Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 8/14/2017
-
Environmentalists File First Suits Over TSCA Prioritization, Review Rules
Aug 14, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Several environmental groups have filed multiple suits over two of EPA's initial rules for implementing the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), pursuing challenges in several federal appellate courts claiming that the regulations violate the provisions of the updated toxics law and the Administrative Procedure Act. -
Environmental Groups Sue Trump Administration Over New Rules That Will Make It Harder to Protect Against Harm From Toxic Chemicals
Aug 14, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
on behalf of the Environmental Working Group and organizations representing consumers, people from low-income communities of color, Alaska Natives, parents and teachers of children with learning disabilities, workers, and scientists — has brought two suits against the Trump administration for weakening key rulesestablishing how the Environmental Protection Agency will regulate toxic chemicals found in consumer products, building materials, and work places, as well as in our drinking water and food. -
To Pruitt EPA: See You and Your Illegal TSCA Rules in Court
Aug 14, 2017 | Natural Resources Defense Council
By Daniel Rosenberg Jennifer Sass
NRDC, the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, and Cape Fear River Watch are suing EPA to make sure it assesses chemicals as required by the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The stakes in this case are high. If EPA doesn’t conduct a complete evaluation, it can’t protect us from dangerous chemicals we may encounter. -
Dependency, Disaster, Decline: Downsides Of A Megaproject
Aug 14, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson,
On Aug. 1, 1977, the oil tanker Arco Juneau sailed out of the port of Valdez carrying the first load of Prudhoe Bay oil to a refinery on the West Coast. The ship's departure marked the triumphant end to Alaska's nine-year transformation from an insolvent, frontier territory into an oil state. -
A Scientist Thinks His Gizmo Can See Methane Leaks Better
Aug 14, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
Research scientist Dirk Richter wants to change the way oil and gas companies detect methane leaks. -
New Rules Clamp Down On Greenhouse Gases
Aug 14, 2017 | E&E Cimatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
Massachusetts regulators finalized a series of rules last week intended to make deep cuts in the Bay State's carbon emissions. -
EPA Backs Utility Bid To Delay Cross-State Rule Case
Aug 14, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly,
U.S. EPA is open to going along with a utility-proposed delay in proceedings in litigation over the agency's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule update, according to a Friday court filing. -
Air-Conditioning Industry Scrambles In HFC Ruling's Wake
Aug 14, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Arianna Skibell
A federal appeals court's decision to toss an Obama-era rule against chemicals used in cooling is creating uncertainty for that industry.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News- There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Environmentalists File First Suits Over TSCA Prioritization, Review Rules
Aug 14, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Several environmental groups have filed multiple suits over two of EPA's initial rules for implementing the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), pursuing challenges in several federal appellate courts claiming that the regulations violate the provisions of the updated toxics law and the Administrative Procedure Act.
On Aug 11, groups including the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Natural Resources Defense Council and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families filed separate petitions for review challenging the rules in the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 4th, and 9th Circuits.
One case in each of the three circuits targets EPA's June 22 final rule establishing EPA's process and criteria for identifying high-priority chemicals for risk evaluation and low-priority chemicals for which the agency will not pursue a risk evaluation.
A second case in each of the three circuits targets the agency's separate June 22 risk evaluation process rule that outlines how EPA will review high-priority chemicals to determine whether or not they present “an unreasonable risk to health of the environment.”
While the legal filings are brief, the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition's 9th Circuit suit over the risk review rule says, “Petitioners challenge the Risk Evaluation Rule as arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations; and without observance of procedure required by law.”
The rules are part of a suite of three recently-issued EPA rules that implement a new framework for evaluating existing chemicals under the revised TSCA that former President Barack Obama signed into law June 22, 2016. Existing chemicals are those that were already on the market when the original TSCA passed. That existing chemicals were largely grandfathered under the old law was a primary driver of TSCA reform.
In recent weeks, environmentalists and Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), one of the Senate architects of the revised law, have faulted EPA's implementation rules as prioritizing industry influence over safety concerns, and argued the Trump administration's implementation rules fall short of the law's requirements.
Specifically, EDF has argued that the rules narrowed the scope of chemical uses for review, allowing some chemical risks to escape review and potential regulation.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/environmentalists-file-first-suits-over-tsca-prioritization-review-rules
-
Aug 14, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
SAN FRANCISCO – Earthjustice — on behalf of the Environmental Working Group and organizations representing consumers, people from low-income communities of color, Alaska Natives, parents and teachers of children with learning disabilities, workers, and scientists — has brought two suits against the Trump administration for weakening key rulesestablishing how the Environmental Protection Agency will regulate toxic chemicals found in consumer products, building materials, and work places, as well as in our drinking water and food.
Specifically, the lawsuits challenge two EPA regulations that set ground rules for how EPA will prioritize chemicals for safety review and then evaluate the risks of those chemicals under the recently updated Toxic Substances Control Act. Additional information about the lawsuits is available here and here.
Earthjustice filed the complaint in federal court in San Francisco on behalf of EWG, WE ACT for Environmental Justice, Learning Disabilities Association of America, United Steelworkers, Alaska Community Action on Toxics, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Environmental Health Strategy Center and Sierra Club. The challenged rules will play a crucial role in whether EPA fulfills its mission of protecting families and workers across the country from chemical risks or allows known bad actor chemicals, like asbestos, to get a free pass.
“After Congress took bipartisan action to make desperately needed updates to our chemical safety laws, the Trump Administration has turned back the clock, leaving families and workers at risk,” said Eve Gartner, an attorney at Earthjustice. “The EPA’s newly adopted rules – overseen by a former high-level chemical industry official with head-spinning conflicts of interest – will leave children, communities and workers vulnerable to dangerous chemicals. This lawsuit is about one thing: holding the Trump EPA to the letter of the law and ensuring it fulfills its mandate to protect the public.”
In 2016, Congress overhauled TSCA for the first time in 40 years, requiring EPA to conduct comprehensive risk evaluations of chemicals without regard to cost, and with special attention to the risks posed to vulnerable populations. Under the updated law, President Trump’s EPA has issued dramatically weakened rules governing how the EPA assesses the safety of chemical in an effort to cater to the chemical industry at the expense of public health. One of the key EPA officials charged with overseeing the drafting of the updated rules is Dr. Nancy Beck, a former high-level official in the leading chemical-industry trade association who is riddled with potential conflicts of interest.
“This administration is anti-public health," said Melanie Benesh, EWG's legislative attorney. "The EPA’s new rules fail to protect consumers by exempting key sources of exposure to risky chemicals. For example, 1,4-dioxane is linked to cancer and is a well-known contaminant of the personal care and cleaning products consumers use everyday. EPA has indicated it will not assess the risks from these exposures just because 1,4-dioxane is an impurity. That’s absurd. Cancer is cancer regardless of how a chemical ends up in a product. EPA’s safety determinations should take all sources of exposure into consideration. To do otherwise is completely contrary to public health and bad for consumers.”
In connection with the filing of the lawsuits, Earthjustice’s clients issued the following statements:
Dr. Adrienne Hollis, Director of Federal Policy at WE ACT for Environmental Justice said: “There is an immediate need for actions focused on preventing chemical exposures and regulating the use of chemicals. Despite being a New York City native, what Mr. Trump may not realize is that many residents, especially tenants living in poor or substandard housing, disproportionately suffer from respiratory problems such as asthma. We need to know the risks of chemicals used in our communities because exposure often exacerbates health disparities and outcomes. Enforcement of chemical laws to keep our communities healthy should be a top priority for the EPA.”
Pamela Miller, Executive Director of Alaska Community Action on Toxics, said: “Indigenous peoples of the Arctic are among the most highly exposed populations on earth and extremely vulnerable to health disparities associated with chemical exposures including endocrine and immune system disorders, neurodevelopmental harm, and cancers. Many persistent and toxic chemicals, including HBCD, are subject to long range transport via atmospheric and oceanic currents and concentrate in wildlife and people of the north. EPA has a clear obligation to protect the health of vulnerable populations, including Alaska Native people who rely on the land and sea for their sustenance and culture. Chemical corporations cannot be allowed to continue violating the health, human rights, and integrity of our northern and Arctic communities.”
Patricia Lillie, President of the Learning Disabilities Association of America, said: “We need EPA to fulfill its responsibility under the revised TSCA to regulate toxic chemicals in ways that are especially protective of children's vulnerable developing brains and bodies. These rules do not accomplish that purpose. The rules give EPA authority to choose to ignore chemical uses that could result in prenatal and children's exposures to chemicals that are linked to learning and developmental disabilities.”
Michael Wright, Director of Health, Safety and Environment for the United Steelworkers, said: “Our union has fought for decades to control harmful worker exposures to chemicals. Since Congress updated TSCA, we continue to hold EPA accountable and ensure that strong regulations protect workers from occupational disease caused by chemical exposures.”
Dr. Andrew Rosenberg, Director, Center for Science and Democracy, Union of Concerned Scientists, said: “The EPA's mission is to protect people and the environment, and its decisions need to be based on the public good and the best available science, not on special interest lobbyists. The EPA's new rules simply don't meet this standard. They were written by an appointee picked straight from the heart of the chemical industry and reflect efforts of some companies to undermine the science that keeps us safe.”
Mike Belliveau, Executive Director of the Environmental Health Strategy Center, said: “Obviously, it's total exposure to a chemical, from all sources combined, that most endangers the health of pregnant women, children, and workers. Yet, the Trump EPA deliberately bypassed the law’s clear requirement that safety assessments be based on ALL uses of a chemical. By allowing some or even most chemical uses to be ignored, the EPA proposes to do the very thing the new law was intended to halt: allow the chemical industry to continue to produce and sell toxic chemicals that pose unacceptable risks to human health.”
Marta Darby, Attorney for Sierra Club, said: “It has become clear the Trump Administration will do whatever it takes to work on behalf of big polluters and the chemical industry to gut the laws that keep our families safe. Now, they want to weaken laws that keep toxic chemicals away from our kids and put a chemical industry official in charge of enforcing them. That is a recipe for disaster, and we intend to hold the Administration accountable with this lawsuit.”
http://www.ewg.org/release/environmental-groups-sue-trump-administration-over-new-rules-will-make-it-harder-protect#.WZHQqzMjHIU
-
To Pruitt EPA: See You and Your Illegal TSCA Rules in Court
Aug 14, 2017 | Natural Resources Defense Council
By Daniel Rosenberg Jennifer Sass
NRDC, the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, and Cape Fear River Watch are suing EPA to make sure it assesses chemicals as required by the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The stakes in this case are high. If EPA doesn’t conduct a complete evaluation, it can’t protect us from dangerous chemicals we may encounter.
EPA recently finalized two rules on how to assess chemicals that cater to the chemical industry at the expense of safeguarding public health. The rules establish a framework for EPA to evaluate whether a chemical poses an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment and how to prioritize which chemicals to evaluate. These “framework rules” govern how EPA protects us from toxic chemicals used in commercial and consumer products and industrial processes throughout the United States.
We oppose the rules because they give EPA nearly unlimited discretion to decide whichuses of a chemical it considers to determine whether the chemical poses an unreasonable health risk. TSCA requires EPA to consider a chemical’s “conditions of use,” including all “intended, known, and reasonably foreseeable uses.” But these rules allow EPA to pick and choose which uses to consider. So EPA can exclude sources of exposure to a chemical that affect the overall risk the chemical poses.
Such an incomplete analysis is likely to be wrong and could lead EPA to conclude that a chemical does not pose an unreasonable risk when it actually does. Because of the new law’s “preemption” provisions, EPA will not only fail to limit potentially dangerous exposures to the chemical, but it will largely prevent state and local governments from restricting exposures to the chemical as well. EPA could end up allowing dangerous uses of chemicals that put people at risk for learning disabilities, reproductive disorders, and cancer, among other ills.
Take lead as an example. Lead is indisputably harmful to the brain. Children exposed to lead early in life can suffer from learning and behavioral disabilities and developmental delays. Lead exposure can also increase a person’s risk of high blood pressure and kidney disease. Although lead was not one of the first 10 chemicals EPA selected to evaluate under TSCA, it is a good candidate to be in the next batch of 20 “high priority” chemicals that EPA must begin evaluating by the end of 2019.
When EPA evaluates lead’s health risks under the new rules, it could ignore some uses and sources of exposure, such as lead paint in older homes and apartments, lead in drinking water pipes, or lead in contaminated soil where children play. As a result, it could underestimate the health risks and allow lead to be used in a product or material that is unsafe.
Those exclusions could be particularly dangerous to people most exposed to a chemical or most affected by exposure to it. The law requires EPA to protect these vulnerable populations. But if EPA doesn’t consider all of a chemical’s uses, susceptible populations such as pregnant women, children, workers, elders, and people with chronic diseases will not get the protection Congress mandated. How can EPA identify and protect the most exposed populations when it excludes significant sources of exposure? The draft rules that the Obama administration proposed required EPA to consider all of a chemical’s uses. The Trump EPA has done a 180-degree turn on this fundamental question, giving chemical manufacturers such as Dow Chemical and ExxonMobil exactly what they want. Even worse, the new head of EPA’s toxics office, Nancy Beck, joined EPA straight out of her previous job as a top executive with the chemical manufacturers’ trade association.
NRDC and other public health and environmental groups, as well as the American people, won’t tolerate the chemical industry calling the shots at the expense of our health and safety. Our lawsuit is one way we’re making sure that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and his chemical-industry cronies don’t destroy our best chance to make TSCA work since it was enacted 40 years ago. Given the current leadership at EPA, we have our work cut out for us.
Luckily, we are not alone. Health and environmental groups in other parts of the country, including Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, Earthjustice, the Learning Disabilities Association of America, Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, and the Alaska Community Action on Toxics, are also challenging these rules. At stake is nothing less than how (and whether) EPA will protect the public from toxic chemicals in the years, and possibly decades, to come.
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/daniel-rosenberg/pruitt-epa-see-you-and-your-illegal-tsca-rules-court
-
Dependency, Disaster, Decline: Downsides Of A Megaproject
Aug 14, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson,
ANCHORAGE, Alaska — On Aug. 1, 1977, the oil tanker Arco Juneau sailed out of the port of Valdez carrying the first load of Prudhoe Bay oil to a refinery on the West Coast. The ship's departure marked the triumphant end to Alaska's nine-year transformation from an insolvent, frontier territory into an oil state.
Alaska's journey began in 1968, when ARCO and Humble Oil & Refining Co. discovered the largest oil field in North America on Alaska's frigid North Slope. After overcoming years of legal battles, eight companies joined forces to build an 800-mile pipeline from northern Alaska to the ice-free port of Valdez.
The last section of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) had been welded into place, and a steady flow of Alaska crude was being shipped to market. Across the state, tens of thousands of pipeline workers drawn to Alaska by the promise of adventure and large paychecks were beginning to scatter.
Some Alaskans hoped that life would return to the pre-pipeline days. Cars around the state carried bumper stickers reading: "Happiness is a Texan headed south with an Okie under each arm."
But as the snow blew down the empty streets of Fairbanks that winter, not everyone was happy. "If you were a barmaid, it was bad; if you came to Alaska to hunt and fish, it was great," recalled Harold Heinze, a petroleum engineer who went on to become president of ARCO Alaska.
For Heinze and other oil company officials who had permanently moved to Alaska, it was a time for reflection.
"We'd just finished this horribly intense but yet somehow greatly satisfying period of our lives" during pipeline construction, Heinze explained. "We felt good, even though we were dog-tired and beat to crap."
David Haugen, one of Alyeska Pipeline Service Co.'s pipeline construction managers, remembered that when the project was over, he felt as if he'd lived two years for every one year on the pipeline.
By 1978, Alaska's North Slope oil fields were producing 1.1 million barrels of oil each day. That crude contributed millions of dollars in royalty and tax money to Alaska.
"Now there was no reason why education couldn't be properly funded — and social services, hospitals," Heinze recalled. "Everything got funded. It was a kind of wonderful, upbeat time."
"We were well-paid. We were cared for. We had a beautiful future," he said. "As a young family man, it was just — hang on baby and ride this puppy all the way."Growing reliance on oil money
As production geared up, Alaska lawmakers went on a spending spree, building schools, roads, parks and public buildings across the state.
Anchorage in particular seemed to sprint into the 20th century. Under an initiative known as Project 80s, the city built a performing arts center, a sports arena, a museum, a convention center and a library.
As fast as the pipeline construction workers left the state, they were replaced by a new generation of Alaskans eager to teach at the universities, work in the newly built hospitals, and provide legal and professional services to the oil companies setting up shop in the state.
The population of Anchorage, Alaska's largest city, more than doubled from 83,000 when Alaska became a state in 1959 to 174,000 in 1980.
"There was a level of growth and development that came with the oil money flowing into the state coffers that was remarkable," recalled Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R).
Along the way, Alaska became heavily dependent on oil money. "When you have a small population and a lot of money coming into your state, it has a considerable impact. And we've seen that play out over the years," Murkowski said.
North Slope oil became the backbone of Alaska's economy, lulling state leaders into a false sense of security. But that illusion ended in late 1986 when world oil prices crashed and Alaska's oil-based economy spiraled into a serious economic depression.
With the oil companies paying far less tax and royalty money to the state, the Alaska Legislature quickly slashed state programs. The backlash was immediate. During the recession of 1987-1988, all but two banks in Alaska went belly up. Fifteen percent of the population left the state, and housing prices dropped 50 percent.Disaster strikes in Valdez
In March 1989, Alaska was just beginning to emerge from its economic collapse when a second crisis hit: the Exxon Valdez oil spill.
Heinze, who had been promoted to president of ARCO Transportation Co., recalls getting an early morning phone call notifying him that a fully loaded tanker had hit a reef in Prince William Sound while it was leaving the Valdez oil terminal. Heinze grabbed a bag and jumped on a plane to Valdez.
In Cordova, Rick Steiner, a marine conservation professor with the University of Alaska, heard the news from a local fisherman. He immediately charted a floatplane and headed to Valdez.
Within days, dozens of industry, government and environmental experts descended on the tiny town in southern Alaska. Exxon Shipping Co., the U.S. Coast Guard, and state and federal environmental regulators set up a command center at a local hotel.
For the first couple of days, light winds blew across the spill site and the tides carried a small amount of oil into local waterways. Days later, however, a fierce storm hit Alaska's southern coast.
"Early on, the focus was on doing everything possible to get that oil out of the water — to contain it, to recover it," Steiner said. "And then it became obvious that that was impossible. You had 70- or 80-knot winds. It just spread all over hell and back."
Nearly 11 million gallons of oil poured out of the crippled Exxon Valdez tanker as the rocks of Bligh Reef penetrated 5 feet inside the ship's hull.
The oil slick spread over 10,000 square miles of water in Prince William Sound and the Gulf of Alaska. Sticky black crude contaminated more than 600 miles of Alaska's ecologically sensitive coastal lands. At the time, the Exxon Valdez disaster was the largest marine oil spill in recorded history.
"Once the oil got out of hand, the effort [focused on] defensive booming of important habitats like salmon streams and hatcheries," Steiner recalled. "We tried to keep the oil out of these areas. Some of that worked and some of it didn't."
In the weeks and months that followed, the oil slick killed more than 100 bald eagles, hundreds of thousands of marine birds, several thousand sea otters and most of the local population of killer whales. The local fishing industry was devastated.
Thousands of people flocked to the area to join the cleanup operation. In the end, Exxon was forced to pay over $4.3 billion on compensatory payments, cleanup costs, settlements and fines.
Alyeska's oil spill response capabilities later came under attack by NOAA. According to a NOAA report, the company had dismantled its pollution abatement equipment several years before the Exxon Valdez oil spill and decided to "disband its full time oil spill team and reassign those employees to other operations."
Steiner observed that the oil companies "simply never realistically thought that they would ever have to respond to a major spill. That was the stunning thing."
Heinze was on hand for early industry discussions on the disaster. "I can tell you that there's no doubt that the industry to its core realized that it was one hell of a mess, a screw-up, a bad thing that happened," he said.
"When you ask what went wrong, there's probably enough room to spread blame around amongst a number of people," Heinze noted. "In reality the more interesting question, which will never be answered, is could this have been handled differently?"
The public outrage that followed pushed Congress to adopt the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which mandated the use of double-hull tankers and required the development of regional oil spill response plans. It also created a trust fund, financed by a tax on oil, to help clean up future spills.
The lingering impacts of the Exxon Valdez oil spill continue today. Several Alaska wildlife species, particularly killer whales and certain bird populations, have not yet recovered from the disaster. The local sea otter population didn't bounce back until 2014, according to a May reportby the U.S. Geological Survey.
In the aftermath of the oil spill, Alyeska created the Ship Escort/Response Vessel System to provide tugboat escorts for oil tankers leaving Valdez. The industry-owned company also maintains oil spill response equipment on the tugs, as well as near the rivers along the 800-mile TAPS route.
"Since the Exxon Valdez, our equipment and prevention measures have expanded exponentially," noted Scott Hicks, director of the Valdez Marine Terminal. "We now have more equipment than any other port certainly in the U.S. and probably in the world."
Hicks said he believes that if the company's current response system had been in place in 1989, the Exxon Valdez oil spill would not have caused the environmental damage that it did.
"It wouldn't have been a good day by any means — I don't want to suggest that," he said. "But it would've been a whole different kind of event."
Steiner is not convinced. "As careful and as smart as we think we can be in these prevention and risk mitigation systems, we can't get 100 percent there," he said. "So there is always a risk of another catastrophic oil spill from these tankers."Aging challenges
Times have dramatically changed since Alyeska began shipping Prudhoe Bay oil down the Alaska pipeline. In 1988, state petroleum production peaked at 2.1 million barrels a day and has declined ever since, despite the discovery of new North Slope oil fields. TAPS currently carries about 500,000 barrels of oil each day.
In the 1970s, Alaskan oil was revered as a national treasure. Congress cleared the way for construction of the pipeline after Arab states imposed an oil embargo on the U.S. for supporting Israel during the Arab-Israeli War.
When North Slope oil shipments began in 1977, Alaska provided almost a quarter of the U.S. oil supply. Today the state accounts for 6 to 7 percent of the nation's oil demand.
When Prudhoe Bay oil production peaked, crude would speed through the pipeline and arrive at the Valdez export terminal within four to five days at a temperature of 90 degrees Fahrenheit.
But as North Slope production declined, the volume and velocity of the oil slowed. Today a gallon of oil takes 18 days to reach the Valdez marine terminal. And during Alaska's icy winters, oil can arrive in Valdez at around 50 degrees.
As the oil flow ebbs, water residue and paraffin build up along the pipeline walls. To alleviate that problem, Alyeska currently heats the oil as it passes through four pump stations along the pipeline route. During subzero weather, the company also adds antifreeze.
Alyeska President Tom Barrett says the company has increased its use of bullet-shaped devices, called "pigs," to push built-up wax, water and other solids out of the pipeline. Pigs are also used to inspect for pipeline corrosion.
Although the pipeline was originally built to last 20 to 30 years, Barrett said it can operate indefinitely with careful maintenance and sufficient oil flow.
"We're 40 years old, which is great," he noted. "But we have aging infrastructure. So we've been doing a lot of things to manage that. We've replaced a lot of equipment over the years. We use a drone to inspect the pipeline.
"It's a big, challenging operation for us, but that comes with age," he said.
The 800-mile pipeline also faces the constant threat of earthquakes in the quake-prone state. To prevent damage, company engineers invented a construction technology that allows the pipeline to shift several feet at three known earthquake faults.
That process was tested in 2002 when the Denali earthquake fault near Fairbanks was hit by 7.9 magnitude quake. "We withstood the big shake with really minimal damage," Barrett reported.
In recent years, Alyeska has also faced a more modern challenge — cybersecurity. Barrett estimates that the company gets about 1,000 hacking attempts per month, though none has breached pipeline security to date. He noted that company experts work closely with federal officials to monitor the issue.
But the most ominous problem facing Alyeska is the declining oil production on Alaska's North Slope. Barrett said the company is working on new technologies to keep the pipeline operating smoothly as the North Slope oil flow continues to drop.
"I'm pretty confident we can operate safely, based on what we know now, with this system down to around that 300 [barrels per day] level," he observed. "We don't have a good solution set beyond that. We're working on it."
If Alaska oil production drops too low, however, the company has a plan for managing the "end times" of TAPS. If the pipeline faces a permanent shutdown, the massive infrastructure would have to be dismantled and the 800-mile pipeline corridor returned to its original condition.New life for TAPS?
Today, 40 years after petroleum began flowing through TAPS, Alaska is once again facing the dangers of its near-total reliance on oil money.
The state economy boomed when oil prices lingered at $100 per barrel from 2007 to 2014. Alaska lawmakers created new social service programs and expanded the state's education and building budgets. But in early 2016 the state government suffered a multibillion-dollar budget deficit when oil prices dropped to $30 per barrel.
Even with today's oil prices of $40 to $50 per barrel, the state economics are not improving.
Alaska lawmakers are slashing the budget and drawing money from state reserves. But Alaska's lack of a viable long-term fiscal plan has caused national credit agencies to downgrade Alaska's credit rating.
Alaska currently has the highest unemployment rate in the nation. And at a time when the U.S. economy is growing, Alaska's economy is shrinking.
There are some positive signs, however, that a oil industry resurgence could be on Alaska's horizon.
Over the last year, three oil companies have announced major new oil discoveries on the North Slope, and two other firms are poised to develop oil leases in federal waters off Alaska's northern coast.
In March, Spanish oil operator Repsol SA and its Denver-based partner Armstrong Energy LLC announced the largest onshore oil discovery in three decades. That play, estimated at 1.2 billion barrels, could produce up to 120,000 barrels per day.
ConocoPhillips Co. has discovered at least 300 million barrels of recoverable oil at its new field in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. Company executives estimate that the reservoir could produce 100,000 barrels of oil per day.
In addition, Caelus Energy LLC is predicting that its Smith Bay leases, located in state waters north of the NPR-A, could contain 2.4 billion barrels of recoverable oil. However, those estimates have not been independently verified.
Meanwhile, the Interior Department recently granted conditional approval for Italian oil company Eni SpA to develop its offshore unit in the Beaufort Sea.
Still pending is Hilcorp Alaska's request to produce oil at its offshore Liberty leases, also located in the Beaufort. The Interior Department is expected to release a draft environmental impact statement for that project this summer.
This flurry of industry activity comes at a time when the Trump administration is advocating opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to exploration and expanding oil and gas development in both the NPR-A and the offshore Arctic.
Attempts to open new oil development in those regions, however, are certain to be challenged by environmentalists, noted Kara Moriarty, president of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association. "We're going to be litigating every step of the way," she added.
For the immediate future, Alaska's Prudhoe Bay oil fields still hold 2 billion barrels of oil that can be recovered over the next several decades. And the recently announced oil discoveries could go a long way toward extending the life span of the Alaska pipeline.
"When I look at Alaska, I see incredible potential for a renaissance," said BP Alaska President Janet Weiss, whose company manages the Prudhoe Bay production facility.
Weiss said today's energy companies must be lean and mean to endure in Alaska. "We need to be in shape to survive at this lower oil price of $40 to $50," she noted. "We at BP think: lower for longer. We think it's a losing strategy to wait for oil prices to come back and save us."
Murkowski said the 40-year legacy of Prudhoe Bay and the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System will endure as the oil companies discover new plays throughout northern Alaska.
"The bigger picture is not what the price of oil is today or what it's going to be in 2020," Murkowski noted. "It's what we have in the ground. And we know that we've got tens of billions of barrels of oil on the North Slope."
"I don't think that as Alaskans we should be too distressed right now that [oil experts] are talking about the Lower 48 and the importance of shale oil in the global oil market," she said. "I think Alaska's time to be in the spotlight is coming up."
And Murkowski predicts that oil will dominate for years to come.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/08/14/stories/1060058721
-
A Scientist Thinks His Gizmo Can See Methane Leaks Better
Aug 14, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
Research scientist Dirk Richter wants to change the way oil and gas companies detect methane leaks.
The founder and CEO of Quanta3, a Colorado-based startup, is developing a lightweight, solar-powered and cloud-connected laser methane sensor that would allow companies to monitor oil wells for leaks 24 hours per day, without having to physically visit their facilities.
The sensor is being tested in a pilot program launched recently by Royal Dutch Shell PLC and the Environmental Defense Fund in Alberta. It's part of the Methane Detectors Challenge, in which oil companies and U.S. government agencies work with innovators to come up with new technologies for controlling methane emissions from the oil and gas industry. Statoil ASA initially tested the sensor in a similar pilot in Texas.
"My hope is that the pilot will show and demonstrate this technology is valuable beyond the noble goal of reducing methane for climate, but also that it adds value to operational efficiency for oil and gas production and improves safety for workers," Richter said.
The hunt for the next big innovation in methane detection comes as the Trump administration has signaled its intent to do away with regulations limiting emissions of the gas at wells. The potent greenhouse gas has more than 20 times the heat-trapping capacity of CO2, making it a significant contributor to warming global temperatures.
U.S. EPA's 2017 Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks estimates that methane emissions accounted for about 10 percent of greenhouse gases from 1990 to 2015. Natural gas systems were the second largest man-made source of methane in the country, releasing 162 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent into the atmosphere in 2015. That figure represents a 16 percent decrease from 1990, which EPA attributes to lower emissions from transmission, storage and distribution. Petroleum systems accounted for 6.1 percent of methane emissions in 2015.
The oil and gas industry has argued that companies have made significant strides in limiting methane through voluntary efficiency improvements, but environmental groups contend that federal regulations are necessary. EDF is aiming to bridge the gap by working with industry partners to find new ways to limit the loss of methane, which also has monetary value for producers.
"The way we set up the collaborative partnership, companies like Shell give feedback basically immediately to improve the technology, and this allows [the entrepreneur] to dramatically improve," said Aileen Nowlan, manager of EDF+Business at EDF. "Alberta is a tough physical environment to work in, so testing a new technology in a tough area tells you a lot about the technology."
While EDF has lauded its partnerships with industry as a way of getting new technology to stop leaks on the market faster, environmental groups have also critiqued voluntary partnership programs for attracting only a small percentage of the overall industry. For instance, since the 1990s, less than 1 percent of the oil and gas industry has signed on to EPA's voluntary emissions reductions programs (Climatewire, March 14, 2016). EDF's Methane Detectors program has only been around since 2014, and so far has had one other technology piloted by the industry last year.
Like Richter's sensor, technology developed by Sensit (previously Acutect) would provide continuous monitoring for methane, also using solar-powered lasers. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. ran a pilot of the sensors, and the company's founder, Peter Foller, stated in a press release at the time that the company was in licensing negotiations.
If widely adopted, 24-hour emissions monitoring technology would mark a shift from the intermittent monitoring that companies do today. Operators primarily use either optical gas imaging technology to visualize leaks with infrared cameras or hand-held portable analyzers to physically check each piece of equipment for escaping methane.
These approaches are cumbersome and require people to conduct the monitoring, said Richter. Accurately visualizing methane leaks also depends on optimal environmental conditions. It can't be too windy, cold or hot. Camera operators also have to be fairly close to facilities to detect leaks.
A Stanford University study earlier this year found EPA had overestimated how effective these cameras would be at detecting leaks, by failing to fully take into account these differing environmental impacts on methane detection (Climatewire, April 19).
"The way our technology works, our sensor is placed about 100 feet from a well site, away from any danger zone. We are basically picking up methane that is dispersed from the site by the wind," Richter said. "What it gives the operator is quality control, an eye on every well site."
Though Richter is not the first to use laser absorption spectroscopy for sensing methane, he thinks his product could have several advantages over other options on the market. It can perform at widely ranging temperature extremes, from -30 degrees Celsius to 40 degrees Celsius.
The sensor also uses much less power, 10 watts instead of 100 watts. Since it is solar-powered, the sensor can operate off of the electrical grid in remote areas. The sensor can go more than a year without maintenance and doesn't have to be calibrated in the field. It also has a high degree of precision for its price, he said.
"The big plus compared to FLIR [forward-looking infrared] cameras: Our technology is quantitative and can assess leak rates, so you can deploy repair crews to large leaks first," Richter added.
Data collected by the sensors is uploaded and analyzed using cloud-based analytics. Operators have multiple options for reviewing the data. If companies install multiple sensors, they can communicate with each other and synthesize their data.
This is not the first time Richter has delved into developing sensors for detecting pollution. The NASA-funded research scientist, who also works part time as a professor at the University of Colorado, has previously worked developing technologies to detect formaldehyde leaks on the International Space Station. He has also worked on atmospheric sensing for ethane, the detection of which can help determine where methane emissions originate.
Those instruments had about a thousand times the precision of the methane sensors Quanta3 is testing. The reduced sensitivity makes the price of the devices thousands of dollars instead of hundreds of thousands.
In a press release, Shell touted its involvement with the pilot, stating that if the tests run smoothly, the laser sensors could be used to complement the oil and gas company's existing methane detection tools.
"This pilot shows we are serious about reducing the methane emissions associated with natural gas production to support the overall climate benefit of this fuel," said Greg Guidry, executive vice president for unconventionals at Shell.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/08/14/stories/1060058717
-
New Rules Clamp Down On Greenhouse Gases
Aug 14, 2017 | E&E Cimatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
Massachusetts regulators finalized a series of rules last week intended to make deep cuts in the Bay State's carbon emissions.
The regulations, required under state law, establish a state cap-and-trade program, gradually increasing requirements for renewable energy and rules for leak detection and repair on pipelines and natural gas infrastructure.
The move puts Massachusetts on track to meet legislatively mandated emissions reductions of 25 percent of 1990 levels by 2020 and begins laying the foundation for even deeper cuts in greenhouse gases. The state has a legally binding emissions reduction target of 80 percent by 2050.
"These regulations were designed to be complementary to a lot of things we were working on," said Martin Suuberg, commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, noting that the commonwealth recently established an initiative designed to bring large amounts of offshore wind and hydropower online. "Our work on climate change is going to continue."
The Trump administration's work to roll back federal climate policies has spurred a wave of state initiatives, but efforts to toughen Massachusetts' carbon-cutting rules pre-date President Trump's ascension to the White House.
The regulations come in response to a 2014 lawsuit by the Conservation Law Foundation, an environmental group that argued the commonwealth had failed to develop policies needed to comply with the 2008 Global Warming Solutions Act. Massachusetts' high court agreed last year, prompting Gov. Charlie Baker (R) to embark on a series of new rules.
The regulations issued last week represent the culmination of that effort. The plan establishes a declining emissions cap for Massachusetts' 21 fossil fuel plants, falling from 8.96 million metric tons of carbon dioxide to 1.8 million metric tons in 2050. It also requires Massachusetts utilities and energy suppliers to buy at least 16 percent of their power from low-carbon sources beginning in 2018. That figure will grow 2 percentage points annually before reaching 80 percent in 2050.
Massachusetts is already a member of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a cap-and-trade program encompassing nine Northeastern states. Bay State officials have been among the loudest voices calling for more aggressive reductions in the region's emission cap.
But it long ago became clear that Massachusetts needed to go beyond RGGI in order to meet its own climate goals, said David Ismay, a lawyer at the Conservation Law Foundation.
He welcomed the new regulations, saying they put Massachusetts on track to meet its near-term emission targets. More work is needed to address methane leaks from natural gas infrastructure and the transportation sector, but the rules do establish a precedent for regulating those areas, Ismay said.
"We are pleased with the overall tenor, and the administration is moving in the direction of where we need to go in several steps all at once," he said.
Power plant owners were less pleased. They have long argued that the commonwealth needed to look beyond the power sector to achieve further emissions reductions, noting that power plants have already cut emissions by 60 percent since 1990.
"Nearly 90 percent of all emissions cuts by 2020 are being targeted at the electricity sector, despite the fact that transportation represents twice the emissions of power plants or any other sector," said Dan Dolan, president of New England Power Generators Association. "By focusing so specifically on power plants, a massive opportunity is being missed to make meaningful changes in meeting the economywide mandate under the law."
He said his group is weighing a legal appeal.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/08/14/stories/1060058725
-
EPA Backs Utility Bid To Delay Cross-State Rule Case
Aug 14, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly,
U.S. EPA is open to going along with a utility-proposed delay in proceedings in litigation over the agency's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule update, according to a Friday court filing.
But the agency isn't happy at all with a related proposal to put its handling of the administrative reconsideration process under judicial supervision.
The filing responded to a motion last week by the Utility Air Regulatory Group and other industry plaintiffs seeking a four-month extension in the briefing schedule because EPA had not yet addressed nine petitions seeking reconsideration of various aspects of the rule, often known by its acronym, CSAPR (Greenwire, Aug. 8).
In Friday's reply, filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, EPA lawyers said they did not oppose the extension motion, as long as the revised schedule takes account of the December holidays. But they bristled at industry's request that the court require EPA to report within 60 days on the status of the reconsideration petitions, most of which date back to December.
"No party has even alleged that EPA has unreasonably delayed acting on the pending petitions, nor could they as the petitions have only been pending for a matter of months," the lawyers wrote. It's not unusual for legal challenges to rulemakings to intersect with reconsideration requests, they said, adding that the industry motion "impermissibly" seeks to put the reconsideration process under judicial oversight.
The CSAPR update, published in October, is designed to curb emissions of nitrogen oxides from coal-fired power plants in 22 states that contribute to downwind problems with ground-level ozone. Many of the issues raised in the reconsideration petitions overlap with those that would surface in the lawsuit briefs, the Utility Air Regulatory Group and other industry plaintiffs said in seeking the four-month delay.
Power producers, states and other parties have brought 18 legal challenges to the rule. Under the original timetable set three months ago, opening briefs in the consolidated litigation were due next Monday. The appeals court suspended that schedule last week after the industry delay motion; as of this morning, it had not ruled further. Environmental and public health groups oppose an extension but have so far not filed a response with the court, according to online records.
Implementation of the rule, meanwhile, began as scheduled in May, according to EPA's filing.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/08/14/stories/1060058739
-
Air-Conditioning Industry Scrambles In HFC Ruling's Wake
Aug 14, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Arianna Skibell
A federal appeals court's decision to toss an Obama-era rule against chemicals used in cooling is creating uncertainty for that industry.
At issue are hydrofluorocarbons, known as HFCs, which are potent greenhouse gases. The previous administration, with the support of many companies, moved to phase them out as part of its climate agenda.
Jon Melchi, vice president of government and external affairs for the group Heating, Air-conditioning & Refrigeration Distributors International (HARDI), said the court decision was "unexpected."
"If anyone tells you they know what this means, they don't know what they're talking about. We just don't know what this means," he said.
"We're advising members not to take any drastic measures to their business because there's still lots to be determined," said Melchi.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled last week that U.S. EPA cannot require companies to eliminate some uses for HFCs, which regulators previously accepted as alternatives to ozone-depleting substances.
The three-judge panel, which sent the rule back to EPA, found that the agency had exceeded its authority under the Clean Air Act with the 2015 rule (Greenwire, Aug. 8).
Melchi said a potential appeal made it unwise for companies to make any dramatic change in course. He said the first step is to get clear answers on what can and cannot be sold or installed.
"We're going to do the best we can to ascertain information from EPA, [the Justice Department] and manufacturing partners as to the totality of this decision," he said. "It's premature to make a lot of judgments before the legal case has run its course."
Glenn Hourahan, senior vice president for research and technology at the group Air Conditioning Contractors of America, said that while the ruling does create uncertainty, it could ultimately give industry more time to adapt to using alternatives to HFCs.
"Most of the alternatives being proposed for the HFCs that EPA was looking to legislate out of existence are slightly flammable," he said.
Hourahan said poorly installed heating and cooling equipment in homes creates the opportunity for leaks. The ruling, he said, will allow companies to update safety standards for dealing with the flammable materials.
"Haste makes waste," Hourahan said. "More time is a good thing for the industry as well as homeowners and businesses."
Todd Washam, ACCA's director of industry relations, added, "We're not against having new refrigerants come in, but as they come in, we shouldn't prematurely force a transition before the industry is ready."'Back to the drawing board'
Harold Blinderman, a partner at law firm Day Pitney LLP, said an appeal could come from the chemical industry, which supported and invested in the HFC phaseout, or from environmental organizations.
EPA, however, may not have the appetite to support a rule developed under President Obama, he said.
"What may be more likely is that EPA goes back to the drawing board and work with industry and others to develop a rule that doesn't overtly seek to expand EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act," he said in a statement.
Companies say they are unclear where EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt stands on HFCs, though the Justice Department defended the rule in court in February. EPA did not respond to requests for comment.
Honeywell International Inc., which intervened on behalf of EPA, has spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing replacements for HFCs. A statement said the company is likely to appeal.
"The court's ruling will adversely impact American innovation, manufacturing and competitiveness in commercializing next-generation technologies that will replace hydrofluorocarbons," the Honeywell statement said.
"We are closely reviewing the decision and are likely to pursue an appeal, and are already taking steps to ensure that the accelerated transition to HFC alternatives continues," it said.
Two HFC manufacturers — Arkema Inc. and Mexichem Fluor Inc. — are behind the lawsuit challenging EPA's authority to issue the rule.
In response to the ruling, the heating and cooling industry has indicated it may turn to Congress to push a Clean Air Act fix (Climatewire, Aug. 9).
"I think if we had a dream scenario, it would be that Congress would adopt an update, modernize the Clean Air Act," Melchi said. "That would clean up any ambiguity that's out there and would allow EPA to conduct the missions as we view it's been given to them."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/08/14/stories/1060058744
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News- There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested