Corp. over alleged Clean Air Act violations at its Baton Rouge chemical plant that have continued despite a 2014 settlement with state regulators.

    The plant "emits thousands of pounds of harmful and hazardous air pollutants above permitted limits," according to the lawsuit announced yesterday by the Louisiana Environmental Action Network but filed earlier this month in federal district court in Louisiana.

    Since 2011, Exxon Mobil has violated the Clean Air Act at least 120 times, the suit said; when violations occur, the company often fails to inform the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) because its reports "usually lack enough detail to comply with regulations," the suit added.

    The suit asks a federal judge to fine Exxon Mobil $37,500 per violation per day for all violations since March 2011, with proceeds going to the federal Treasury and a fund for "beneficial mitigation projects" in the community near the plant.

    The allegedly illegal releases include emissions of benzene and other "dangerous and carcinogenic" chemicals, as well as volatile organic compounds that contribute to formation of ground-level ozone, according to the suit.

    A spokesman for the Houston-based energy giant had no comment this morning. The Baton Rouge plant, part of a much larger petrochemical complex, has a long history of environmental problems.

    Under the $2.3 million settlement reached in early 2014, the company agreed to pay a $300,000 fine to the Louisiana DEQ and spend $2 million on spill prevention and various environmental projects.

    "This settlement agreement represents more than just a fine," Cheryl Nolan, DEQ's then-assistant secretary for environmental compliance, said in a news release at the time. Its goal, she said, "is to eliminate or minimize impacts to the environment and to reduce or avoid impact to human health ... from future incidents."

    Return to headline | Return to top

16. With Drinking Water, Safe Enough Is the EPA’s Goal

    Mar 11, 2016 | Wall Street Journal

    By Jo Craven McGinty

    When Americans turn on the tap, they expect a stream of fresh, clean water. After all, that’s what the Safe Drinking Water Act promised four decades ago.

    But when a public utility reports that its tap water is free of contaminants, it doesn’t mean the liquid is pure, unadulterated H2O. It means the water has low or undetectable levels of a limited number of chemicals and pathogens the utility is required by law to monitor.

    At least that’s how it’s supposed to work.

    Recently, there has been a steady stream of reports of tainted water. New Jersey’s largest school district shut off its water this past week because of elevated levels of lead. Uranium taints multiple drinking-water systems in California. A chemical used to make Teflon has fouled the water in Hoosick Falls, N.Y. And earlier this year, a state of emergency was declared in Flint, Mich., because of lead contamination.

    Most people just want to know if their drinking water is safe, and without a doubt, the U.S. has some of the safest in the world. But what does safe mean?

    Nationally, the Environmental Protection Agency decides which contaminants public utilities must remove from drinking water, although states can opt to police additional substances on their own. Either way, the list of regulated substances represents a fraction of all potential contaminants. Why? Because it isn’t possible to regulate them all.

    There are around 100,000 potential drinking-water contaminants, according to the National Academy of Sciences and analytical methods don’t exist to monitor the whole universe. Instead, the EPA regulates specific substances it has determined are prevalent, dangerous to public health and both feasible and cost-effective to remove from drinking water.

    “If it’s one town in Texas, it can clean up its water system or shut it down,” said Joan Rose, who supervises the Water Quality, Environmental, and Molecular Microbiology Laboratory at Michigan State University. “You don’t need a national standard.”

    For the EPA to regulate a substance, it must meet three criteria: It might have an adverse effect on human health; it occurs, or is likely to, in public water systems at a troubling level and frequency; and, in the judgment of the EPA administrator, regulation will reduce health risks.

    In addition, it must be feasible for the nation’s 155,000 public water systems to comply, and the benefits must outweigh the expense.

    “You can’t require a system to remove a contaminant if there isn’t technology available that is capable of removing it to the maximum contaminant level goal,” said Eric Burneson, director of standards and risk management in the EPA’s office of ground water and drinking water.

    So, of around 100,000 potential contaminants,only about 90 are regulated by the EPA.

    The EPA’s contaminant candidate list helps the agency prioritize substances for potential regulation based on risk and how often they occur in water supplies.

    When it was first published in 1998, the list included 50 chemicals and 10 microbial contaminants. The latest draft has 100 chemicals or chemical groups and 12 microbial contaminants. Examples include chemicals used in pesticides and pharmaceuticals as well as pathogens such as E. coli.

    The list is supposed to be updated every five years, and each time, the EPA is required to determine whether to regulate at least five of the substances.

    Only one contaminant, perchlorate, has been added to the regulated list in the past 20 years; 24 others were reviewed, but the agency decided against regulating them. (The EPA also issues health advisories for around 117 unregulated contaminants.)

    Regulated contaminants must have a health-based maximum contaminant level goal—the level at which someone could drink the water for a lifetime without experiencing known adverse health effects. The EPA uses the goals, which are derived from toxicological and epidemiological studies, to establish enforceable maximum contaminant levels, which it sets as close to the goal as possible.

    “We might have a maximum contaminant goal of zero,” Mr. Burneson said, “but if we can’t measure it reliably below, say, 5 micrograms per liter, or we know we don’t have a treatment technology that can remove it below that level,” the maximum level will reflect that.

    For example, no amount of lead is considered safe in drinking water. The health-based goal is zero. But the EPA’s action level for lead is 15 parts per billion. (In Flint, seven locations recently tested above 1,000 parts per billion.

    To help consumers judge the safety of their drinking water, public water systems are required to produce an annual consumer-confidence report identifying the source of the community’s water along with its levels of regulated contaminants.

    Some contaminants may be monitored only once every few years because concentrations aren’t expected to vary widely. Others might be tested only once a year. If water is tested for a contaminant multiple times in a year, the average result is used to determine whether it meets standards.

    Lead and uranium, the substances found recently in Flint and California, are regulated. But perfluorooctanoic acid, the chemical found in Hoosick Falls’ drinking water, is an unregulated substance on the contaminant candidate list. It wouldn’t show up on a consumer-confidence report.

    So, is your water safe? The answer is fluid.

    Return to headline | Return to top