Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 3/28/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) Group Seeks to 'Train the Media,' Sell Public on Chemicals
Mar 28, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
The chemical industry may be finding success influencing federal and state governments but must do more to win the hearts of the American public, a leader for a new nonprofit group linked to a controversial political consultant... -
(ACC Mentioned) Letter: Arguments Against Bag Fees Don't Hold Up
Mar 28, 2016 | The Forecaster
By James Ecker
As a recycling professional, I found many misleading statements in Curtis Picard’s letter regarding proposed local ordinances to limit the use of plastic bags. His information is coming from the American Chemistry Council. -
Three Headaches for the Recycling Industry
Mar 25, 2016 | New York Times
By Matt Richtel
The most advanced recycling operations in the world divert 75 percent or more of community waste away from landfills. In their efforts to achieve 100 percent recycling, or so-called Zero Waste, three products... -
Is Your Water Worse Than Flint’s?
Mar 28, 2016 | In These Times
By Laura Orlando
Technological responses to the ecological catastrophe in Flint and in scores of other cities, like replacing lead pipe supply lines, are necessary, but palliative. Technology should be the servant of prevention. -
Can You Taste That Smell? Maybe You Don’t Want To.
Mar 28, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Michelle Mauthe Harvey
Recently, SC Johnson took the next step in product transparency, becoming the first major player in the consumer goods industry to disclose 100 percent of fragrance ingredients for a product line... -
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Demand Forecasts Cloudy as Asian Markets Expand, Contract
Mar 28, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
A rapid expansion of petrochemical manufacturing capacity globally raises questions over whether the industry is too optimistic in its demand forecasts for products in light of the global economic slowdown. -
Ex-DOJ Lawyer Predicts 'Clamor' for Congress to Act on GHGs
Mar 28, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
A veteran Justice Department environmental attorney now in private practice representing opponents of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan believes that no matter which way courts rule, there will be a "clamor" from industry... -
7 Million Americans at Risk of Man-Made Earthquakes, USGS Says
Mar 28, 2016 | Washington Post
By Joel Achenbach
Earthquakes are a natural hazard -- except when they're man-made. The oil and gas industry has aggressively adopted the technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, to shatter subsurface shale rock... -
Controversial Power Plant Rule Under OMB Review
Mar 28, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
The White House Office of Management and Budget is reviewing a final rule that aims to justify U.S. EPA's mercury and air toxics standards for power plants. -
Obama EPA Must Act to Prevent Chemical Plant Catastrophe
Mar 28, 2016 | Huffington Post
By David Halperin
Tomorrow I’m scheduled to speak at an EPA public hearing addressing a new rulethat the agency has proposed regarding dangers from America’s chemical plants. -
Iranians Charged with Hacking U.S. Infrastructure
Mar 28, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The Department of Justice last week brought charges against seven Iranian hackers accused of attacking U.S. banks and infiltrating the control system of a small dam. -
California Survey: Leaks in All But One of Dozen Storage Fields
Mar 28, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Some 229 leaks were found in California's 12 underground natural gas storage fields in a recent survey, but all but a handful were minor and nearly all of them were repaired by the time the survey results... -
For PHMSA's Proposed New Rules, 'The Devil Is in The Details'
Mar 28, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
One week after the Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued a pre-publication version of proposed rules governing natural gas transmission and gathering lines... -
Ga. Lawmakers Move to Block 2 Interstate Projects
Mar 28, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Kristi E. Swartz
Georgia may be friendly to its own electric utility and natural gas companies, but the state Legislature sent a strong message last week to outside corporations that their pipelines are not welcome here. -
Supreme Court Won’t Hear EPA Air Pollution Case
Mar 28, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Supreme Court declined Monday to hear a case on how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enforces air pollution rules. -
States, Utilities Split Over EPA Plan To Revise Stormwater Permitting Rule
Mar 28, 2016 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
States and utilities are split over how EPA should revise its rules governing small municipal separate storm sewer systems' (MS4s) Clean Water Act (CWA) general permits, with some states and utilities seeking maximum flexibility...
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Group Seeks to 'Train the Media,' Sell Public on Chemicals
Mar 28, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
The chemical industry may be finding success influencing federal and state governments but must do more to win the hearts of the American public, a leader for a new nonprofit group linked to a controversial political consultant said last week.
Joseph Perrone, chief science officer at the Center for Accountability in Science -- part of a larger tax-exempt group run by the Berman and Co. public relations firm -- said industry needed to mount a coordinated effort to paint the risks of common chemicals as acceptable to the public and boost trust in federal regulatory agencies that evaluate them.
CAS's prime speaking slot at the nation's largest chemical regulatory conference, known as GlobalChem, in Washington, D.C., was the biggest stage yet for the nascent organization, which opened in 2014. Perrone is a relative newcomer to the chemicals advocacy world.
Perrone's message is that customers don't trust chemical companies, and they need "a good PR plan, which is external to the company, which is a third party. Because, quite frankly, whether we like it or not, they don't believe you."
He recalled visiting the New York World's Fair in 1964 when he was 10 and described nostalgically exhibits like the "Wonderful World of Chemistry" and a booth about making nylon.
Today, he said, companies have to deal with "advocacy groups fighting you on every front, between plastics and other chemicals that are in the environment and everything you use and see."
High-profile chemical skeptics include celebrities like Jessica Alba, the "Food Babe" blogger Vani Hari, and television doctors like Mehmet Oz and Joseph Mercola, Perrone said.
The new group's goal, he said, was to train the public and the media to present the risk of harm from chemicals in a way comparable to that of vaccines.
While some Americans believe vaccines cause health problems, the broad majority "trust the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and their doctors that this is going to keep their child safe."
The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 grandfathered in tens of thousands of chemicals in use at the time of the bill's passage. Those materials did not receive the kind of scientific scrutiny that new pharmaceutical products receive.
Industry must also "train the media" to question scientists more aggressively when those scholars publish studies flagging health problems with chemicals, Perrone said.
While the Food Babe may be an easy target, researchers at big-name universities are also fair game, Perrone said after his talk last week.
"I did my postdoctoral fellowship at the Harvard School of Public Health," Perrone said. "As far as I'm concerned, I don't mind saying this now, but it's basically a school of Marxism. They are very, very left wing, and opposing viewpoints don't go over particularly well sometimes in a university like that."
Behind the new group
CAS is not Perrone's brainchild. Anastasia Swearingen, a Berman and Co. public relations official, launched the group, Perrone said.
It is part of a larger nonprofit, the Center for Organizational Research and Education -- formerly the Center for Consumer Freedom.
The Center for Organizational Research and Education, in turn, is part of a web of tax-exempt groups tied to Berman and Co., a firm run by former lobbyist and well-known D.C. operative Richard Berman. The entities share office space.
A secret recording during a closed-door conference of the Western Energy Alliance in 2014 features Berman urging oil and gas companies to open their pocketbooks to fund an "endless war" to turn the public against environmental organizations. He has a long history of fighting animal welfare, labor and consumer groups.
The Center for Organizational Research and Education shares staff with other projects like the Environmental Policy Alliance, Humane Society for Shelter Pets, HumaneWatch and PETA Kills Animals.
Berman and Co.'s Swearingen has also worked with the Environmental Policy Alliance -- which lampooned U.S. EPA with a video of fake agency police officers confiscating a lawn mower -- and a group targeting the LEED energy efficiency program.
Perrone said the new group's connection to Berman should have no bearing on consumers' trust in CAS.
"I've never been asked to do anything that's contrary to my beliefs or my ethics," Perrone said. He added, "If they did, which again, history dictates that they have not and will not, I would not do it."
'Holy grail' spokesperson
CAS launched Perrone's advocacy career. He earned a doctorate of science degree in immunology and infectious diseases from Johns Hopkins University in 1984. He used to be a biotechnology and medical device executive.
Perrone may represent a long-sought-after figure for chemical companies -- someone who can present the industry line to the public while claiming the professional credibility of an impartial scientist.
In 2009, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that the Coca-Cola Co., Alcoa Inc., Crown, the North American Metal Packaging Alliance Inc., the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the American Chemistry Council and Del Monte Foods Inc. formulated a communication strategy to encourage customers to keep using products with packages containing chemical bisphenol A (BPA).
The groups, according to meeting notes, doubted "obtaining a scientific spokesperson is attainable." In the meantime, they identified a "holy grail" spokesperson a "pregnant young mother who would be willing to speak around the country about the benefits of BPA."
The new CAS seems to be following the playbook of other Berman-linked groups, environmental advocates said.
"I think it's just like the rest of the Berman operation -- if you come up with a flashy website and some funny graphics, you can attract clients," Environmental Working Group President Ken Cook said.
Part of the firm's tactics is to use "credible messengers" and target celebrities for visibility and humor, Berman and Co. official Sarah Longwell told an American Kennel Club conference in 2014, according to accounts of the speech.
"The interest of the attacking front group is always to put out a new voice that has the veneer of science behind them," said Josh Mogerman, a spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council, adding the group is "banking on folks not digging into this guy's bio."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/03/28/stories/1060034690
-
(ACC Mentioned) Letter: Arguments Against Bag Fees Don't Hold Up
Mar 28, 2016 | The Forecaster
By James Ecker
As a recycling professional, I found many misleading statements in Curtis Picard’s letter regarding proposed local ordinances to limit the use of plastic bags. His information is coming from the American Chemistry Council. Its mission is to promote the sale of these materials.
Plastic bag recycling rates are dismally low – less than 2.7 percent according to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency studies. ACC’s own data indicate an even a lower rate. Plastic bag recycling relies on highly motivated participation. Curbside programs are rare and cause havoc with recycling facilities. Why not bring your own?
He also selectively quotes facts about plastics in the marine environment. The reports cited actually show plastic bags to be one of the most common items found in Maine coastal clean-ups.
The assertion that fees have had no positive impact is simply untrue. Independent reports on Washington, D.C.’s 5-cent (not 10-cent) fee indicate that 80 percent of residents used less plastic bags and 66 percent reported fewer littered plastic bags.
Finally, a well-written ordinance is not a tax. We already pay for the bags; it is embedded in the cost of the goods purchased. A small fee would simply change this from an indirect fee to a direct fee: it is your choice.
The inconvenient truth is that reducing plastic bag use is in conflict with the ACC’s mission. ACC’s and Picard’s time would be better spent listening to local retailers that are on the cutting edge of the movement to reduce waste and encourage a more circular economy.
http://www.theforecaster.net/letter-arguments-against-bag-fees-dont-hold-up/
-
Three Headaches for the Recycling Industry
Mar 25, 2016 | New York Times
By Matt Richtel
The most advanced recycling operations in the world divert 75 percent or more of community waste away from landfills. In their efforts to achieve 100 percent recycling, or so-called Zero Waste, three products have proved particularly stubborn:
Diapers
The trouble is twofold: Diapers tend to be made of composite materials, including more than one type of plastic, and there is, of course, the organic waste.
Gary Liss, a recycling consultant in Northern California who sits on the board of several nonprofit recycling groups, including Zero Waste USA, said he knew of one model for recycling diapers, still in the trial stage in Santa Clarita, Calif., that involves separate curbside pickup for used diapers and then the pulling apart and cleaning of the constituent parts. But it’s expensive, Mr. Liss said, and economics are a big part of any recycling equation.
One way to pay for an approach like this would be for diaper manufacturers to include in the diaper’s sales price the cost of picking up used diapers and peeling them apart. But that is unlikely to happen anytime soon.
Mr. Liss said the diaper problem might get worse before it gets better. The reason: baby boomers. “It’s going to be an increasing amount of material as we use adult diapers,” he said. “We’re all headed that way.”
Plastic Bags
They are inexpensive and great for lugging light loads. But they are a nightmare for recycling plants, because they are so diaphanous that they float and cling and wrap and gum up multimillion-dollar machinery.
They’re such a problem at Recology, an advanced recycling operation in San Francisco, that it used to shut down twice a day so that workers with box knives could cut the plastic bags out of the spinning discs that help separate paper from cans and bottles.
In 2012, San Francisco banned plastic bags at retail stores, but they still show up at the recycling plant and force workers to do regular cleanings — “like clearing your lungs,” said Robert Reed, Recology’s spokesman.
A growing number of cities require retailers to charge for bags at checkout, discouraging their use. And Patty Moore, president of Moore Recycling Associates, in Sonoma, Calif., which does recycling consulting and research, says there are roughly 18,000 plastic-bag drop-off sites in the United States, many of them at grocery stores.
From there, the bags — and other plastic “film,” like the plastic used to wrap toilet paper or paper towel rolls — are shipped to recyclers. The material is made into new bags or used for composite decking or other plastic products. (Bags are not alone among the plastic products that present recycling challenges; packing foam peanuts, for example, are also problematic.)
Juice Boxes
They are a perfect example of composites, a vexing category for recyclers that includes a wide range of items, like furniture or consumer packaging that binds different materials together, such as plastics and metal and paper fibers. See, too: diapers. (The juice-box industry says a typical nonrefrigerated carton, as it’s called, includes 74 percent paper, 22 percent polyethylene and 4 percent aluminum.)
Those layers help preserve drinks, but also make the boxes extremely difficult to pull apart.
And to recycle, you must first sort. “It’s like separating an egg yolk from an egg,” Mr. Liss said of the composites problem. “It’s much easier to do before you stir it up.”
One possible solution is to create packaging that allows the materials to be more easily separated. Mr. Liss said an industry recycling group, The Carton Council, had been created to address the problem by developing additional sorting equipment. “The good news is that the industry is trying to figure it out,” Mr. Liss said. “They saw the problem, and they’re stepping up to address it.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/29/science/three-headaches-for-the-recycling-industry.html
-
Is Your Water Worse Than Flint’s?
Mar 28, 2016 | In These Times
By Laura Orlando
Flint residents knew there was a serious problem with their water when it came out of the tap brown and foul-smelling after the city of Flint changed its source from Lake Huron to the Flint River two years ago. They didn’t know, however, that lead levels were so high that the Environmental Protection Agency could classify it as hazardous waste. It took Michigan Republican Gov. Rick Snyder and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality more than 17 months to acknowledge the problem. As a result, tens of thousands of Flint residents have been—and continue to be—poisoned.
The names of the people who made the decisions behind the poisoning are known. Snyder set the wheels in motion with a scheme that sacrificed the health of the people of Flint on the altar of austerity. In 2011, he ended public oversight by appointing his own man—an “emergency manager”—to cut costs and run the city. Flint went through a series of four emergency managers in as many years. When the extent of poisoning was known, Snyder did nothing. He failed to warn people against drinking the water and he failed to provide a safe alternative.
It’s infuriating. But anger is not action. What can we do to prevent the next municipal drinking water disaster? It is already here, flowing into the water glasses of millions of Americans. Chicago, Philadelphia and hundreds of other cities with old pipes have a lead problem. And that’s just the start of the municipal water pollution crisis. In most of the country, once-clean drinking water sources are now profoundly polluted—by treated and untreated sewage, by chemical-intensive agriculture, by waste from confined animal feeding operations and by industrial discharges. Even in Flint, the story begins not with lead pipes but with failed attempts to “treat” the source of the city water supply: the open sewer that is the Flint River.
Pipes and fixtures can be replaced, but all of the chemical contaminants in our drinking water cannot be removed, no matter how advanced the technology. The solution is to prevent them from getting there in the first place.
Flint: The whole story
Just as there’s no mystery about the toxic combination of racism and neoliberalism that caused the Flint water crisis, there is no mystery about the chemistry that caused the lead to leach from Flint’s pipes. Lead rarely occurs naturally in water. It enters our drinking supply either from industrial or wastewater-treatment discharges or, more commonly, because it leaches out of lead pipes, solders and brass fixtures in the distribution network.
Some conditions make the lead leach faster. This is what happened in Flint when, under the control of an emergency manager, the city switched its water source from Lake Huron to the Flint River and then added chemicals that made the situation worse.
It’s not that the Flint River has elevated levels of lead in it. The trouble—besides the high bacteria levels and untold number of harmful chemicals—is that its water is corrosive. Depending on the rainfall conditions at the time of measurement, as much as half of the river is made up of wastewater from the city’s sewage treatment plant. Before it’s released into the river, the wastewater is treated with chlorine.
Pulling drinking water from a river of treated sewage is not unusual. A 1980 EPA study (the most recent one conducted) indicated that more than 24 major public water utilities got their water from rivers in which sewage treatment plant discharges constituted over 50 percent of the flow during low-flow conditions. In 1985, there were about 6,700 municipal wastewater treatment plants. Since then, an additional 10,000 have been built, which collectively disgorge 33,657 million gallons per day of effluent into rivers, lakes, streams and oceans. To give you an idea of how that compares to public water use, 23,800 million gallons per day are used for drinking water, landscaping, toilets, showers and sinks, and another 18,200 million gallons per day go to industry and commercial businesses.
The Flint sewage treatment plant, located on the banks of the Flint River, keeps 20,000 pounds of chlorine on hand. The wastewater leaving the plant—which averages 32 million gallons per day, but can be as high as 75 million gallons per day—is chlorinated before being dumped into the Flint River.
Disinfecting wastewater with chlorine is a common practice in wastewater treatment that helps the effluent stay below regulatory levels for coliforms— an indicator of fecal contamination. (This does not mean the Flint River is without coliform bacteria. Tests published by the city of Flint show high coliform levels in the river. Sewage treatment overflows, leaks and illegal sewer pipes dumping into the river could be the cause of this.)
Adding chlorine to water is an effective way to dramatically reduce pathogenic bacteria. But chlorine solves one problem only to create another: It helps create the chemical conditions that free up lead from pipes, solders and fixtures. The city could have lessened the corrosion by adding a corrosion inhibitor, such as orthophosphate, to the water—a measure that would have cost just $100 a day—but chose not to.
However, the city had another problem that couldn’t be so easily ignored. Chlorine mixed with water creates a class of chemicals called disinfection byproducts (DBPs). There is epidemiological evidence of a close relationship between DBPs and cancer. The EPA regulates just four of the more than 500 known DBPs, one of which, trihalomethanes (THMs), was already in the Flint River at concentrations in violation of EPA drinking water standards. The city needed to lower bacteria levels in its water, but couldn’t add more chlorine without raising concentrations of THMs, so it switched to chloramine (chlorine plus ammonia), which solves the problem of THMs but leaches lead even faster than chlorine. (Chloramine also creates its own DBPs, but these are not regulated.)
Chloramine’s highly corrosive effects are well-documented. In 2001, after a switch from chlorine to chloramine, tests showed Washington, D.C., water was leaching lead from the distribution system. Civil engineering professor Marc Edwards of Virginia Tech, an expert on water treatment, sounded the alarm. Just like the whistleblowers in Flint, the municipality and the EPA ignored him. It took two years for the D.C. water authority to notify the public about high lead levels in the water. Then the city began partial lead pipe replacement—a solution that has been shown to, counterproductively, “result in significantly elevated levels of lead in tap water … for weeks and months,” as EPA chemist Michael Schock told Environmental Health Perspectives in 2010. (Scientists are still trying to figure out why this happens.)
The D.C. case was widely publicized. But if the city of Flint was to continue using Flint River water, it had to address the immediate problem of the cancer-causing THMs, the chlorine byproducts. So the city made the switch from chlorine to chloramine.
Flint, like all cities in the United States with pipes over 30 years old, has lead in its distribution system. The same story of chloramine corrosion unfolded in Flint as it had in D.C. In summer 2015, Dr. Mona HannaAttisha, a Flint-based pediatrician, got a tip from a friend at the EPA that Flint might have a leaching problem, and began studying hospital blood samples. A paper she co-authored in the February 2016 issue of American Journal of Public Health showed that incidence of elevated blood lead levels in Flint children doubled, and in some neighborhoods nearly tripled, after the city began using water from the Flint River.
Trickle-down poisoning
Water distribution pipes in the United States were initially made of wood, then iron, then lead. Lead pipes, first manufactured in the mid-1800s, had almost completely displaced iron by the turn of the 20th century—they lasted longer and were easier to work with. But lead is also poisonous, especially to children, who absorb more lead than adults and are more susceptible to its irreversible health effects, such as nerve and brain damage.
It didn’t take long for press accounts of lead poisoning to surface. In 1890, the Massachusetts State Board of Health advised the state’s cities and towns to avoid the use of lead pipes. By the 1920s, cities across the country had banned them. But the lead mining and manufacturing industries pushed back, establishing the Lead Industries Association in 1928, which aggressively advocated for the continued use of lead solder and pipes. Against the mountains of data on illnesses and deaths, industry prevailed. It wasn’t until 1986 that federal regulations banned lead in new drinking water distribution systems.
But much of the old lead piping still remains. In the post-Reagan era, local governments pay for 95 percent of sewer infrastructure and 99 percent of public water infrastructure. Municipalities with money are slowly replacing pipes and investing in their water supply systems. The city of Madison spent $19.4 million to replace its lead pipes over an 11-year period, beginning in 2001. Flint, one of the most economically depressed cities in America, couldn’t afford new pipes. Reaganomics failed cities like Flint. Today, the city has 8,000 poisoned children to show for it.
EPA gone MIA
Where is the EPA in all of this? Eviscerated. It started when Reagan took office in 1981 and appointed Anne Gorsuch, a Colorado state representative who vocally opposed federal regulation of energy and the environment, as administrator. She cut the budget by 22 percent, hired people representing industry while firing long-time EPA staff, relaxed existing regulations and resisted new ones. She was cited for contempt of Congress in her involvement in the misuse of over a billion dollars in Superfund money. Her deputy, Rita Lavelle, went to jail over the scandal. The agency has been under assault by industry-friendly Democrats and Republicans ever since.
Current drinking water regulation has little to do with the realities of what is actually in our drinking water. Like all chemical regulation in the United States, regulatory responses happen—if at all—decades after health threats are documented. Regulators turn a blind eye to problems that can only be remedied through radical changes in how we do things (for example, where we source our drinking water or how we grow our food). As a result, drinking water regulations are inadequate, and those on the books are not being competently monitored or properly enforced.
Regulations to protect public health are set within the boundaries of what water treatment plants can do to address the many toxins in public drinking water supplies, like perfluorinated chemicals, herbicides, lead and DBPs. Most municipal water departments in the United States work very hard to keep the water coming out of the tap as safe as possible, but they do not have the authority or money to change pipes and fixtures or stop the more than 23 billion pounds of toxic chemicals generated annually by U.S. industry from entering their water supplies. The federal rules are meant to accommodate those limitations: Look at a few things, don’t look at many others, and set the thresholds at levels the treatment plant operators can consistently meet.
The stated regulatory goal for lead in drinking water is zero, but since the EPA doesn’t think water treatment authorities can meet this level, it set the acceptable concentration at 15 parts per billion. Test below that and you are not in violation of the drinking water regulations, but you are still poisoning children.
In Kirkwood, Mo., a leafy suburb of St. Louis that gets its drinking water from the Missouri River, people who drink tap water are drinking 2,4-D and atrazine—carcinogenic herbicides applied on farms located in the river’s watershed—every day. “Safe” is a moving target in the water business, though your body has some fixed ideas about it.
So who is tasked with protecting the public water supply? The EPA’s Office of Water oversees two deeply troubled divisions—the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW) and the Office of Wastewater Management (OWM)—both of which act to undermine U.S. drinking water safety. Marc Edwards, the Virginia Tech professor who studied D.C.’s water, wrote in a blog post on January 22, “When we exposed cheating in Washington D.C., New Orleans, Durham and elsewhere, OGWDW officials stabbed us in the back, and supported wrongdoers in every single case.”
The Office of Water’s obfuscation, arrogance and anti-science orientation is documented by David Lewis in the book Science For Sale. The office is responsible for “biosolids”: sewage sludge that is dried or otherwise “treated.” The word biosolids was coined as part of a public relations effort to rebrand sewage sludge, a product of wastewater treatment, as safe for disposal on farmland. Hundreds of peer-reviewed papers show its toxicity, but the OWM uses every trick in the PR handbook to promote its use on farms, public land and in sludge-containing “compost,” which is sold at Home Depot and other garden supply centers. Why? The same reason Flint’s water was poisoned: It saves municipalities money to dump sludge on land rather than treat it as a hazardous waste.
When a California farmer questioned the EPA’s decision to allow disposal of sewage sludge on farms and public lands, OWM chemist Alan Rubin reportedly harassed her, writing in a note to her, “Ask not for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee!”
We might begin cleaning up our water by cleaning house at the EPA. Departments like the Office of Water are often controlled by the industries they’re meant to regulate. Lock the revolving doors and give voice to the people who really care about environmental protection. Build a culture in the U.S.—and in the EPA—that supports biocompatible practices: chemicals and techniques that are in harmony with life. The developing field of “green chemistry” is looking for ways to do just this; but we need the public will and the policies to help put these ideas into practice.
Pollution is everywhere. Where do we start? How about the pollution sink for our discarded human and chemical wastes: the sewer. The more than 85,000 chemicals we use daily in our homes, hospitals and industries find their way to the sewer, making wastewater treatment plants sentinels for harm.
Go up the sewer pipe to stop toxic discharges. Then rethink the entire sewer juggernaut. It’s only 150 years old. We don’t use horses anymore to carry our goods into the city, maybe we should stop using water to carry our wastes out.
Privatization: The wrong solution
Of course, a systemic approach would involve fundamental changes that corporate capitalism will resist. Why not control the conversation—and the assets—by owning the water? In a 2007 paper, University of Minnesota sociologist Michael Goldman explained how the World Bank has changed the discourse on water privatization from nonexistent to the global status quo. Today, a country cannot get a World Bank loan unless it submits a plan for privatizing its water system. In 2008, Goldman Sachs called water “the petroleum for the next century” and estimated that it is a $425 billion “industry.”
Here in the United States, a Wisconsin bill was defeated earlier this year that would have made it easier to privatize water services. It was introduced at the request of Aqua America, a Pennsylvania company that owns water utilities in eight states.
Privatization could be on the horizon for Flint. The city went through what was essentially a dry run when citizen oversight was removed. Things didn’t work out so well. But at the right price, a private corporation might step forward to “rescue” the failed government effort.
The privatization narrative goes like this: The municipality fails at providing clean water in the necessary quantity, so the water service—along with its infrastructure—is sold, often at yard sale prices, to a private company.
But the failure of the municipal water system was caused by the same people selling off the water authority. The bestmanaged utilities have strong citizen oversight and an administration acting for the public good.
We’ve been down this road before. Private water companies date back to at least 1652, when “The Water Works Company” incorporated in Massachussetts. It is not a new idea, but it is one that has failed to provide safe and plentiful water to the public. Private companies come and go. They also are not compelled to provide services to those who cannot pay. The best example of a water privatization failure is in Cochabamba, Bolivia. Protests erupted in 2000 when the government privatized the city’s water, selling it to a private consortium dominated by an American company, Bechtel, and the cost of water skyrocketed. One person was killed and after three months of violence, Bechtel was sent packing and the privatization was reversed.
For inspiration on how to demand investment in public water, we can look to 19th-century Boston. In his 1826 inaugural address, Mayor Josiah Quincy III, namesake of Boston’s Quincy Market, said this about the city’s then-private drinking water:
If there be any privilege which a city ought to reserve exclusively in its own hands, and under its own control, it is that of supplying itself with water. … No private capitalists will engage in such an enterprise without at least a rational expectation of profit. Besides, it being an article of the first necessity, and on its free use so much of health as well as comfort depends, every city should reserve in its own power the means, unrestrained, of encouraging its use, by reducing as fast as possible, the cost of obtaining it, not only to the poor but to all classes of the community.
Shortly after Quincy’s son, Josiah Quincy, Jr., became mayor of Boston in 1846, the city’s water became public.
The antidote to denial
Unimaginable quantities of toxins, in immeasurable combinations, have become part of our environment and part of us. Chronic disease is the leading cause of death and disability in the United States and accounts for 86 percent of our healthcare costs.
One of the illnesses seems to be political paralysis. Sandra Steingraber, in her book Raising Elijah, addresses the subject of “well-informed futility”:
Ironically, the more knowledgeable we are about such a problem, the more we are filled with paralyzing futility. Futility, in turn, forestalls action. But action is exactly what is necessary to overcome futility. Just down the street from well-informed futility resides denial. … In the face of knowledge too upsetting to bear, there is nothing to do but look away.
Her antidote to futility and denial? “To rise up in the face of the terrible knowledge and do something.” In other words, to act like “a member of the French Resistance.”
Since Flint, there’s been a new spotlight on lead in drinking water. But children in minority neighborhoods have been exposed to lead from water and other sources, like peeling lead paint, for a long time. The Centers for Disease Control consistently reports that black children have the highest risk of lead poisoning in the United States, sometimes two or three times more likely than white children to have elevated lead levels in their blood. It’s been this way for decades. Lead mitigation is well understood. Pipes can be changed. Filters can be used. Water authorities can influence how much lead is leached from pipes by influencing the chemistry of the water, by choosing safer water sources and by protecting those sources from contaminants like herbicides and pesticides from farm runoff and sewage outfalls.
What would it take to change our water supply lines? A New Deal for water infrastructure. Every four years the American Society for Civil Engineers issues a “Report Card for America’s Infrastructure.” The last grade for drinking water, in 2013, was a D. The report said it would take $2.1 trillion to replace the nation’s aging pipes. The EPA has identified $335 billion in water supply infrastructure needs over a 20-year period. Whatever the number, it is going to be high. So, too, will be hopes for new and improved technological fixes at water and wastewater treatment plants.
But Flint serves as a warning that trying to “clean” polluted water will only take us so far. The demand should be for chemical policy reform that gets rid of harmful chemicals and invests in a new generation of biocompatible chemicals. It should include a radical shift in agricultural policies that support organic practices. And if there is to be a New Deal for water infrastructure, let it be for ecological infrastructure that is built on a framework of prevention.
Boston and New York are examples of cities that have gone to extraordinary lengths to get their water from clean sources, and it shows at the tap. Boston gets its water from the Quabbin Reservoir, 65 miles west of the city. The 39-square-mile public water supply was created in the 1930s. Development around it is restricted by the state. No industries and no sewers discharge into its waters. New York, for its part, has two massive tunnels, with a third almost completed, that bring in water from reservoirs and lakes on protected land in upstate New York.
Both cities discharge their wastewater far from their drinking water sources: Boston’s treated sewage goes 9.5 miles out into the ocean. New York’s outfall pipes are closer to shore, but the state is trying to raise the capital to build an extended ocean outfall pipe. These are not ecological solutions for the disposition of wastewater, but it is safer than dumping it into drinking water. The disposal of wastewater and sewage sludge will cause pollution problems wherever they go, but keeping them out of our drinking water and food while we back off of their production is fundamental to protecting human health.
Technological responses to the ecological catastrophe in Flint and in scores of other cities, like replacing lead pipe supply lines, are necessary, but palliative. Technology should be the servant of prevention.
Resistance to the systemic poisoning we are experiencing in the U.S. begins with saying: Enough! We are hearing this in Flint. Town halls and community meetings are filled with people raising their voices and demanding change. In February, Flint residents Beulah Walker and Justin Wedes went to the United Nations to talk about Flint and ask for a fact-finding mission from the U.N. to come to the beleaguered city.
Forging our connection to each other is as important as disconnecting our sewers from our drinking water. Water pollution at the scale we have in America feels insurmountable, and it will be if we do not organize for fundamental changes in where we get our water, what we put into it, and where it goes when we are done with it. Nobody lives upstream anymore.
http://inthesetimes.com/article/18951/is-your-water-worse-than-flints
-
Can You Taste That Smell? Maybe You Don’t Want To.
Mar 28, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Michelle Mauthe Harvey
Recently, SC Johnson took the next step in product transparency, becoming the first major player in the consumer goods industry to disclose 100 percent of fragrance ingredients for a product line – in this case, its Glade® Fresh Citrus Blossoms collection. Consumers can now see what chemicals make up these home fragrances by reading product packaging or visiting SCJ’s WhatsInsideSCJohnson.com ingredient website. Over time, the company will expand the disclosure to the rest of its air fresheners and other products.
This is meaningful. Industry-wide, major consumer goods companies list fragrances in aggregate on an ingredient list, whereas in actuality, those fragrances are composed of many individual chemicals. Consumers deserve greater transparency.
As SCJ Chairman and CEO Fisk Johnson noted, “… key to [making thoughtful ingredient choices] is continually challenging the status quo. By sharing the full ingredient list for this fragrance — all the way down to the component level — we’re going beyond the norm of even so-called ‘natural’ products.”
EDF has applauded SCJ’s efforts on fragrance disclosure in the past, and we encourage them to continue increasing transparency throughout its product line.
We also urge them to go one step further in their pursuit of leadership by adding each ingredient’s Chemical Abstracts Service registry number (CASRN). These are unique identifying numbers that enable people who are interested in learning more to search other data sources. They should be easy for SCJ to provide, since individual chemicals should always have a CASRN.
You eat what you smell
Much of what we smell is also in what we eat. About half of the fragrance industry’s palette are also flavoring chemicals used in food.
SCJ cites cinnamon essential oil as an example. It contains myrcene, estragole, safrole and methyl eugenol, all of which are on the California Proposition 65 chemicals list because they are known carcinogens. “None of these [chemicals] are present in the new Glade® Fresh Citrus Blossoms collection,” according to SCJ, and for good reason. Known carcinogenic chemicals should not be used in consumer goods products and certainly not as food flavoring additives.
As noted in an EDF blog, on January 4 of this year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that it is considering whether to rescind its 1964 approval of seven flavoring chemicals — including methyl eugenol and myrcene — as food additives. Under current law, package labels are only required to list flavors generically as either “artificial” or “natural;” the latter simply refers to chemicals derived from plants. Either way, consumers have no way to know if myrcene or other toxic chemicals are present.
It’s time for food companies to follow the lead of SCJ, and disclose exactly which flavor chemicals are being used.
http://business.edf.org/blog/2016/03/28/can-you-taste-that-smell-maybe-you-dont-want-to/
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Demand Forecasts Cloudy as Asian Markets Expand, Contract
Mar 28, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
A rapid expansion of petrochemical manufacturing capacity globally raises questions over whether the industry is too optimistic in its demand forecasts for products in light of the global economic slowdown.
Many oil and gas companies are counting on expanded use of natural gas to help offset the hit from the oil price drop. Gas producers hope to sell huge shale gas reserves to growth markets such as gas exports projects, new gas-fired power generation, and gas-based chemical and fertilizer manufacturing.
Companies continue to add new plants to turn natural gas feedstock into chemicals aimed at a wide variety of industrial uses. But recent economic headwinds are causing some to question just how robust global gas demand will actually be.
Great ambitions for liquefied natural gas demand are already being scaled back as huge new capacity additions begin coming online. Natural gas producers were counting on LNG exports from the United States lifting their businesses at least by 2020, but slower economic growth in China and other major emerging markets and the addition of massive new Australian LNG export projects are challenging this view.
Last week, Royal Dutch Shell PLC and BP PLC announced they were shelving one proposed LNG project in light of growing pessimism on LNG demand expansion (EnergyWire, March 24).
Are petrochemical manufacturers following LNG's mistakes? Thus far, they aren't blinking.
Going small
George Boyajian, chief commercial officer at Primus Green Energy, said his firm isn't too concerned, as it is taking a long-term view.
"On the methanol side, it rises and falls globally with China," Boyajian said. "So depending on what China does, that really is the driver of the global methanol market, but regionally we're a small player. We keep an eye on the global market. We have to. But our local customers need methanol, and we can deliver it."
Primus recently announced that it will build small-scale methanol manufacturing in the Northeast using natural gas from the Marcellus Shale as feedstock. By 2017, a new facility should be producing, with expanded capacity of around 640 metric tons per day.
Boyajian said his firm doesn't see the massive new plants being built along the Gulf of Mexico coastline as competition. As a smaller-scale producer, Primus is building to meet modest demand growth over a much longer time horizon, he explained. He also sees his firm as having an advantage because it is building plants right at the source of the gas and close to demand centers.
Global competition will matter for the Gulf Coast plants, as many are export-oriented. IHS Inc. Vice President Paul Pang sees challenges on that front for gas-based chemical producers, at least in the near term.
"There's no doubt that with the economic slowdown, there is a pretty big headwind ahead for us in the chemical industry," Pang said during this month's IHS's World Petrochemical Conference. "Demand is slowing down. The growth is slowing down. And in the meantime, we've built a lot of capacity in good times.
"You have lots of surplus you have to deal with," Pang added.
And still more capacity is planned in China.
Last week, Shell announced a strategic agreement with the China National Offshore Oil Corp. (CNOOC) to add new chemical manufacturing capacity at a 50/50 joint venture in Guangdong Province. The aim is to double ethylene production capacity, building it up by an additional 1 million metric tons per year.
Pang painted a mixed picture on the demand front in China. He sees solid demand for chemicals used to make plastic packaging, generating record profits for the companies making them last year. At the same time, demand for the ingredients for more durable products like PVC piping used in construction have contracted recently, he noted.
'This is not a zero-sum game'
Wherever demand is in the future, it's becoming clear that Asian producers could become tough competition for U.S. Gulf Coast facilities seeking greater global market share, though the U.S. industry is still optimistic about its prospects.
London-based research firm GlobalData says it's tracking some 176 projects in China expected to add nearly 64 million metric tons per year of additional production capacity by 2019.
North America is building new plants at an even faster clip. The American Chemistry Council (ACC) says it's following around 260 separate projects valued at over $180 billion in total. Not all will likely get built, but by 2030, it's estimated that North American ethylene manufacturing will have grown to over 52,000 tons from about 35,000 tons today. Northeast Asian ethylene production capacity is seen growing from about 43,000 tons currently to over 65,000 tons. The Middle East is also projected to see major growth in ethylene output.
Despite this rising competition, ACC thinks U.S. chemical exports tied to shale gas could double by 2030, based on a report it commissioned by Nexant Inc. made public last year. China is seen as one major destination for these exports, despite the push there to rapidly build domestic Chinese supply.
ACC spokeswoman Jennifer Scott said her association's membership isn't concerned about the huge new capacity additions planned overseas. The consensus in North America remains that shale gas is a potent advantage for chemical producers here that no other region can match. ACC also remains bullish on the future global economic growth and rising living standards fueling demand for a host of products that require chemical precursors for their production.
"This is not a zero-sum game," Scott said in an email. "Chemical production capacity is expanding in many places. Many companies based overseas are deciding to build new capacity in the U.S. to serve growing demand in their home markets, thanks to abundant and affordable feedstock and fuel supplies."
ACC acknowledges the slowdown in China, but notes that the country will still grow. Global gross domestic product growth is projected to be around 3 percent this year in light of the slowing Chinese economy.
Pang at IHS concurs. "China is slowing down, but still it is a very important growth engine for the world."
Build it and markets will come
New petrochemical manufacturing from the Gulf Coast is expected to begin coming online around 2017 or slightly later as construction schedules are being stretched to save costs for firms hit hard by the oil price drop. The oil and gas industry is hopeful that natural gas prices in North America will firm up to more profitable levels as LNG and petrochemical exports from the U.S. grow.
It might be too much coming online too quickly in the short run, but Boyajian remains confident that his new facility coming to the Marcellus region will find customers for decades to come.
"The U.S. is going to be long on natural gas for a very long time," Boyajian said. "There might be overcapacity."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/03/28/stories/1060034652
-
Ex-DOJ Lawyer Predicts 'Clamor' for Congress to Act on GHGs
Mar 28, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
A veteran Justice Department environmental attorney now in private practice representing opponents of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan believes that no matter which way courts rule, there will be a "clamor" from industry for Congress to pass more limited legislation to address greenhouse gases, such as a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade program.
Tom Lorenzen, a partner in Crowell & Moring's Washington, D.C., office, spent 10 years with DOJ's Environment and Natural Resources Division, returning to the private sector in 2013.
Each Monday, Power Plays previews upcoming moves on the way to Clean Power Plan compliance and recaps the week's developments.
While at DOJ, Lorenzen led the defense of multiple EPA rules, as well as Massachusetts v. EPA, in which the Supreme Court affirmed EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
But now he is leading the challenge by the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association and more than 20 individual cooperatives to the EPA emissions rule.
"The way that these rules develop the force of law and the respect of the regulated community in the states is by being tested in court," he said. "And they can't be tested in court without both sides making their best case. This is a critical part of the process."
The basis for Lorenzen's prediction of pressure on Congress is the "patchwork" of state regimes to control carbon emission from power plants.
"A level playing field is a better playing field for most businesses that are in this industry. That kind of level-playing-field analysis may begin to have some effect here, as well -- certainly with the larger multistate utilities," he said.
As more and more nations move to cut their carbon emissions, "there is going to be incredible pressure" for the United States to have a serious system to cut carbon emissions, he said. "We're not going to want to be the only holdout on this issue.
"Many still dispute the science, but look around and look at what's happening. If you want to do something about that, you have to attack emissions.
"Then the question becomes what is the most cost-effective way of dealing with that and what is the most efficient way for dealing with that. The Clean Air Act is neither of those things. It wasn't designed for this. EPA has struggled mightily to come up with mechanisms under the law to deal with it because there has been congressional paralysis for 26 years," Lorenzen said.
Ironically, it is the widespread dissatisfaction in a majority of states about the Clean Power Plan's fundamental effect on a state's generation mix that could reverse that paralysis.
"If it is upheld and clients find it is hard to live with or impossible to live with, I think that may produce that clamor for legislation, something that makes more sense from a business's perspective, and that is a tool specifically designed for addressing the unique problem of greenhouse gases," he said.
"And if it's overturned, I think you'll see a clamor for legislation because this is a problem that is going to have to be addressed at some point in a sensible manner."
This week on the Clean Power Plan
EPA and its allies will defend the rule this week in briefs to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Lawyers for the agency are expected to respond to arguments put forth by challengers last month in opening briefs that delved into "core legal issues" of agency authority and federalism, along with alleged procedural deficiencies in the rulemaking process (EnergyWire, Feb. 22).
The agency is expected to double down on its argument that the Clean Air Act supports EPA's broad approach to cutting greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector and that the rule provides ample flexibility for states to craft compliance plans or adopt a federal plan.
EPA is scheduled to file its brief today. States, environmental groups and renewable energy companies supporting the rule will file tomorrow, and friends of the court -- including the Institute for Policy Integrity and former EPA administrators William Ruckelshaus and William Reilly -- will weigh in on Friday.
On Thursday, Minnesota's Pollution Control Agency holds a meeting to review compliance and cost modeling and hear from the Midcontinent Independent System Operator and Union of Concerned Scientists.
In case you missed itSenate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is advocating a "wait-and-see" approach for states considering preparing for the Clean Power Plan (E&ENews PM, March 21).But even though the rule is on hold, should states still worry about meeting deadlines in 2022 and 2030? (ClimateWire, March 24)Peabody Energy Corp.'s fate may be tied to the Clean Power Plan (EnergyWire, March 24).Iowa could see electric bills fall under the rule, according to a study by M.J. Bradley & Associates (ClimateWire, March 23).The judges weighing the fate of the rule will consider the views of members of Congress looking to thwart the regulation (Greenwire, March 23).
Reporter Ellen M. Gilmer contributed.
http://www.eenews.net/interactive/clean_power_plan/column_posts/1060034659
-
7 Million Americans at Risk of Man-Made Earthquakes, USGS Says
Mar 28, 2016 | Washington Post
By Joel Achenbach
Earthquakes are a natural hazard -- except when they're man-made. The oil and gas industry has aggressively adopted the technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, to shatter subsurface shale rock and liberate the oil and gas lurking there. But the process results in tremendous amounts of chemical-laden wastewater. Horizontal drilling for oil can also produce massive amount of natural, unwanted salt water that cannot be efficiently recycled. The industry disposes of all this wastewater by pumping it into deep wells.
And the Earth moves.
On Monday, the U.S. Geological Survey published for the first time an earthquake hazard map covering both natural and "induced" quakes. The map and an accompanying report indicate that parts of the central United States now face a ground-shaking hazard equal to the famously unstable terrain of California.
Some 7 million people live in places vulnerable to these induced tremors, the USGS concluded. The list of places at highest risk of man-made earthquakes includes Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, Arkansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Ohio and Alabama. Most of these earthquakes are relatively small, in the range of magnitude 3, but some have been more powerful, including a magnitude 5.6 earthquake in 2011 in Oklahoma that was linked to wastewater injection. Scientists said Monday they do not know if there is an upper limit on the magnitude of induced earthquakes and that this is an area of active research.
It's not immediately clear whether this new research will change industry practices, or even whether it will surprise anyone in the areas of newly estimated risk. In Oklahoma, for example, the natural rate of earthquakes is only one or two a year, but there have been hundreds since fracking and horizontal drilling, with the associated wastewater injection, became commonplace in the last decade.
It's not immediately clear whether this new research will change industry practices, or even whether it will surprise anyone in the areas of newly estimated risk. In Oklahoma, for example, the natural rate of earthquakes is only one or two a year, but there have been hundreds since fracking and horizontal drilling, with the associated wastewater injection, became commonplace in the last decade.
The report, based on recent seismic activity, is just a one-year hazard assessment. In effect, the scientists have said that what has happened in the recent past with induced earthquakes will likely happen in the near future. Past USGS hazard maps didn't include man-made events.
“Having it quantified authoritatively will be helpful in establishing just how much danger there is," Michael Blanpied, associate coordinator of the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program, told The Post.
The earthquake hazard is hard to estimate in any given moment and in any given place, in part because natural earthquakes are inherently unpredictable. The oil and gas industry is unpredictable, too. With oil prices low, companies have cut back on drilling recently.
The cut-back in production may explain why, in recent months, there have been fewer earthquakes in southern Kansas, said Rex Buchanan, director of the Kansas Geological Survey.
With a few exceptions, locations in the nation's central and eastern regions are not generally thought of as seismically unstable. But, Blanpied said, “Pretty much everywhere has faults. The nation was built over a billion years, and lots and lots of faults are left over from the construction process.”
The fluids injected into the deep wells don't lubricate the faults so much as put additional pressure on them, driving their walls apart, he noted.
A fault running between Dallas and the adjacent city of Irving caused a magnitude 3.6 earthquake in January 2015. That was attributed to natural causes, though an injection well was only about six miles away, said Heather R. DeShon, a seismologist at Southern Methodist University. But the USGS identifies the huge Dallas metropolitan area as one of the main places vulnerable to a significant earthquake because of human factors.
“The new map serves as a reminder to the local populations living with the recent earthquakes that it is best to be prepared to feel ground shaking," said DeShon, who was not involved in the new study.
The Dallas Morning News reported that an unreleased study by the Federal Emergency Management Agency estimated that a worst-case, 5.6 magnitude earthquake hitting Dallas could damage 80,000 buildings, cause levees to collapse and lead to $9.5 billion in economic losses.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/03/28/new-seismic-hazard-map-includes-fracking-related-quakes-for-the-first-time/
-
Controversial Power Plant Rule Under OMB Review
Mar 28, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
The White House Office of Management and Budget is reviewing a final rule that aims to justify U.S. EPA's mercury and air toxics standards for power plants.
EPA sent the rule to the White House for review last Tuesday. The agency is aiming to release the final rule by mid-April in accordance with a timeline it has laid out in court filings.
EPA first unveiled the standards in 2011, but the Supreme Court last year ruled in a 5-4 decision that the agency should have considered costs when it determined it was "appropriate and necessary" to issue the standards for power plants.
In a new justification proposed last November, EPA found that the expected benefits were large enough to warrant the costs of the rule. The agency predicts that the rule will cost $9.6 billion annually but yield between $37 billion and $90 billion in benefits a year when it's fully in place.
EPA, however, has been under fire for its use of co-benefits in its analysis. The vast majority of the expected benefits cannot be attributed directly to a drop in mercury and other hazardous air pollutants (Greenwire, July 1, 2015).
The standards remain embroiled in litigation as the White House kicks off a review of the agency's final appropriate-and-necessary finding. Earlier this month, a 20-state coalition asked the Supreme Court to toss the standards, arguing that EPA had still not considered costs and that a lower court's decision to keep the rule on the books was illegal (Greenwire, March 18).
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/03/28/stories/1060034682
-
Obama EPA Must Act to Prevent Chemical Plant Catastrophe
Mar 28, 2016 | Huffington Post
By David Halperin
Tomorrow I’m scheduled to speak at an EPA public hearing addressing a new rulethat the agency has proposed regarding dangers from America’s chemical plants. I will draw my remarks from a formal comment submitted today by: retired Army Lieutenant General Russel Honoré, former commander of Joint Task Force Katrina; retired Army Major General Randy Manner, former acting director of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency; and me. (I’m a former staff member of the National Security Council and the Senate Intelligence Committee, and an advisor to Greenpeace on these issues.) Our written comment is below. Here’s what it’s about:
In 2006, Senator Barack Obama said that America’s hazardous chemical facilities “are stationary weapons of mass destruction spread all across the country.” In that light, the proposed EPA rule evokes a notorious Cold War prescription for nuclear attack: Duck and cover.
Emergency preparedness, the EPA rule’s focus, is critical. But even more essential is prevention of a chemical disaster in the first place. And in this regard, the proposed rule falls well short.
Such a chemical disaster could be caused by accident, by natural disaster, or by terrorists.
This is a national security issue. The Administration must treat it like one, with the kind of urgency we give to weapons of mass destruction overseas.
I don’t see how President Obama, who offered such a clear perspective on this danger, would want to read that his EPA’s final rule was exposed as far too weak by groups representing communities living near these hazardous plants, by unions representing chemical plant workers, by national security experts like General Manner and General Honore, and others.
There surely would be scrutiny of a weak EPA rule if one day we did have a major chemical catastrophe. The pesticide plant in Bhopal India, which killed 20,000 people following a 1984 accident, was owned by a U.S. company, Union Carbide. If that plant had been located in the U.S. and 20,000 people had died here, we would have fixed this problem long ago. We must not wait for such a tragedy.
General Honore and General Manner, along with our coalition of environmental justice, environment, and labor groups, are calling on the EPA to require chemical plants to move to inherently safer technologies (IST) where feasible. Safer cost-effective chemical processes are widely available; since 2001, hundreds of chemical facilities have switched. We must overcome the resistance of intransigent chemical companies like Koch Industries and their Washington lobbyists, and make this happen.
Here’s our written comment:
March 28, 2016
Honorable Gina McCarthy, Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20460
Docket # EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725
Dear Administrator McCarthy:
In 2006, U.S. Senator Barack Obama offered the clearest statement of the dangers posed by America’s hazardous chemical facilities. “Basically,” he said, “these plants are stationary weapons of mass destruction spread all across the country.”[1] In that light, the instant rule, proposed a decade later by the EPA under President Barack Obama, evokes a notorious Cold War prescription for a nuclear attack: Duck and Cover.[2]
Emergency preparedness in the event of a chemical plant disaster, the proposed rule’s focus, is indeed critically important for our national security. But even more essential in this context is prevention of a chemical disaster in the first place. And in this regard, the proposed rule falls well short of what is required to protect Americans from catastrophic harm.
As former holders of U.S. national security positions, we believe the EPA should require the use of safer alternatives for all hazardous facilities where they are feasible, and we strongly urge the EPA to modify its final rule to achieve that outcome.
For decades, our country has failed to squarely address the security problem that unsecured chemical facilities present. It is a glaring danger that puts millions of our citizens at risk.
In August 2013, President Obama took an important first step with his Executive Order requiring a government review of safety and security procedures at chemical plants.[3]
The President initiated this process, in part, because of the April 2013 ammonium nitrate explosion in West, Texas, which killed 15 people and injured 160 more. This tragedy highlighted much of the chemical industry’s repeated failure to minimize and safely store toxic materials, and our government’s failure to create comprehensive and fair rules to protect against such incidents.
Since the West, Texas, disaster, there have been more than 430 chemical incidents and 82 deaths. None of us should ignore the possibility of more accidents, or chemical incidents resulting from natural disasters, with even more violent consequences. Many of us recall the 1984 pesticide plant disaster at Bhopal, India, which caused 20,000 deaths.
Terrorists could trigger a chemical plant attack in our country, with consequences like Bhopal, 9-11, or even worse. In 2003, the government’s National Infrastructure Protection Center warned that chemical plants in the United States could be terrorist targets.[4] Security experts have warned of the relative ease with which a determined team of attackers could thwart conventional plant security. The potential for cyber attacks makes the challenge even more serious.
The EPA has identified 466 chemical facilities in the U.S. that each put 100,000 or more people at risk of a poison gas disaster.[5] In 2005, the Homeland Security Council projected that a major attack would set off a deadly gas cloud that would kill some 17,500 people and injure tens of thousands more.[6]
This is a national security issue, and the Administration must treat it like one, with the kind of urgency we give to weapons of mass destruction overseas.
If our citizens are to be protected, the new rule must mandate the use of safer chemicals, substances, and processes. The EPA has the authority to issue rules to require chemical plants to move to inherently safer technologies (IST) — which would make them less attractive to terrorists while protecting workers and families living near these facilities. Former EPA administrators Christine Todd Whitman and Lisa Jackson have each called for the EPA to move ahead with such an approach.[7]
This approach is also consistent with the principles the Obama Administration developed for chemical security legislation (CFATS) in 2009 and which were contained in a November 2009 House-passed bill (H.R. 2868). They also were reiterated in 2011 congressional testimony by Rand Beers, then the Under Secretary, National Protection and Programs Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.[8]
Safer cost-effective chemical processes are widely available. Since 2001, hundreds of chemical facilities have switched to safer processes.[9] Clorox Company, for example, has converted all of its U.S. facilities. Based on the many facilities that have converted, the result is reliable protection for employees and communities against catastrophic disasters at minimal cost. Wherever this can be done it should be a requirement.
The proposed rule takes an important first step by mandating that certain high-risk chemical plants conduct a safer technology and alternatives analysis (STAA) and feasibility assessment on the use of inherently safer technologies.
But the proposed rule needs to be dramatically improved in the area of prevention. A final rule should:Require all RMP facilities — those that use extremely hazardous substances and thus are required to develop a Risk Management Plan — to assess safer alternatives to existing chemical processes, alternatives that will eliminate or dramatically reduce the consequences of a catastrophic release of an acutely toxic substance. The proposed rule exempts 87 percent of the some 12,500 Risk Management Plan chemical facilities from requirements to conduct STAAs. The exempted facilities include, for example, water treatment plants, some of which put major cities at risk of a catastrophic release of chlorine gas.Require all these RMP facilities to send their safer alternatives analyses (STAA) to the EPA and readily share the information with nearby communities and other interested parties, such as emergency responders, vendors of safer technologies, facility employees and contractors, and safety researchers.Establish a publicly accessible clearinghouse of safer available alternatives that could encourage and support the adoption of safer alternatives by more facilities as soon as practicable.Starting with the highest risk facilities, require chemical facilities to substitute safer alternatives to their processes, wherever feasible, that will eliminate or significantly reduce the consequences of a catastrophic release. The coalition of community, worker, and environmental groups[10] that has engaged the EPA on these issues has recommended that EPA at the very least begin a pilot program to require IST implementation in a subset of RMP facility categories, such as waste water and drinking water treatment plants, bleach plants and hydrogen fluoride refineries, and for those facilities among the 2,000 high-risk facilities cited in the EPA’s National Enforcement Initiative (NEI) 2017-19 proposal.
We understand that the technical and organizational challenges of requiring companies to move to safer technologies are complex. But it can, and must, be done. Given the magnitude of chemical facility hazards posed by potential accidents, natural disasters, and terrorist attacks, you should not wait any longer to protect the American people.
Sincerely,
Lieutenant General Russel L Honoré, US Army (Ret)
Former commander, Joint Task Force Katrina
Major General Randy Manner, US Army (Ret)
Former Acting Director and Deputy Director, Defense Threat Reduction Agency
David Halperin
Attorney, former staff member, National Security Council & Senate Intelligence Committee, and adviser to Greenpeace U.S.
[1] http://obamaspeeches.com/059-Improving-Chemical-Plant-Security-Obama-Podcast.htm
[2] “Duck and Cover” is a 1951 film produced by the American Federal Civil Defense Administration. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqCxcnhNAeQ
[3] http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/01/executive-order-improving-chemical-facility-safety-and-security
[4] http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressreleases/030909.asp
[5] https://preventchemicaldisasters.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/rmp-facilities-in-the-united-states-as-of-december-2014.pdf
[6] http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=2a4a3b95-5710-4231-b9f5-82227e8ad904
[7] http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/02/20/christine-todd-whitman-chemicals/5612695/; http://www.nbcnews.com/video/all-in-/51669109#51669109
[8] Beers testified on March 30, 2011, to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce:
The Administration supports, where possible, using safer technology, to enhance the security of the nation’s high-risk chemical facilities. Similarly, we recognize that risk management requires balancing threat, vulnerabilities, and consequences with the costs and benefits of mitigating risk. In this context, the Administration has established the following policy principles in regard to inherently safer technologies (IST) at high-risk chemical facilities:The Administration supports consistency of IST approaches for facilities regardless of sector.The Administration believes that all high-risk chemical facilities, Tiers 1-4, should assess IST methods and report the assessment in the facilities’ SSPs.Further, the appropriate regulatory entity should have the authority to require facilities posing the highest degree of risk (Tiers 1 and 2) to implement IST method(s) if such methods demonstrably enhance overall security, are determined to be feasible, and, in the case of water sector facilities, consider public health and environmental requirements.For Tier 3 and 4 facilities, the appropriate regulatory entity should review the IST assessment contained in the SSP. The entity should be authorized to provide recommendations on implementing IST, but it would not have the authority to require facilities to implement the IST methods.The Administration believes that flexibility and staggered implementation would be required in implementing this new IST policy.
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2011/03/30/written-testimony-nppd-house-committee-energy-and-commerce-hearing-titled-hr-908
[9]http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/news/2006/04/24/1924/preventing-toxic-terrorism/
[10] http://preventchemicaldisasters.org/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/davidhalperin/obama-epa-must-act-to-pre_b_9557394.html
-
Iranians Charged with Hacking U.S. Infrastructure
Mar 28, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The Department of Justice last week brought charges against seven Iranian hackers accused of attacking U.S. banks and infiltrating the control system of a small dam.
The indictment unsealed Thursday marks a significant step in the Obama administration's efforts to name and shame individuals who flout international norms in cyberspace, such as by targeting critical infrastructure during peacetime.
"For many years, nation states and their affiliates enjoyed what they perceived to be as a cloak of anonymity," John Carlin, assistant attorney general for national security, said at a press conference announcing the indictment last week. "They thought we couldn't figure out who did it, and if we did figure out who did it, we wouldn't say it. Well, they're wrong."
The Justice Department claimed the Iranians led attacks on 46 major financial institutions on behalf of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, causing tens of millions of dollars in losses in a series of incidents dating back to 2011. The hackers used a "distributed denial of service" technique to inundate victim servers with requests, crowding out legitimate customers from their online accounts, according to the indictment. Their targets included Bank of America, Capital One, PNC Bank and the New York Stock Exchange.
One hacker named in the indictment, 34-year-old Hamid Firoozi, also allegedly accessed the computer server controlling a dam in rural New York around September 2013. U.S. officials warned that Firoozi may have been able to "remotely operate and manipulate the sluice gate on the Bowman Dam" were it not for the fact that the Rye, N.Y., facility was down for maintenance at the time.
"Those sound like plotlines of a movie, but they're not -- they're real crimes committed by real people in the real world," said Preet Bharara, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, calling the dam intrusion in particular a "wakeup call" for critical infrastructure operators.
Kristen Eichensehr, a visiting assistant professor at UCLA School of Law who researches national security issues, said in a blog post Thursday that the need to deter incidents like the New York dam hack "may be the driving force behind the decision to charge the Iranian hackers."
"The [distributed denial of service] attacks on U.S. financial institutions were disruptive and costly, but the dam hacking poses a qualitatively different risk of harm," she said.
Cybersecurity experts have questioned whether the incident at the small New York dam is a good poster child for calling out such activity.
"These guys didn't even try to break the dam. They didn't even try to open the [sluice] gates," said Jason Healey, nonresident senior fellow for the Atlantic Council's Cyber Statecraft Initiative and a former cyber policy director at the White House. "In military terms, we call that intelligence preparation of the battle space -- you might never intend to break it."
Healey pointed out that U.S. military and intelligence agents perform similar reconnaissance of critical systems in hot spots around the world. Calling out such tacitly accepted behavior could cause "valid concern" to the United States' own cadre of cybersecurity professionals, he said in an interview. "I think it would have been better if [DOJ] just hadn't talked about it," Healey added.
Robert M. Lee, a former Air Force cyber warfare operations officer, said "it really wasn't a great move by DOJ" to claim Firoozi could have disrupted the dam's operations. Lee, who now heads industrial cybersecurity firm Dragos Security, took issue with the indictment's technical merits.
"The dam didn't have SCADA [a widespread control system], the control element wasn't installed not down for maintenance, and even if so water levels wouldn't be impacted," he said on Twitter after the indictment was released.
As China, so Iran
Both Lee and Healey credited the Justice Department for the work that went into the investigation. Healey noted that the indictment would serve as a deterrent even if it's unlikely that "these guys are ever going to have their day in court."
The allegations against the Iranians -- who in addition to Firoozi are Ahmad Fathi, Amin Shokohi, Sadegh Ahmadzadegan, Omid Ghaffarinia, Sina Keissar and Nader Saedi -- come nearly two years after the FBI put up "wanted" posters for five members of the Chinese military alleged to have hacked into American companies for their intellectual property (EnergyWire, May 20, 2014).
Like the Chinese army hackers before them, the Iranians cited in the latest indictment are thought to have direct links to their country's government.
"We have underestimated the impact of these diplomatic and law enforcement measures," Healey said, noting that the Chinese allegations "actually did make a pretty significant difference" for American interests in cyberspace.
While the 2014 indictment initially drew a livid response from Chinese officials who accused the United States of hypocrisy, President Xi Jinping has since signed an agreement with President Obama to respect certain "rules of the road" in cyberspace (Greenwire, Sept. 28, 2015).
It's not clear the United States will be able to achieve a similar road map with Iran or its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, long listed as a sponsor of terrorism. The Obama administration, working with Germany and the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, was able to reach a landmark deal with the Iranian regime last year to curb its nuclear program in exchange for relief from certain sanctions. But the nuclear deal has not healed divisions between the United States and Iran on a number of issues, including cybersecurity. Iran's alleged hacking activities earned the country a shoutout in U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper's global threat assessment last month.
"We must step up our counter-hacking game ASAP to deal with threats from places like Iran and would-be terrorists," said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who added that the cyber intrusion at the dam in his home state shows "a particularly neglected area is critical -- infrastructure, dams and power grids -- and we must increase our focus on protecting them."
Remediation for the Bowman Avenue Dam cost around $30,000 and didn't bring floods or otherwise hurt anyone. Nevertheless, the case drew widespread media attention when brought to light by The Wall Street Journal two years after the fact (Greenwire, Dec. 21, 2015).
As Attorney General Loretta Lynch put it last week, "Whenever you're talking about infrastructure -- be it a dam, be it a highway system, be it an electrical grid -- we obviously have grave concern about the ability to affect millions of people quickly."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/03/28/stories/1060034658
-
California Survey: Leaks in All But One of Dozen Storage Fields
Mar 28, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Some 229 leaks were found in California's 12 underground natural gas storage fields in a recent survey, but all but a handful were minor and nearly all of them were repaired by the time the survey results were released recently. Non-utility run Lodi Storage in Northern California was the only one found to be leak free.
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) conducted the survey in the aftermath of the four-month-long storage well leak at Southern California Gas Co.'s (SoCalGas) Aliso Canyon storage facility in Los Angeles, which was permanently sealed last month (see Daily GPI, Feb. 18). Sixty-six of the leaks detected in the February statewide survey were found at the 3,600-acre Aliso site, which is the state's largest gas storage facility.
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (PG&E) has three storage facilities in Northern California, at which 84 leaks were detected. The San Francisco-based combination utility said all the leaks had been identified before the survey. Eight of the survey leaks classified as hazardous were found at the PG&E facilities with six of them being fixed by the time the survey report was published.
Officials at the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) have committed to reducing leaks, and the new requirements for daily inspections will help fulfill that commitment, a DOGGR spokesperson told NGI.
CPUC's Safety and Enforcement Division (SED) in late January directed all of the state's gas storage facility operators to inspect for leaks and report their findings to SED in February. SED used federal criteria in reviewing the results and assuming that all identified leaks were repaired or in the process of repair, a report on the CPUC website said.
The vast majority (95%, or 218) of the leaks reported between Oct. 26 and Feb. 5 were "non-hazardous and required minor responses, such as tightening or lubricating valves," the CPUC said. None of the 22 leaks now still being repaired are at SoCalGas' Aliso Canyon facility; they are in Northern California on PG&E's and non-utility storage sites.
DOGGR and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) will work to refine inspection requirements, the CPUC said.
"Our legal office has advised us that there are regulatory overlaps between DOGGR and CPUC authority on natural gas storage fields, and both state and local air boards [also] can become involved when there are leaks," a DOGGR spokesperson said. CARB reportedly now is working on requirements for equipment in the storage fields to be checked for leaks every three months.
The CPUC reiterated that under current federal regulations gas storage facility operators monitor their own facilities for gas leaks, and SED oversees compliance with the federal pipeline safety regulations. CARB is addressing equipment leaks. In addition, the CPUC is studying whether additional leak survey requirements are necessary in the transmission/distribution pipeline sector.
The state uses the federal criteria for rating leaks as grades one through three (G1-3) with G1 being hazardous and requiring immediate attention; G2, nonhazardous but needing to be scheduled for repair; and G3 nonhazardous with no immediacy required in the repair scheduling.
Of the 66 leaks noted at Aliso Canyon, the CPUC reported that all were repaired and all were of a "minor, nonhazardous" variety. In its submittal to the CPUC, SoCalGas said the leak assessment only related to active wells and equipment; it did not include naturally occurring leaks of gas or abandoned wells, and the utility said facilities with one existing non-hazardous leak are currently in the process of abandonment under DOGGR's oversight.
"All leaks found were on above-ground equipment, were non-hazardous, and did not pose a threat to safety or the environment," said Michael Thorp, SoCalGas chief regulatory counsel.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/105831-california-survey-leaks-in-all-but-one-of-dozen-storage-fields
-
For PHMSA's Proposed New Rules, 'The Devil Is in The Details'
Mar 28, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
One week after the Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued a pre-publication version of proposed rules governing natural gas transmission and gathering lines, experts agree that it will take some time for producers, pipeline companies, trade associations, state regulators and other stakeholders to sort through the federal agency's proposals.
But early indications are that stakeholders will focus on the cost of implementing the proposed new rules, and determining how they affect existing state and federal regulations.
'A Very Significant Rule'
Shortly after PHMSA issued its 549-page notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on March 17 (seeDaily GPI, March 21), James Curry and Keith Coyle -- attorneys with Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir PC in Washington, DC -- issued a three-page white paper outlining several areas of the proposal that operators and other stakeholders may wish to investigate further.
According to Curry and Coyle, key changes include new materials verification requirements for certain onshore gas transmission lines; modified maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) requirements for all gas pipelines; strict requirements for verifying the MAOP of certain pipelines, and modified regulations for onshore gas gathering lines. Other rules address corrosion control; integrity management; new assessment and repair requirements for pipeline outside of high consequence areas (HCA), and the newly-defined moderate consequence areas (MCA).
"It's fair to say that it's a very significant rule, but it's not unprecedented," Curry told NGI. "But if you're talking about expansion in terms of pipelines being covered that weren't before, the biggest effect of the rule will be on gathering."
Curry and Coyle said PHMSA is proposing to change the definition of an onshore gas gathering line and would partially repeal a longstanding exemption for rural gathering lines. The agency also plans to extend federal reporting requirements to include all gas gathering lines, whether regulated or not.
"While the new proposal for determining whether a pipeline qualifies as a gathering line appears to draw on many of the concepts in the existing regulations, two important changes are notable," Curry and Coyle wrote. "First, the gathering function would begin at a point closer to the wellhead in many cases, thereby narrowing the extent of exempt production operations. Second, new restrictions would be imposed on the use of the incidental gathering designation, potentially expanding the universe of transmission lines in the midstream sector."
Curry and Coyle added that under the NPRM, PHMSA would regulate certain rural gathering lines for the first time. "Gathering lines in Class 1 areas that are eight inches or more in diameter and that have an MAOP that produces a hoop stress of 20% or more of specified minimum yield strength for metallic lines, or more than 125 psig for non-metallic lines, would be regulated under Part 192 [of federal pipeline safety regulations]. These lines, designated by PHMSA as 'Type A, Area 2' gathering lines, would be subject to the same safety standards that currently apply to lower-stress, 'Type B' gathering lines, as well as the emergency response requirements in Part 192."
Coyle said the proposed changes to gathering "are almost entirely driven by the dramatic changes that have occurred in U.S. oil gas development since the late 2000s. Prior to that time, you didn't see pipelines that are of the size and operating pressure that you have now. You used to have vertical wells and smaller-diameter, lower-pressure gathering lines that didn't present the kind of risk profile that you have now.
"Now you have horizontal drilling, hydraulic fracturing and much larger volumes of gas being put into much larger pipelines. That was the main driver on the gathering [rules]."
Curry and Coyle added that while changing the definition of what constitutes a gathering line will make more pipelines potentially subject to regulation -- and that some production lines may be reclassified as gathering lines -- the changes would impact companies differently.
"It will depend on where you sit as an operator," Curry said. "For the gathering companies, this will be significant for them. It will be for some producers too, because PHMSA's proposed to move the [starting points] of gathering around. But I think other parts of the rule are going to more significant. For example, the materials and MAOP verification provisions will be big things for transmission companies."
Stakeholders May Need More Time
Although a 60-day public comment period began for the proposed rule upon publication in theFederal Register, Curry and Coyle believe stakeholders could eventually ask for more time to review the numerous proposals.
"It's hard to say whether they will or not, but we think most, if not all, of the trade associations will ask for an extension," Curry said. "The rule is just so long and complicated, 60 days to review it will be pretty difficult."
Curry added that other analytical material -- including a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) and a cost-benefit analysis -- have not yet been released. "That should tell us a lot more about where they're coming from," he said.
An RIA would also provide some regulatory insight as to whether the new design requirements could even be applied to many existing pipelines. Curry and Coyle wrote that anti-retroactivity provisions in existing federal pipeline safety laws prohibit "the imposition of design, construction and initial testing requirements to pipelines constructed before those requirements were put in place."
"It would be a big question whether PHMSA could somehow retroactively apply these design testing requirements to a pipeline that was in the ground years before the federal rules were first adopted," Coyle said. "I don't see how that would survive under the non-retroactivity provision, which was put in the statute for the express purpose of preventing PHMSA from applying new design testing requirements to pipes that were already in the ground, at least for additional testing, because of the cost and the impractical ability of complying.
"You would basically have to rebuild the pipeline every time PHMSA came out with a new design rule, and that's why the provision is in the statute -- to not allow that to happen."
But the attorneys emphasized that they were not taking a position on whether the proposed rules would survive a legal challenge or not. The purpose of their white paper, they said, was just to serve as an informational guide for the various stakeholders.
Deadlines to comply with the rules should vary, Curry and Coyle said. Compliance with some of the rules could be mandated within one year of the rules being adopted; other rules could take effect in as many as seven or eight years.
"There are some companies that are better positioned from a compliance perspective, or that have fewer obligations under the proposed rule," Coyle said. "If you have newer pipe with really good records, you're probably in a much better position than if you're a legacy system that doesn't have a lot of records. It's going impact different kinds of operators in different ways. That will also factor into who ends up the higher costs from the proposals."
Industry to Calculate Costs
Gregory Wagner, special counsel with Baker Botts LLP in Washington, DC, said determining how to recover the costs for compliance will be high on the gas industry's list of issues.
"One of the things we are anticipating is not only how much will it cost, but how are these pipelines going to go about recovering those costs both on the regulated side -- meaning the rate regulated interstate transmission lines at FERC-- and the gathering lines that are not FERC regulated," Wagner told NGI on Thursday.
Last April, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued a policy statement stating pipeline companies can recover modernization costs through surcharge or tracker mechanisms (see Daily GPI, April 16, 2015).
"On the federal side, this should increase rate litigation at FERC," Wagner said. "One of the things FERC will look at, when allowing those surcharges, is if the pipeline has been exposed recently to a full rate review. A lot of the larger interstate lines don't make a habit of going in for rate cases. So depending on where the people that are studying this come down on the costs, for a pipeline that has a lot of its rates at a cost-of-service basis, as opposed to negotiated, this could push them over the edge to want to go with FERC -- either for a surcharge or even a full rate case.
"On the unregulated side, I think one of the issues for the gathering lines in that these are often nominally state regulated for rate issues, but it's sort of on a complaint basis, and complaints are few and far between. These are generally worked out between the pipelines and the shippers. I think that this has the potential at least to make that a more active area at the state utility commission level -- ratemaking for gathering lines."
Wagner added that companies will also be tasked with going out to identify how many of their pipelines will now lie in the newly-defined MCAs, and whether their plans for expansion or extension will also include those areas.
"There are some unknowns there," Wagner said. "Another issue is the de-grandfathering of the pre-1970 pipes. These are systems that don't necessarily have the recordkeeping or operational systems in place to comply with these [new rules]."
Regulators with the Railroad Commission of Texas and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection declined to comment on the proposed rules, as did analysts with Genscape and Jefferies LLC. Representatives of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission and Spectra Energy Corp. did not return calls seeking comment. A spokesman for Kinder Morgan Inc. referred questions to the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA).
"At this stage, we are still looking through the proposed rule to determine how closely it matches our voluntary pipeline safety commitments," INGAA spokeswoman Catherine Landry said Tuesday. "There are a few things we are looking at in particular." She said those topics include the expansion of integrity management to include the new MCAs, and how PHMSA will handle class locations and deal with integrity verification. INGAA also plans to conduct its own cost-benefit analysis.
"For all of these things, the devil is in the details," Landry said. "Because it's a long and complex rule, we have teams of technical people trying to figure out what exactly PHMSA has proposed and what that proposal means to us."
PHMSA said its proposed regulations would meet four congressional mandates from the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty and Job Creation Act of 2011, one recommendation by the Government Accountability Office, and six recommendations from the NTSB, including one that more modern testing be performed on pipelines built before 1970. PHMSA officials said approximately 57% of all onshore gas transmission pipelines were constructed before 1970.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/105833-for-phmsas-proposed-new-rules-the-devil-is-in-the-details
-
Ga. Lawmakers Move to Block 2 Interstate Projects
Mar 28, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Kristi E. Swartz
Georgia may be friendly to its own electric utility and natural gas companies, but the state Legislature sent a strong message last week to outside corporations that their pipelines are not welcome here.
The Georgia House overwhelmingly blocked owners of the Sabal Trail pipeline from getting easements to enter the state. Separately, both chambers tightened an eminent domain bill aimed at Kinder Morgan's Palmetto pipeline to prohibit the company from applying for any environmental permits until 2017.
These pipelines are controversial despite lobbying and public relations efforts from their owners to sell them as economic development drivers for the Peach State.
Kinder Morgan, which already operates in Georgia, wants to build a 360-mile pipeline from South Carolina to Jacksonville, Fla. The Palmetto pipeline would connect to an existing one that runs from the Gulf Coast through the heart of the Southeast and would be used to move petroleum.
The project already faces roadblocks, mostly because the company wanted to use eminent domain to condemn land. Gov. Nathan Deal (R) said he opposes the pipeline, and a judge upheld a state Department of Transportation commissioner's ruling that the pipeline would not meet a significant need.
Separately, state Rep. Bill Hitchens (R) filed a bill, H.B. 1036, targeting the Palmetto pipeline but said the law would apply to future projects, as well. The measure would put a moratorium on the project until a study committee can review siting and construction and report back to the Legislature next year.
A House committee changed the bill to let the company apply for and obtain other permits, easements and deeds before the moratorium is lifted in June 2017. The Senate removed those provisions, however, tightening the reins on what Kinder Morgan or any other pipeline company could do over the next year.
Changing the bill meant it went back to the House, which had the option to agree or not. The measure was scheduled for a vote last Tuesday, Day 39 of a 40-day session.
Hitchens told EnergyWire early that morning he planned to ask the House to agree with the Senate. At the same time, House Energy, Utilities and Telecommunications Committee members worked on an amendment to make the bill less restrictive again.
The entire day, Kinder Morgan lobbyists flooded the hallway outside the House chamber. They stood alongside a row of burgundy leather ropes and asked representatives to support the amendment whenever it came up. Other lobbyists noted their presence, with some saying it was tough to pass through the hallway.
It wasn't until 10:30 p.m. that the House readdressed the bill. The amendment failed 61-101, and the more restrictive version, bolstered by the support of the majority leader, passed 116-48.
"The House spoke," said state Rep. Chuck Martin (R), the amendment's chief author. "The bill, I think it goes too far. I don't think anybody in this building wants to stop two private parties from selling property."
Kinder Morgan spokeswoman Melissa Ruiz said the company is disappointed in the Legislature's vote and will wait to see whether the governor vetoes before evaluating options.
"We continue to believe that the Palmetto Pipeline project would be beneficial to energy consumers in Georgia and neighboring states," she said in an email to EnergyWire.
A flat-out no for Sabal Trail project
Stalling the Palmetto pipeline pales in comparison to what happened in the Georgia House earlier that day. The chamber overwhelmingly said "no" to granting easements to the Sabal Trail pipeline.
The 515-mile interstate natural gas pipeline is a joint venture of Spectra Energy Corp., NextEra Energy Inc. and Duke Energy. The pipeline would run through Alabama and southwest Georgia and into Florida, where Duke Energy Florida and NextEra's Florida Power & Light Co. would be the main customers.
The project has riled residents in southwest Georgia but has backing from heavyweights like the Georgia Chamber of Commerce. The chamber argues that the pipeline would bring economic benefits to a poor area of the state.
Sabal Trail originally was going to pass through Georgia without opportunities to supply natural gas. The owners expanded the project to include four so-called side taps. These would give users such as manufacturers, local distributers and power generators easier access to the pipeline in the future, said Andrea Grover, a spokeswoman for the project.
"The ability to access natural gas supplies from the pipeline is a significant driver to promote future economic growth," she said.
A coalition of environmental groups has been fighting the project for more than a year. After the state Board of Natural Resources approved easements last fall, Sabal Trail's opponents came up with a strategy for the legislative session.
"At that point, we hatched this plan to see if we could interfere with the conveyance of easements," said Neill Herring, a longtime Sierra Club lobbyist at the Georgia Capitol.
The easements amount to very little, just 0.3 acre of land. But they are key pieces because they allow the pipelines to pass under rivers in Georgia. In this case, that meant the prized Chattahoochee and Flint rivers and other major streams.
Opponents launched a multipronged approach that started with Georgia Rep. Winfred Dukes (D), whose district was ground zero for Sabal Trail. Dukes convinced key senators charged with shepherding a routine utility and transportation easement bill (S.R. 954) to keep any Sabal Trail provisions separate.
Dukes was particularly angry over Sabal Trail's proposal to put a compression station inside the city limits of Albany. He also was upset because the pipeline's owners would be taking people's property for a pipeline whose natural gas would go to Florida electric companies.
"So if Sabal Trail had to travel, they had to travel alone," he said.
An 'Appeal to Heaven'
The resolution passed the Senate without the Sabal Trail provisions, like Dukes requested, but a House committee added the easements with just two weeks left in the legislative session. At that point, Flint Riverkeeper Executive Director Gordon Rogers began what he calls a "transpartisan" strategy, targeting lawmakers on issues, not party lines.
Their targets included the "Appeal to Heaven," or Pine Tree lawmakers of the GOP, as well as the unofficial Liberty Caucus and tea party members. Their strategy was to capture the attention of those concerned about natural resources, property rights and local control.
"We just have a lot of buttons we can push, and we just lit up the whole state," Rogers toldEnergyWire.
Anti-Sabal Trail lobbyists had one goal, to prevent the easement bill from getting the 91 votes it needed to pass. The Sierra Club's Herring told EnergyWire he thought they could corral 80 or so votes. If they secured more than 85, the pipeline's backers likely could not get 91 of their own, he said.
After stalling for a couple of days, the bill landed on the House floor last Tuesday afternoon. Some lawmakers testified for the Sabal Trail project, but most spoke against it.
The most impassioned speech came from Rep. Regina Quick (R), who spent 30 minutes picking apart the pipeline. She was armed with Federal Regulatory Energy Commission documents, maps, slides and other research.
Quick targeted her colleagues who she said enjoy railing against the federal government.
"Here is your chance to push your button and put your money where your rhetoric has been for this session, because by voting 'no,' you will tell the federal government, 'Take your F-E-R-C process, and take it down to the Panhandle and across Apalachicola Bay, and not through the Flint River area of southwest Georgia, where this does not serve our citizens," she said.
When it came time to vote, the House chamber's electronic voting board lit up mostly red instead of green. Opposition to Sabal Trail sank the easement bill 34-128.
"We got 128, which is ridiculous," Herring said. "It's the most votes I've ever gotten on anything."
The bill still needed to pass at some point to grant the other 12 easements that cover 23 counties. Representatives sent it back to the Rules Committee early Thursday to strip the Sabal Trail portion so the bill could pass on the last day of session without issue.
"It was an extremely strong statement on a couple of different issues where people could unite and feel really good about it," Herring said.
The victory is huge for environmentalists, but any holdup on the project is temporary. Sabal Trail has a certificate of public and necessity from FERC. It also has acquired easements with over 81 percent of the landowners along the project, said Grover, Sabal Trail's spokeswoman.
The company still expects to start construction in Georgia in mid-June, she said.
"This is just one battle in a bigger war," Rogers of Flint Riverkeeper said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/03/28/stories/1060034650
-
Supreme Court Won’t Hear EPA Air Pollution Case
Mar 28, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Supreme Court declined Monday to hear a case on how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enforces air pollution rules.
In the case, Ohio v. Sierra Club, Ohio maintains that a state does not need to submit a plan to reduce pollution levels after being found to violate the maximum level under EPA rules if the concentration drops to an acceptable level before it submits its plan. The EPA agrees with Ohio’s interpretation.
It’s a major win for the Sierra Club, since the Supreme Court’s action lets stand the 2015 ruling from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
That court sided with the Sierra Club’s argument that under the Clean Air Act’s provisions regarding “reasonably available control measures,” the EPA ought to have demanded a pollution control plan from Ohio before it declared that the state complied with the pollution rules.
The dispute stems from the EPA’s 2011 declaration that the Cincinnati area was in “attainment” with the 1997 regulation limiting the allowable amount of particulate matter in ambient air.
The EPA had previously said in 2005 that the area was in “non-attainment,” triggering a requirement that Ohio write a plan, and EPA approve it, to reduce the particulate matter output from its sources, like the power sector and vehicles.
But thanks largely to another pollution control program, Cincinatti’s particulate matter levels dropped below the 1997 requirement in the ensuing years. Ohio asked that the area be certified as “attainment” despite the lack of an actual plan to reduce pollution, which the EPA granted.
The Sierra Club sued, leading the Sixth Circuit to reject the EPA’s decision. Ohio appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the EPA’s actions were well within the bounds of the law.
In the court battle, the EPA stood by its decision and said the Sixth Circuit was wrong to overturn it. But it ask the Supreme Court not to take the case, saying in a filing that that “the practical significance of the court of appeals’ error and the conflict in authority, however, does not appear to be sufficient to warrant the Court’s review at this time.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/274453-supreme-court-wont-hear-epa-air-pollution-case
-
States, Utilities Split Over EPA Plan To Revise Stormwater Permitting Rule
Mar 28, 2016 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
States and utilities are split over how EPA should revise its rules governing small municipal separate storm sewer systems' (MS4s) Clean Water Act (CWA) general permits, with some states and utilities seeking maximum flexibility under the rule but other states and utilities fearing such an approach could create significant costs.
Environmentalists, meanwhile, say that any of the agency's proposals for revising the rule would be more protective than the current permitting regime. The agency is preparing to overhaul its small MS4 permit policy under a settlement with environmentalists that set a Nov. 17 deadline for a final rule, in order to implement a unanimous 2003 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in Environmental Defense Center, et al. v. EPA.
EPA's "Phase II" policy for small MS4s allows a system to obtain coverage under a statewide general CWA permit by submitting a notice of intent (NOI) to comply with the permit, and then crafting a stormwater management program (SWMP) detailing how it will achieve the permit's discharge requirements. But neither the notice nor the management plan is subject to public notice and comment or formal review by state officials, which the 9th Circuit said violates the requirement that all permit terms must be reviewed by environmental regulators and the public.
EPA's Dec. 17 proposed rule set out three options for how states can oversee SWMPs. "Option 1" would require permit writers to include explicit statements of how regulated facilities can comply with discharge limits in small MS4s' general permits, while SWMPs would be limited to stating which of the allowed options an individual MS4 will use.
"Option 2" would have facilities include in their NOIs any management practices and measurable goals "that would be considered to be the enforceable requirements applicable to the permittee in addition to the terms and conditions of the general permit." The NOI would be subject to formal review by permitting officials and public notice and comment to satisfy the CWA's oversight requirement.
Finally, "Option 3" would allow each state to choose for itself whether to use either individual option or elements from each. EPA took comment on the proposal through March 21.
In comments, many states call for a final rule that would allow them to choose whether to craft a set of allowed compliance methods rather than letting individual facilities develop their own strategies, though some warned that such an approach could cause an "exponential" increase in work involved in reviewing permit applications.
The Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA), which represents many states' water regulators, in itsMarch 21 comments says it currently prefers the "states' choice" third option, though it is urging EPA to provide specific regulatory language for that path, which was missing from the Dec. 17 proposal, before crafting a final rule.
"EPA's failure to offer specific rule text . . . represents a fundamental flaw in this proposal. While we understand EPA is under a negotiated deadline with parties to the litigation, we believe EPA would end up with a much better rule if the agency takes the time to get state feedback on all of the regulatory language," ACWA says.
'True Collaboration'
"We have found that when EPA purposefully engages with states and true collaboration is the goal, better regulations are drafted and superior policy is created. In addition, duplication is curtailed, national consistency is improved, unintended consequences are avoided, greater certainty is realized, and legal challenges are minimized. Ultimately, the public is better served. Without specific rule text, the states cannot effectively comment on these options with any real level of detail," ACWA says.
Despite that flaw, among ACWA members "there was unanimous consent that the proposed Option 3: State Choice Approach, as described in the proposal, provides the greatest flexibility and would likely be the preferred option, given all three choices," it says.
Likewise, the National Municipal Stormwater Alliance, a new group representing some MS4s, in its March 21 comments backs Option 3 because it "preserves the greatest flexibility for the permitting authorities and the permittees. . . . This flexibility has been an essential element of the MS4 permitting program from its inception."
But some states and utility groups, including New Jersey, a statewide West Virginia association and members of the Wet Weather Partnership (WWP) of local governments and utilities, warn that only Option 1 is practicable because fully reviewing each small MS4's proposed management plan would be far more time-intensive and expensive than the current system.
In its March 21 comments, New Jersey said any approach other than Option 1, or alternately the flexible option with all elements of Option 1 included, would make it much more difficult for the state to administer its permit program. "There would be an unreasonable burden, in both cost and manpower, on states like New Jersey if access to Option 1 were removed," it says.
Both the West Virginia Municipal Water Quality Association and WWP, in their separate March 21 comments, said, "Although we acknowledge that Option 1 would involve more work during initial development of the GP, the extra time would be inconsequential as compared to the likely exponential increase in review hours associated with Options 2 or 3."
Stricter Controls
By contrast, environmentalists are signaling that they will accept a variety of options in the final rule as long as EPA's path forward leads to tighter controls on MS4 permits than the agency currently uses.
For instance, the Choose Clean Water Coalition, which represents 28 environmentalist groups in the Chesapeake Bay region, says in March 21 comments that while the advocates prefer Option 1 as representing the most stringent oversight of permit-holders' compliance methods, "Compared to current permitting practices, all of the options EPA has proposed would represent an improvement over the status quo in the Chesapeake Bay watershed."
The Center for Progressive Reform (CPR) uses its comments to highlight the "deficient" oversight scheme the agency currently allows states to use, and recommends that EPA apply either Option 1 or Option 2, though with expanded opportunities for public comment compared to the agency's proposal.
"CPR urges EPA to address this deficiency by rejecting any permitting scheme that allows for blanket permit approval and requiring instead a scheme that demands consideration of the individualized circumstances of the applicant, including the need for best management practices that make measureable progress toward the attainment of water quality standards," it says in its March 21 comments.
Permitting Requirements
Industry groups in their comments urged the agency not to tighten its substantive requirements for the discharge limits set in stormwater permits, without taking a position on the three options.
The CWA requires stormwater permit holders to reduce pollution discharges to "the maximum extent practicable" (MEP), but EPA has struggled to define that term, with environmentalists often arguing that federal and state stormwater permits take a too-lax view of what is "practicable" for facilities.
In separate comments submitted March 21, both the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) and theAssociated General Contractors of America (AGC) caution against the agency using its small MS4 rule to revise its interpretation of MEP, with AGC warning that the proposal as written could be read to tighten the standard.
The contracting group warns that proposed language requiring permit goals to be "clear, specific, and measurable," combined with deleting a clause that said, "Implementation of best management practices consistent with the provisions of the storm water management program required pursuant to this section . . . constitutes compliance with the standard of reducing pollutants to the 'maximum extent practicable,'" will discourage states from using "narrative" criteria that gauge discharges by their effect on waterbody health rather than the numeric concentration of pollutants they contain.
"AGC is concerned that the introduction of new 'clear, specific, and measureable' criteria will make it difficult for [CWA] permit writers and permittees to continue to use narrative (non-numeric) requirements," it says.
By contrast, NAHB does not point to particular language in the proposal that would directly shift EPA's official interpretation of MEP but warns the agency not to take such a step in its final rule.
"NAHB does not have a preference as to which procedural option is most desirable, but believes states and localities should be permitted the maximum amount of choice to apply federal requirements. However, to avoid confusion or any 'reading between the lines', EPA needs to clearly state that it is in no way modifying its definition for the term 'Maximum Extent Practicable,'" nor changing the minimum control measures it allows facilities to use, the group says.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/states-utilities-split-over-epa-plan-revise-stormwater-permitting-rule
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested