Preview Newsletter
AM ACC Clips Report - February 15, 2019
-
McConnell Tees Up Floor Vote on Wheeler for EPA Administrator
Feb 14, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) teed up a Senate confirmation vote in the coming weeks for Andrew Wheeler, President Trump’s pick for the next EPA administrator. -
Trump to Sign EPA FY19 Funding, Declare Border Wall 'Emergency'
Feb 14, 2019 | Inside EPA
President Donald Trump is planning to sign spending legislation to keep EPA and other federal agencies open for the rest of the fiscal year -- while declaring a national emergency in a bid to get funding for his signature border wall opposed by Congress -- prompting criticism of the implications of such a declaration for environmental policy. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Halts Formaldehyde IRIS Analysis As ACC Prepares For OPPT Review
Feb 15, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA appears to have halted the long-running and controversial effort by its research office to assess the human health risks of formaldehyde, a move that could bolster efforts by the chemical industry which is preparing for the possibility that EPA's toxics office may select the chemical for evaluation, an approach the industry has long favored. -
US State Attorney- Generals Petition EPA On Asbestos Reporting Rule
Feb 15, 2019 | Kentucky Journal 24
By Robert Lewis
Recently, over twelve state attorney-generals have asked the EPA to form an asbestos reporting rule to be included under section 8 of TSCA. -
(ACC Mentioned) Special Edition: EPA’s Big New Chemicals Plan, Explained
Feb 14, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Chuck McCutcheon and Steven Gibb
The EPA made big news today: It announced it would start pursuing a nationwide standard for two chemicals blamed for contaminating drinking water. -
(ACC Mentioned) US EPA Unrolls Plan to Address PFAS Pollution
Feb 14, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
In a sweeping action plan, the US Environmental Protection Agency will take a multipronged approach to tackle pollution from a broad category of persistent and toxic synthetic compounds. The EPA unveiled its plan to address nonpolymeric per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) on Feb. 14. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Promises Action on PFAS This Year
Feb 14, 2019 | E&E Greenwire
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
EPA this year will start the process to potentially limit two toxic chemicals found in drinking water. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Unveils Plan for Non-Stick Chemicals, but It Disappoints Clean Water Proponents
Feb 14, 2019 | CNN Politics
By Gregory Wallace
The Environmental Protection Agency's new plan for dealing with hazardous non-stick PFAS chemicals has advocates for safe drinking water asking: Why not do more, and why not act sooner? -
Trump Administration PFAS “Action” Plan Doesn’t Act Quickly Enough
Feb 14, 2019 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Jamie Nolan
Communities across the U.S. are suffering from drinking water contamination from PFAS chemicals found in a wide range of products, from food packaging to stain-resistant furniture and firefighting foam. -
U.S. Unveils Plan to Control Some Toxins in Drinking Water, Sets No Limits
Feb 14, 2019 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Valerie Volcovici
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said on Thursday it plans to control a group of toxic chemicals found in Americans' drinking water but stopped short of setting limits until later this year. -
EPA Throws Cold Water on Hopes for Bold Nonstick Chemical Plan
Feb 14, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The EPA’s comprehensive plan to deal with toxic nonstick chemicals in drinking water offers frustrated local officials little more than they had a year ago. -
New Chemicals Can Substitute for Risky Pollutants, EPA Says
Feb 15, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA has regulated about 200 new chemicals as substitutes for two problematic compounds that communities are trying to remove from drinking water supplies, an agency official said Feb. 14. -
EPA Plan Leaves Out Chemours Chemical Polluting North Carolina
Feb 15, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew M. Ballard
A Chemours Co. chemical polluting the Cape Fear River won’t be part of the EPA’s plan to keep nonstick chemicals out of drinking water, leaving North Carolina officials fuming. -
EPA Hedges On Regulatory Determination For PFAS, Sparking Criticisms
Feb 14, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
EPA officials are promising to propose a threshold determination on whether to set drinking water standards for two of the most common per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) but are leaving the door open to the possibility that they may choose not to regulate the chemicals, an approach that is sparking widespread criticism. -
Deregulatory Agenda Complicates EPA Messaging On PFAS Actions
Feb 14, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
The Trump administration's deregulatory agenda rolling back a host of EPA rules appears to be impeding the agency's messaging on its landmark comprehensive action plan aimed at setting environmental protections to address contamination from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). -
Dems Slam EPA Plan for Fighting Drinking Water Contaminants
Feb 14, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Democratic lawmakers are accusing the Trump administration of dragging its feet on plans to protect Americans from a key class of drinking water contaminants. -
(ACC Blog) NARUC to Examine Key Barrier to CHP and WHP Growth
Feb 14, 2019 | American Chemistry Matters
The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) dispatched good news for expanded use of combined heat and power (CHP) and waste heat to power (WHP) this week, adopting a resolution to examine issues related to standby rates. -
Trade Wars, Plastic Bans Weigh on BP Market Forecast
Feb 15, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
World energy demand will grow by 30 percent over the next two decades with carbon emissions likely to rise about 7 percent, under a central forecast presented by BP PLC yesterday. -
Gulf Coast Petrochemical Plants Open, and New Ones Are Planned
Feb 14, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Michael McCoy
As more Gulf Coast petrochemical facilities are completed or near completion, a new group of shale-driven projects is starting to crop up. -
Carbon Capture Bills Move Through Congress
Feb 14, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
Bipartisan legislation designed to expand the market for carbon dioxide is moving through the House and Senate. -
Cassidy Sees Opening in 'Green New Deal' Debate
Feb 15, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
Sen. Bill Cassidy is in early talks with Republican senators about assembling a legislative package to counter the "Green New Deal," with an emphasis on policies that encourage the use of natural gas. -
Pitting Sectors, API Urges EPA To ‘Leverage’ Gas In Coal Plant GHG Rule
Feb 14, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
The American Petroleum Institute (API) is urging EPA to “leverage” natural gas in its proposed replacement greenhouse gas rule for new coal plants -- pitting “clean, reliable, and affordable natural gas” against coal, which the plan seeks to bolster by easing standards for new plants, even though no new coal plants are being planned. -
New big backer for Tellurian's $15B LNG project
Feb 14, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Marissa Luck
A major Indian LNG buyer is throwing its weight behind a $15 billion LNG terminal proposed by Houston-based Tellurian Inc. -
Despite Presidents’ Saber-Rattling, U.S. NatGas Exports to Mexico Expected to Continue
Feb 14, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Christopher Lenton
Piped U.S. natural gas exports to Mexico should remain an important part of energy trade, despite rhetoric from President Trump and his Mexican counterpart Andrés Manuel López Obrador that threaten the relationship, according to two experts on the subject. -
Legislation Aims to Expand Cost-Savings Program
Feb 15, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Jeremy Dillon
Two New England senators yesterday introduced legislation to establish a demand response pilot program for natural gas utility customers. -
Chemical Safety Board Urges Robust Natural Gas Plant Inspections
Feb 14, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jeff Johnson
Near midnight on June 27, 2016, an uncontrolled release of methane, ethane, propane, and several other hydrocarbons occurred at the Enterprise Products Gas Plant in Pascagoula, Mississippi. The hydrocarbons ignited and the plant suffered a series of fires and explosions over the next 18 hours. No one was injured. -
Lawmakers Question FERC Chairman over Pipeline Cyber Rules
Feb 15, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Peter Behr
Neil Chatterjee, chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, yesterday rebuffed calls for mandatory cybersecurity standards for natural gas pipelines, citing improvement in the industry's effort to strengthen its defenses. -
DuPont, Honeywell, 3M Face More PFOA Claims in New York
Feb 14, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
DuPont, Honeywell, 3M and Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics were hit with another suit Feb. 13 by a resident of Hoosick Falls, N.Y., alleging drinking water contamination from a nearby plastics plant. -
Feds Requiring Regional Response Teams to Oil Train Wrecks
Feb 14, 2019 | AP (In The Washington Post, The New York Times)
By John Raby
Federal transportation officials are requiring railroads to establish regional response teams along oil train routes following a series of fiery derailments. -
DOT Boosts Emergency Planning for Oil by Rail
Feb 15, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The Department of Transportation has tightened emergency planning requirements for railroads hauling huge volumes of highly flammable crude oil. -
New York Threatens to Sue EPA over Interstate Ozone Air Petition
Feb 14, 2019 | Inside EPA
New York State is threatening to sue EPA to force the agency to grant or deny its Clean Air Act petition asking for direct federal regulation of air pollution sources in several upwind states that the Empire State says are responsible for much of its problems attaining federal ozone standards. -
Bills Target Warming's Health Impacts, Carbon Removal
Feb 15, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Courtney Columbus
Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ed Markey and Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Matt Cartwright introduced legislation yesterday to address the impacts of climate change on public health.
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
McConnell Tees Up Floor Vote on Wheeler for EPA Administrator
Feb 14, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) teed up a Senate confirmation vote in the coming weeks for Andrew Wheeler, President Trump’s pick for the next EPA administrator.
McConnell’s filing of a cloture motion Feb. 14 means the battle over Wheeler’s nomination could come by the end of February.
The Senate is out next week for the Presidents Day holiday and returns the week of Feb. 25.
The procedural move by the majority leader is the first step toward floor confirmation following the Feb. 5 party-line vote by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to advance Wheeler’s nomination.
Wheeler has served as the Environmental Protection Agency’s acting chief since last summer, when he was tapped for the position following the resignation of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. He was previously confirmed by the Senate as the agency’s deputy administrator.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/mcconnell-tees-up-floor-vote-on-wheeler-for-epa-administrator
-
Trump to Sign EPA FY19 Funding, Declare Border Wall 'Emergency'
Feb 14, 2019 | Inside EPA
President Donald Trump is planning to sign spending legislation to keep EPA and other federal agencies open for the rest of the fiscal year -- while declaring a national emergency in a bid to get funding for his signature border wall opposed by Congress -- prompting criticism of the implications of such a declaration for environmental policy.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) telegraphed Trump's move in Feb. 14 remarks being cited in multiple press reports, in advance of expected Hill approval of spending legislation that would fund EPA, the Department of Homeland Security and numerous other federal agencies for the remainder of fiscal year 2019.
Assuming that approval, EPA will receive roughly $8.1 billion, plus $791 million in infrastructure related funding, for FY19, $25 million above the FY18 enacted level, according to a summary of the legislation from House appropriators.
That means essentially flat funding for EPA after months of wrangling between House, Senate and the Trump administration -- including the longest-ever shutdown of EPA and several other agencies spawned by a protracted fight over Trump's border wall funding.
The now expected emergency declaration by Trump raises questions about what money the his administration will try to divert for the border wall, amid multiple reports that the White House will try to tap sources including money for Army Corps of Engineers projects, likely angering lawmakers from both parties.
But the declaration itself is more broadly likely to spawn court battles -- and a possible constitutional crisis -- over allegations that it usurps Congress' power to direct federal spending priorities.
High-profile Republican commentators and lawmakers had earlier raised concerns -- in opposing an emergency border wall declaration by Trump -- that such a declaration could give a future Democratic president a roadmap to pursue policies on hotly contested issues, including climate change.
“Such a declaration would set a precedent,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said during a Jan. 9 appearance on CNBC.
"If today, the national emergency is border security . . . tomorrow the national emergency might be climate change."
In a Feb. 14 press conference reacting to Trump's plans, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) made a similar argument. “A Democratic president can declare emergencies as well,” she said, citing the possibility of an emergency focused on gun violence. “The precedent this is setting should be met with great unease and dismay by Republicans.”
She added: “I'm not advocating for any president doing an end-run around Congress.”
But environmentalists and their supporters were more explicit. “The outrageousness of the move cannot be overstated. If a patently false emergency can be concocted to allow the President to move money around, then it represents a pretty stunning abdication of the Congressional power of the purse,” Jonathan Zaslofff, a law professor at the University of California Los Angeles, said in a Feb. 14 post on Legal Planet.
But what goes around comes around,” he added. “A President Harris, or Warren, or Booker, etc. etc. can just as easily declare a National Emergency on Climate Change -- one that would have a far better factual predicate than Trump’s patently false border emergency -- and he or she will a lot more money to move around. After all, a lot of the climate crisis is about infrastructure, and if the relevant statute allows the President to move money from one project to another, then it is very easy to do that. “
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/trump-sign-epa-fy19-funding-declare-border-wall-emergency
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Halts Formaldehyde IRIS Analysis As ACC Prepares For OPPT Review
Feb 15, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA appears to have halted the long-running and controversial effort by its research office to assess the human health risks of formaldehyde, a move that could bolster efforts by the chemical industry which is preparing for the possibility that EPA's toxics office may select the chemical for evaluation, an approach the industry has long favored.
In written responses to questions from Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) about the status of the formaldehyde Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment, Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler said the assessment was no longer a priority.
“Because IRIS assessments are major investments in both time and resources, in an August 10, 2018 Memorandum to Agency program offices I requested an update of top priorities for IRIS assessments. Formaldehyde was not identified as a top priority,” he wrote.
The IRIS agenda, according to Wheeler's answers to the senators, has been limited to “Hexavalent Chromium, Inorganic Arsenic, Mercury salts, Methylmercury, PCBs, varieties of PFAS, and Vanadium,” substances the agency indicated in December the IRIS program would address.
Wheeler added in his Jan. 16 responses that “[s]hould the priority needs change, we will move forward with the draft IRIS formaldehyde assessment. Program offices are able to nominate new assessment needs at any time.”
Further, Wheeler notes that “EPA regulates formaldehyde emissions ... under the Clean Air Act,” among other agency work on the common chemical.
Wheeler's comments appear to explain why the agency's recently released schedule for the IRIS program does not include formaldehyde.
But the decision represents a major win for industry and other opponents of EPA's draft IRIS assessment of formaldehyde, who fear its reported finding that exposure causes leukemia would spur significant new regulatory and other liability for manufacturers due to the substance's ubiquity.
The last public draft was released in 2010 and caused a firestorm of criticism because it linked formaldehyde exposure to certain forms of leukemia in addition to the more generally accepted nasal cancer. That draft also proposed a stricter potency factor than EPA's existing IRIS assessment, which dates from 1989.
Following a critical National Academy of Sciences review of that draft -- which included wide-ranging recommendations on the IRIS program as a whole, intended to strengthen its scientific associations and make the program more transparent -- the formaldehyde assessment has been overhauled.
But it has yet to be released, despite calls from Markey and other Democratic senators who have sought its release. Multiple sources have indicated that a new draft has been ready for release for more than a year, and that it reached similar conclusions on leukemia to the first draft, though it now appears that draft will not be made public.
EPA did not respond to a request for comment. But an agency spokesman told the Wall Street Journal, which reported that the Government Accountability Office has found top agency leaders have stymied release of IRIS assessments, that “the Trump EPA believes it is using the best available science to determine its proposed rules and regulations, just as the former administration believed it was doing the same thing,” James Hewitt said. “However, this administration clearly has huge disagreements with the way the Obama administration carried out the agency’s mission.”
ACC's TSCA Meeting
Wheeler's comments, meanwhile, come as the American Chemistry Council (ACC) is anticipating that formaldehyde will become one of the existing chemicals under review in the new Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) program, which is overseen in part by Nancy Beck, a former ACC official.
The group recently announced that it is holding a Feb. 20 “Formaldehyde TSCA Risk Evaluation Consortium Information Meeting,” which will include discussion of “(1) the TSCA risk evaluation process, cost and regulatory implications; (2) state of the science and relevant information needed to inform regulatory decision making on formaldehyde, and (3) potential formation of a TSCA risk evaluation consortium.”
The announcement explains that this year, EPA “will announce the next list of chemicals that will undergo risk evaluation by its [TSCA] program. Formaldehyde is a prime candidate for selection by EPA and the evaluation could have significant cost and regulatory implications to manufacturers, importers and users of formaldehyde.”
An ACC spokeswoman says that the trade association has not requested that EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), which implements TSCA, conduct a formaldehyde assessment, nor does it know that formaldehyde will be on the forthcoming list of the next 40 chemicals prioritized in the TSCA program.
The first 10 chemicals, now under assessment, were selected in the final days of the Obama administration.
“We are just being prepared for any scenario that may move forward. This is informational only, we are not forming a consortium,” the ACC spokeswoman tells Inside EPA. “We have not requested that EPA put formaldehyde on the list. We don't know what is on the list.”
But moving the formaldehyde assessment from IRIS to OPPT would place it more firmly under the control of Beck, the deputy assistant administrator of EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OSCPP) who served as a toxicologist and lobbyist for ACC before joining the Trump EPA.
At ACC, as well as in her prior role as a toxicologist within the White House's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, she critiqued multiple IRIS assessments, and the IRIS program generally.
Should OPPT determine that formaldehyde -- or any other chemical -- is a high priority for evaluation following the prioritization process, it would also pre-empt states from acting on it for the duration of the evaluation.
Once OPPT prioritizes a chemical for evaluation, the toxics office must commence that risk evaluation, under strict statutory deadlines. And when OPPT crafts a scoping document for that risk evaluation, the revised TSCA section 18(b)(1) generally pre-empts states from taking action on a chemical “beginning on the date on which the Administrator defines the scope of a risk evaluation for a chemical substance” until the assessment is complete or the statutory deadline for completing it passes.
Reducing state actions on chemicals was a major motivator for industry's involvement in the legislative process that resulted in the 2016 reform of TSCA.
Before the partial government shutdown closed EPA for five weeks, EPA was expected to release its list of 40 new chemicals that it was placing into the TSCA prioritization process in the first quarter of 2019 -- in order to meet a statutory deadline. While that release was likely delayed, it is now expected for release around March 1, TSCA attorneys with the law firm Keller and Heckman said during a Feb. 13 webinar.
The ACC spokeswoman says that the IRIS and TSCA programs are “two totally separate programs. It is not ACC's place to tell EPA” which office should assess the chemical.
ACC scheduled the meeting because “based on how EPA selects chemicals,” formaldehyde could be on the list, she says. The Obama EPA created a prioritized “work plan” list of 90-some existing chemicals to being working on, a list that Congress included in TSCA, directing that EPA begin its work on existing chemicals with the work plan list.
The ACC spokeswoman notes that formaldehyde is among the chemicals remaining on the work plan.
'Defies Credulity'
But Richard Denison, a lead senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), calls EPA’s actions on formaldehyde “corrupt.”
And in a Feb. 14 blog post he adds that “it simply defies credulity that ACC would have scheduled such a meeting unless ACC at least knew about, if not had a hand in, EPA’s plan to propose to designate formaldehyde as a TSCA high-priority chemical.”
“In the span of a few weeks, it appears we will move from EPA’s Acting Administrator declaring formaldehyde not to be a high priority for the agency -- and on that basis halting the finalization of the IRIS assessment -- to EPA declaring formaldehyde to be a high priority for the agency -- thereby resurrecting assessment of the chemical, but now under the direction of political appointees with a long history of antagonism toward IRIS’ science and with conflicts of interests on this chemical.”
Denison argues that “It would be a shame if this travesty plays out as the first major decision made under the leadership of the newly appointed OCSPP Assistant Administrator Alexandra Dunn, who has suggested she is looking to set a new and more balanced course for TSCA implementation.”
He suggests that IRIS be allowed to complete the assessment “through regular order,” including an NAS peer review, for Beck to “step back into her lane at OCSPP and stop interfering with IRIS,” and that if OPPT determines formaldehyde is high priority for assessment under TSCA it should “rely on the completed IRIS assessment in conducting its risk evaluation, rather than having conflicted political appointees redo to their own liking the science IRIS has already done.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-halts-formaldehyde-iris-analysis-acc-prepares-oppt-review
-
US State Attorney- Generals Petition EPA On Asbestos Reporting Rule
Feb 15, 2019 | Kentucky Journal 24
By Robert Lewis
Recently, over twelve state attorney-generals have asked the EPA to form an asbestos reporting rule to be included under section 8 of TSCA. On January 31, 2019, TSCA section 21 petition was sent, which has asked the agency to start a regulation to deal with inadequacies in the current chemical data reporting (CDR) rule for asbestos.
Particularly, they have asked EPA take on a novel asbestos reporting rule, which:
Needs informing of the substance’s used in articles.
Blocks exceptions, which is present in the CDR for spontaneously occurring impurities & substances.
Increases the reporting needs to processors of asbestos.
It is essential, they demanded the EPA to adhere to its mandate to organize risk evaluations for asbestos under section six of TSCA & to take on guidelines to deal with arbitrary risk which may affect the climate as well as the health of humans.
Attorneys stated that it would be an essential tool to offer to the public and state access to data, which may be essential for escaping possible hazardous exposures to products that contain asbestos.
Earlier, a group of non-governmental organization submitted a similar petition, which was rejected by EPA. Hence, now the attorneys have submitted a petition.
In response, agency informed petitioners that they know about the continuous asbestos use & will have the information which would be received by the EPA, if they were to change the demands of the CDR.
It further added that petition was to be given, they are not in a position to establish new rule & gather data in the specified time to report its evaluation of risk. The top ten risk evaluations included in the reformed TSCA, in which asbestos is one of them, should be finished by December, with probably a 6 month extension.
Nevertheless, attorneys have mentioned in their petition that it is essential to public health that EPA takes into account the potential exposures & remove the pathways.
Attorneys further added responding to NGO petitioners that the aforementioned goals are difficult to be achieved. If EPA doesn’t have the important detailed information related to the producer & asbestos usage in the United States on which to act – information which presently EPA is not gathering under the CDR, as EPA acknowledges.
Attorneys from fourteen different states registered the petition, which includes, Oregon, Washington, California & Massachusetts and also the District of Columbia. The agency can deny or grant the petition in three months.
https://www.kyn24.com/local-state/us-state-attorney-generals-petition-epa-on-asbestos-reporting-rule-152323.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Special Edition: EPA’s Big New Chemicals Plan, Explained
Feb 14, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Chuck McCutcheon and Steven Gibb
The EPA made big news today: It announced it would start pursuing a nationwide standard for two chemicals blamed for contaminating drinking water.
The fluorinated chemicals are important ingredients in making products such as Teflon or Scotchgard.
The agency also will list them as hazardous substances. That means companies that made them may have to bear the costs of cleaning them out of soil and water.
How are people reacting? Many of them are extremely critical.
The agency didn’t commit to creating a strict new limit for the compounds in drinking water. That’s not enough for critics.
Hoosick Falls, N.Y., Mayor Rob Allen, whose town has become in some respects the poster child for chemical contamination, blasted the move on Twitter: “This entire announcement has demonstrated the lack of guidance and leadership at the highest levels” of EPA.
Delaware Sen. Tom Carper, the top Democrat on the Senate’s environment committee, said the move needlessly prolongs the evaluation of a drinking-water standard for at least another year, despite earlier promises to do so.
Even Wyoming GOP Sen. John Barrasso, who heads the environment committee, said the EPA needs to take “decisive action.” He promised his committee would hold a hearing this spring on the EPA’s plan, and that businesses as well as the Pentagon need to play a part in crafting a solution.
Here are some further questions and answers:
What are fluorinated chemicals and what are they used for?Per- and polyfluorinated chemicals (or PFAS, pronounced “PeeFAS”) are heat-, grease- and stain-resistant substances with thousands of consumer and industrial uses. They can be found in carpets, camping gear, fast-food wrappers, cleaners, and cookware—among other products. Industry uses include O-rings and gaskets that prevent mechanical breakdowns. Fire stations at both military and civilian airports also use firefighting foams made with PFAS, as it effectively douses jet fuel fires.
Should we worry about these chemicals?The chemicals last a long time in the environment and build up in people’s bodies. They’ve been found in drinking water supplies in many states. EPA says they can cause reproductive and developmental, liver and kidney, and immune system problems if people are exposed to enough of them.
What about the companies that make them?One of those companies, 3M, voluntarily stopped making some PFAS chemicals after it found they were persisting in the environment and the bodies of people and animals, and discovered far from where they were produced or used. 3M said today it supports EPA’s new efforts to regulate the chemicals. But the EPA’s plan means more monitoring water supplies—which could mean more lawsuits for 3M, DuPont, and companies such as Keds sneaker-maker Wolverine World Wide Inc.Want to learn more?
Here’s the EPA’s new plan.
Bloomberg News has an explainer about the chemicals that some scientists are calling the next PCB or DDT.
Bloomberg Environment also did a series on them. We looked at:
How scientists say more research is needed on understanding the health risks.How the mushrooming costs of cleaning the chemical out of water supplies are becoming difficult to bear.How fear and uncertainty are driving some towns to try to completely eliminate the chemicals.How commercial laboratories haven’t waited for EPA and charged ahead with their own techniques for testing the chemicals in consumer products and the environment.The EPA’s website provides some background on PFAS.
A team of scientists evaluated health issues in a community near a plant in West Virginia and Ohio.
The industry trade group American Chemistry Council issued a “myths and facts” on PFAS.
The nonprofit Environmental Working Group has a drinking water and waste site map.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/special-edition-epas-big-new-chemicals-plan-explained
-
(ACC Mentioned) US EPA Unrolls Plan to Address PFAS Pollution
Feb 14, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
In a sweeping action plan, the US Environmental Protection Agency will take a multipronged approach to tackle pollution from a broad category of persistent and toxic synthetic compounds. The EPA unveiled its plan to address nonpolymeric per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) on Feb. 14.
It calls for cleanup of groundwater, a national drinking water limit for two widespread PFAS, more research, and possible industrial reporting on releases of at least some of these chemicals.
Two compounds are immediate targets in the action plan—perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). These substances are no longer manufactured in the US but contaminate water supplies across the nation.
Under the plan, the agency intends to deem PFOS and PFOA as hazardous substances under the federal Superfund law for remediating hazardous waste. This designation will give communities, states, and water utilities the power to recover costs of cleaning up the chemicals from polluters. It spells out financial liability for businesses, including chemical manufacturers, and other entities that made or used PFOS and PFOA. Other entities include the US military, which used firefighting foams containing the substances at many bases.
The agency is also starting a process to set a maximum contaminant level for PFOS and PFOA in drinking water. That process will likely take years. By the end of 2019, the agency will make a legal determination, as required by the Safe Drinking Water Act, to lay the groundwork for setting the maximum contaminant level, acting EPA administrator Andrew Wheeler told reporters. Currently, the agency has just an advisory limitfor PFOS and PFOA of 70 ppt individually or together.
In addition, the agency is weighing whether to add some as-yet-undecided PFAS to the nation’s Toxic Release Inventory. This would require companies that make or use the selected chemicals to report annual releases to air, water, or soil. Adding PFAS compounds to the inventory “could provide important information about where these chemicals are being released into the environment” and help identify communities that may have unknown PFAS pollution problems, says Ansje Miller, director of policy and partnerships at the Center for Environmental Health, an advocacy organization.
Some advocacy groups are worried EPA is moving too slowly. Miller points out that in the absence of EPA action, states are forging ahead with their own drinking water limits for PFOA, PFOS, and other PFAS.
The US chemical industry’s main lobbying arm, the American Chemistry Council, endorsed the agency’s plan. “EPA is best positioned to provide the public with a comprehensive strategy informed by a full understanding of the safety and benefits of different PFAS.” This, the group says, will ensure uniform national environmental standards and minimize the burden to states that are short on resources.
https://cen.acs.org/environment/persistent-pollutants/US-EPA-unrolls-plan-address/97/i7
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Promises Action on PFAS This Year
Feb 14, 2019 | E&E Greenwire
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
EPA this year will start the process to potentially limit two toxic chemicals found in drinking water.
The agency this morning outlined its "Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Action Plan" to address the family of chemicals that has received widespread attention from Congress and health advocacy groups.
"'The PFAS Action Plan' is the most comprehensive cross-agency plan to address an emerging chemical of concern ever undertaken by EPA," EPA acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler said at the plan's release in Philadelphia this morning.
By the end of the year, EPA will propose maximum contaminant level regulations for two types of PFAS — PFOA and PFOS — which Wheeler called "two of the most well-known and prevalent PFAS chemicals."
The plan does not necessarily mean EPA will set a maximum contaminant level for the chemicals.
Wheeler said he could not say how long the regulatory process will take or what the outcome could be, but he added he has "every intention of setting" a maximum contaminant level.
EPA previously issued a nonbinding health advisory for PFOA and PFOS at 70 parts per trillion in drinking water.
Asked today whether that advisory level is too lax, Wheeler said, "We feel right now that 70 [ppt] is a safe level for drinking water." The maximum contaminant level will go lower if that is "where the science directs us," Wheeler said.
EPA will also propose that PFAS be included in nationwide drinking water monitoring, and it is considering adding the chemicals to the Toxics Release Inventory, which would make data available on industry releases of PFAS.
The agency has already started the process to get PFOA and PFOS covered by the Superfund law, which would help hold PFAS polluters accountable, Wheeler said.
The plan is based on comments gathered at nationwide listening meetings and roughly 120,000 written comments it received.
Wheeler notes the agency did not stop work on PFAS while writing the plan, specifically pointing to draft risk assessments released late last year for two other chemicals in the group — GenX and PFBS (Greenwire, Jan. 29).
PFAS is a family of roughly 5,000 chemicals that have been linked to cancer, liver damage, thyroid disease and development problems in children. They can be found in firefighting foam and nonstick cookware, and have been called "forever chemicals" by researchers due to their long-lasting presence in the environment.'Only a first step'
Talk of the plan reverberated across Capitol Hill among lawmakers who will determine the fate of Wheeler's nomination to be the permanent head of EPA.
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said the plan is "only a first step."
"As I have said before, EPA must speak clearly about the risk that this class of chemicals poses to public health and the environment," Barrasso said in a statement. "The agency must be willing to take decisive action where it is warranted."
Barrasso added that his committee will hold a hearing on EPA's plan in the spring, "which will give the administration an opportunity to testify on its proposed course of action."
Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Dan Kildee (D-Mich.), co-chairs of the bipartisan PFAS Task Force, said EPA needs to act "with an urgency that matches the scale of the problem."
"While today's announcement is a start, further aggressive and impactful actions must be taken by the Administration to protect Americans' communities," the lawmakers said in a joint statement. "As the leaders of the PFAS Task Force, we will never hesitate to hold the EPA accountable if it fails to follow through on its responsibility to protect public health."
Many Democrats struck a harsher tone on the action plan.
"While EPA acts with the utmost urgency to repeal regulations, the agency ambles with complacency when it comes to taking real steps to protect the water we drink and the air we breathe," Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) said.
Carper criticized the plan as being "insufficiently protective," adding that it "explains why acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler would not commit to setting a drinking water standard for PFAS during his nomination hearing last month."
Carper pressed Wheeler to commit to creating a legal standard for the chemicals in drinking water during the hearing, to which Wheeler responded he could not because the plan was undergoing interagency review (Greenwire, Jan. 16).
"I urge Mr. Wheeler to reverse course and treat this public health threat with the urgency it deserves," Carper said. "And I ask my colleagues in the Senate to take note of Mr. Wheeler's lack of urgency in addressing this threat as they consider his nomination to be EPA's permanent administrator."
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) echoed Carper's request, saying, "I hope this episode makes my Republican colleagues think twice before confirming Andrew Wheeler as EPA administrator."
"After a year of hemming and hawing, Scott Pruitt and Andrew Wheeler's EPA is punting on action to tackle a serious public health risk lurking in Americans' drinking water," Whitehouse said.
"It's another example of an administration captured by polluter donors and their minions embedded in federal agencies," he added.
EPA's actions should encourage Congress and other agencies to "take swift action to ensure our drinking water is safe, prevent exposure to contamination, reduce harm to human health, and expedite cleanup and assistance for affected communities," said Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.).Other reactions
The decision to take additional time to determine a maximum contaminant level left many environment and health advocacy groups wondering: Why not now?
"Has the Trump administration so thoroughly purged EPA of scientists, and so completely stacked its management with industry lobbyists, that it can't even decide whether to lift a finger to regulate widely known toxic chemicals?" asked Erik Olson, the senior director of health and food at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Scott Faber, the Environmental Working Group's senior vice president for government affairs, called President Trump the "nation's first pro-cancer president."
EWG research shows that over 1,500 drinking water systems serving roughly 110 million Americans could be contaminated with PFAS.
Action is needed on all the chemicals in the PFAS family, but at the very least EPA should act on PFOA and PFOS, said Bart Johnsen-Harris, a clean water advocate for Environment America.
Johnsen-Harris criticized the agency for saying it is "moving forward."
"If I could 'move forward' by doing nothing, I'd trade my gym membership for a new couch," he said.
EPA's movement to begin the process of designating enforceable drinking water standards for PFOA and PFOS is necessary, but it is not enough, said Genna Reed, a lead science and policy analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists.
"The administration has to put more clarity and substance to this plan — and prove that they'll put public health, not narrow industry interests, first," Reed said.
The American Chemistry Council, a powerful industry trade association, said it will be reviewing the plan and providing EPA with comments, and emphasized the importance of federal guidance on the chemicals.
It said it firmly believes that "EPA is best positioned to provide the public with a comprehensive strategy informed by a full understanding of the safety and benefits of different PFAS chemistries."
"A science-based management plan will help states by providing access to a broader range of resources; ensuring uniform standards across the country to enable straightforward compliance; and minimizing the burden on states that are already short on resources," ACC said in a statement.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/02/14/stories/1060121093
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Unveils Plan for Non-Stick Chemicals, but It Disappoints Clean Water Proponents
Feb 14, 2019 | CNN Politics
By Gregory Wallace
The Environmental Protection Agency's new plan for dealing with hazardous non-stick PFAS chemicals has advocates for safe drinking water asking: Why not do more, and why not act sooner?
The agency said Thursday it will develop and set a limit -- known as a maximum containment level, or MCL -- for two of the chemicals, but advocates say it will take years of regulatory work before the standard will be set.
Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, who has been nominated to lead the agency, told reporters while unveiling the plan that he believes the agency's 70 part per trillion health advisory level is "a safe level for drinking water."
"As we go forth with the MCL we will be looking to see if lower levels are required according to where the science directs us," Wheeler said.
The 70 part per trillion level is seven to 10 times higher than the levels considered safe by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, an arm of the Department of Health and Human Services. Several states have set lower levels or are currently considering lower levels.
The class of perfluoroalky and polyfluoroalkyl substances -- known by shorthand names like PFAS, PFOA and GenX -- and have been used in a variety of non-stick, cleaning, packaging, and other household products, as well as firefighting foam. The toxic firefighting foam has contaminated drinking water at dozens of is a particular problem around military bases.
The water supplies for nearly 110 million Americans may be contaminated with PFAS chemicals, according to the Environmental Working Group.
As part of an EPA stewardship program, US manufacturers began phasing out the chemical 19 years ago, although it is still manufactured overseas and imported.
Given the long-standing concerns, some safety advocates are asking why the EPA hasn't acted faster to set the legally-binding limits.
"The EPA's long-awaited involvement on this issue is welcomed, but any actual relief from this 'Action Plan' to all the sick American residents, marginalized communities, overburdened state agencies, and underfunded cities and states will likely be years away," said Ansje Miller of the Center for Environmental Health, which advocates against toxic chemicals.
Wenonah Hauter, the executive director of Food and Water Watch, called it a "non-action plan" that benefits "polluting corporations, not the people affected by this industrial waste in their drinking water supplies."
Advocates want to see the agency regulate PFAS chemicals as a class, rather than individually, as Wheeler indicated. The Environmental Working Group says there are more than 5,000 chemicals in the PFAS class.
"We're focused on two chemicals. It's the wrong focus," Mayor Rob Allen of Hoosick Falls, New York, told CNN. He is a father of four children who said he entered politics after being stunned by tests showed his family tested far above the national level.
He said he was concerned the EPA would "trumpet some action on two chemicals that should have been acted on 15 to 20 years ago."
The American Chemistry Council, whose membership includes major chemical manufacturers, said Thursday morning it would review the plan.
It said in a statement that "EPA is best positioned" to regulate PFAS chemicals, which would "uniform standards across the country" -- pushing back on a patchwork of tighter regulations either in place or under development in several states.
Wheeler did not set a target date for finalizing the maximum limit, citing the complicated regulatory process and the need to set a level that stands up to any court challenges. The EPA has not set a MCL since the Safe Drinking Water Act was amended in 1996, he said.
He said in the meantime, the agency will enforce the 70 part per trillion advisory level and is working with the Defense Department to make sure it is "wisely" spending funds to clean up contaminated water near bases.
EPA will also "explore data availability for listing PFAS chemicals" on the Toxics Release Inventory.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/14/politics/epa-pfas-water-plan/
-
Trump Administration PFAS “Action” Plan Doesn’t Act Quickly Enough
Feb 14, 2019 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Jamie Nolan
Communities across the U.S. are suffering from drinking water contamination from PFAS chemicals found in a wide range of products, from food packaging to stain-resistant furniture and firefighting foam. With their remarkable persistence and mobility, these chemicals don’t break down in the environment and move through soil to drinking water. PFAS have become global pollutants that threaten the health of people and wildlife.
This morning, the EPA announced its federal PFAS action plan. In response, Safer Chemicals Healthy Families Director Liz Hitchcock issued the following statement:
“Unfortunately, the Trump administration’s PFAS “action” plan doesn’t act quickly enough to address the PFAS pollution crisis faced by communities across the country.
Instead of turning off the tap on approvals of new PFAS chemicals, ending the use of PFAS chemicals in common products, and cleaning up the drinking water supplies that we know are contaminated, the administration’s plan to study and delay will not protect our families from chemicals that have been linked to cancers, thyroid disease and weakened childhood immunity.
EPA’s plan increases the need for state policies and federal legislation to ensure safe drinking water and healthy communities.
The good news is that states are not waiting for the EPA to make PFAS a priority. At least 14 states will consider bills to address PFAS this year, ranging from bills to require more PFAS disclosure to bans on PFAS in food packaging and firefighting foam.
In addition, members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have introduced or are considering bills to expand PFAS monitoring, to ban some PFAS uses, and to set tough clean up standards. We welcome these actions from lawmakers.”
https://saferchemicals.org/newsroom/trump-administration-pfas-action-plan-doesnt-act-quickly-enough/
-
U.S. Unveils Plan to Control Some Toxins in Drinking Water, Sets No Limits
Feb 14, 2019 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Valerie Volcovici
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said on Thursday it plans to control a group of toxic chemicals found in Americans' drinking water but stopped short of setting limits until later this year.
Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler on Thursday said the agency planned short- and long-term steps to help states exposed to a class of common chemicals called PFAS, used in Teflon and firefighting foam.
"We are moving forward with several important actions, including the maximum contaminant level process, that will help affected communities better monitor, detect, and address PFAS,” Wheeler said.
The agency did not give a maximum contaminant level, a legal limit allowed in drinking water under the Safe Drinking Water Act, for PFAS, but said it would start that process by the end of the year.
Environmental groups and politicians immediately accused the EPA of dragging its feet on setting limits.
"While the agency fumbles with this ‘mis-management plan,’ millions of people will be exposed to highly toxic PFAS from drinking contaminated water," said Erik Olson, Senior Director for Health and Food at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
The chemicals have been used for decades in common products and have contaminated water systems, most recently in areas around army bases in states including Pennsylvania, Michigan and West Virginia where foam containing the chemicals is used in military exercises.
The chemicals are linked to cancer, liver and thyroid damage, and other health and fetal effects. Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers in certain states have expressed alarm over exposure to the chemicals.
A draft study released last year by an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services found that the risk level for exposure to PFAS should be at least seven to 10 times lower than the threshold recommended by the EPA. The White House and the EPA had tried to keep the report from publication.Editors’ PicksRyan Adams Dangled Success. Women Say They Paid a Price.The Next Wave of ‘Unicorn’ Start-UpsShopping in Pyongyang, and Other Adventures in North Korean Capitalism
Betsy Southerland, who resigned as a director in the EPA's Office of Water in 2017 over disagreements with the Trump administration, said Thursday's announcement did not include cleanup guidelines, which were due last fall.
"It's sort of like the movie Groundhog Day. We are back to where we were in 2018," she said.
Wheeler denied the EPA had slowed down developing the new plan, and said it was the most comprehensive cross-agency plan ever undertaken by the EPA to address an emerging chemical of concern.
He said the agency had begun the regulatory process to list PFAS chemicals PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances and will issue interim groundwater cleanup recommendations for contaminated sites.
The agency will also monitor PFAS in nationwide drinking water and consider PFAS chemicals for listing in the Toxics Release Inventory to help the agency identify where the chemicals are being released.
Republican chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee John Barrasso said on Thursday that the panel will hold a hearing on the EPA plan this spring.
"The Environmental Protection Agency’s PFAS plan is only a first step. As I have said before, EPA must speak clearly about the risk that this class of chemicals poses to public health and the environment," Barrasso said.
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2019/02/14/us/14reuters-usa-epa-drinkingwater.html
-
EPA Throws Cold Water on Hopes for Bold Nonstick Chemical Plan
Feb 14, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The EPA’s comprehensive plan to deal with toxic nonstick chemicals in drinking water offers frustrated local officials little more than they had a year ago.
The Feb. 14 plan commits the agency to making a determination by the end of this year on whether to set nationwide drinking water standards for two of these chemicals: PFOA and PFOS, part of a broader family of chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS.
Water utilities have been watching for the proposals from the Environmental Protection Agency since it convened a nationwide summit on the issue in May 2018.
“There’s not a whole lot of breaking news in this plan that we didn’t see coming down the pike last year,” Lauren Schapker, a lobbyist with the National Ground Water Association, told Bloomberg Environment. Her group works with utilities and private well owners to address contamination issues.
‘Forever Chemicals’3M, DowDuPont Inc., and other chemical makers produced PFOA and PFOS, although they have stopped making it in the U.S.
The chemicals are used in everything from nonstick pans and food packaging to firefighting foam, and are extremely slow to break down in the environment—hence the nickname “forever chemicals.” As a result, they can build up in drinking water aquifers, and ultimately in the human body, triggering a myriad of health problems that scientists are just beginning to understand.
The EPA collected water samples from utilities in 2016 and found that less than 2 percent had concentrations of PFOA and PFOS above levels of concern. Given the findings, some utilities have questioned whether a nationwide standard would be appropriate because it would require every water utility in the country to monitor for these chemicals, imposing significant costs that would be passed on to ratepayers.
Need Firmer GuidanceBut that’s not how Jim Flechtner, head of the main water utility in Wilmington, N.C., sees it.
“We monitor for a lot of things that aren’t in our water,” he told Bloomberg Environment. “That’s part of being a utility.”
In fact, Flechtner said he wanted a firmer standard from the EPA on how and when utilities should act if their water contains the entire family of PFAS chemicals—not just PFOA and PFOS.
Flechtner will likely have a long wait for more guidance.
If the EPA meets its Dec. 31 deadline to decide whether to set a nationwide standard for PFOA and PFOS, that will be just the beginning of the third step in a years-long, four-step process to establish a new drinking water regulation.
As for the other PFAS chemicals, the EPA’s main goal now is to simply “close the gap on science as quickly as possible,” David Ross, the agency’s top water official, told reporters.
Step One?Betsy Southerland, the former top science official in the EPA’s Office of Water, was involved in the last major action the agency took on PFOA and PFOS back in 2016. That was when it issued a nonbinding recommendation that utilities keep levels of these chemicals in their water below 70 parts per trillion.
Southerland, who left the EPA shortly after the Trump administration took office, said she was surprised by how little progress the agency has made since then.
“It seems like they haven’t even taken step one,” she told Bloomberg Environment.
She also said that the agency’s new plan doesn’t include firm timetables for when it must issue guidance on how to clean these chemicals out of groundwater or place them on a list of hazardous substances. Declaring the chemicals as hazardous would make it easier to recoup cleanup costs from chemical companies.
“What’s going to happen is that industry groups and states that want to do cleanup will say, ‘There’s so much confusion, we don’t know what to clean to, let’s wait,’” Southerland said.
Southerland, Flechtner, and Schapker all said they were pleased the EPA seems committed to dealing with this issue nationwide, as it had indicated it would instead leave the problem up to the states. But they wished the agency was moving with more urgency, given growing worries about the effects of these chemicals.
“We’re dealing with this every day,” Flechtner said. “The more quickly this can be dealt with, the sooner we’ll have direction and guidance.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-throws-cold-water-on-hopes-for-bold-nonstick-chemical-plan
-
New Chemicals Can Substitute for Risky Pollutants, EPA Says
Feb 15, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA has regulated about 200 new chemicals as substitutes for two problematic compounds that communities are trying to remove from drinking water supplies, an agency official said Feb. 14.
Alexandra Dunn, assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention, made the comments among the Environmental Protection Agency officials rolling out the agency’s first multi-program national research and risk communication plan to address a group of emerging environmental contaminants called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS.
The new chemicals the EPA approved were designed to substitute for the two most well-studied and prevalent members of the PFAS group: perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). Those two chemicals stay in the environment, build up in human and animal bodies, and may weaken the immune system, among other problems.
The PFAS chemicals have been found in drinking water across the country, although their health and environmental effects aren’t clearly understood. Dunn said some chemicals may be more potent than others.
About 200 SubstitutesThe EPA regulated the roughly 200 substitutes through consent orders and significant new use rules authorized by the Toxic Substances Control Act, Dunn said. She didn’t offer specifics on the rules the agency has issued.
Consent orders often require the companies making the new chemicals to limit their release into the environment; protect workers; and provide the EPA additional toxicity, exposure, or other data when they hit certain production levels or other triggers.
New use rules impose the same requirements on companies that make or import those chemicals, Dunn said.
Dunn couldn’t immediately summarize information the agency may have learned through its previous rules, but said she would look into that question.
An additional 100 chemicals have been allowed onto the market, but EPA chose not to regulate them which typically means they did not find health concerns.
New RulesThe agency also plans to again propose a 2015 significant new use rule that would boost its oversight of the way certain highly persistent PFAS chemicals are made or used.
That rule would increase oversight over imports of some products made with PFAS. When EPA first proposed the rule, it drew criticism from car, semiconductor, and other manufacturers for preventing the imports of products they needed.
The EPA’s plan didn’t specifically mention what type of regulation the agency could issue to collect existing health, safety, and other data on PFAS chemicals from companies that have made them.
But, the agency is “committed to using all its authorities” including requesting information from chemical manufacturers if needed, Dunn said.
The Environmental Defense Fund, which has long advocated for improved chemicals oversight, was skeptical about the agency’s plan to use the TSCA’s chemicals program as a “gatekeeper” to ensure dangerous PFAS chemicals don’t make it to the market.
“That gate is wide open. This EPA is recklessly approving new chemicals, your health be damned,” Richard Denison, an EDF lead senior scientist, told Bloomberg Environment.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/new-chemicals-can-substitute-for-risky-pollutants-epa-says
-
EPA Plan Leaves Out Chemours Chemical Polluting North Carolina
Feb 15, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew M. Ballard
A Chemours Co. chemical polluting the Cape Fear River won’t be part of the EPA’s plan to keep nonstick chemicals out of drinking water, leaving North Carolina officials fuming.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s Feb. 14 chemical cleanup plan specifically calls for setting drinking water standards for two common fluorinated chemicals—perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS)—but the agency said it needs more time to study GenX, which is produced by Chemours.
North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper (D) said the EPA’s plan fails to live up to promises it made after a series of public forums last year to quickly and urgenly address chemicals like GenX in the water supply.
“North Carolina needs strong leadership from the EPA on water quality and I am disappointed that the agency’s action plan does not commit to setting standards, lacks detail on what research is planned on specific compounds like GenX, and seems to ignore the urgency of the problem,” he said.
GenX is part of the broader class of toxic chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS. It was designed as an alternative to perfluorooctanoic acid after the EPA deemed it a likely human carcinogen. They are used to make stain-resistant coatings for carpets, rain gear, fast food wrappers, and frying pans.
Stopped in 2017Chemours stopped discharging GenX into the water after investigations were launched in 2017. The company and North Carolina reached a proposed deal to slash emissions to stop the air transport of the contaminant and take other control and reporting measures.
“Chemours has been significantly investing in emission control technologies at our fluoroproducts sites and has previously announced our global corporate responsibility goal to reduce air and water emission of fluorinated organic chemicals by 99% or greater,” the company told Bloomberg Environment in an emailed statement.
Mary Walker, acting administrator for EPA Region 4, told Bloomberg Environment PFOA and PFOS are the most widely studied, best categorized of the family of chemicals and are thought to be the most prevalent. However, setting a standard for GenX is still an option.
“It’s simply that we are beginning where we have the strongest data set,” she said.
Environmental advocates said the EPA needs to do more to help states dealing with a variety of fluorinated chemicals and not just PFOA and PFOS.
“This one-by-one whack-a-mole is never going to be enough to protect public health,” as numerous chemicals are regularly being developed, Geoff Gisler, senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center in Chapel Hill, N.C., told Bloomberg Environment.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-plan-leaves-out-chemours-chemical-polluting-north-carolina
-
EPA Hedges On Regulatory Determination For PFAS, Sparking Criticisms
Feb 14, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
EPA officials are promising to propose a threshold determination on whether to set drinking water standards for two of the most common per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) but are leaving the door open to the possibility that they may choose not to regulate the chemicals, an approach that is sparking widespread criticism.
Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler at a Feb. 14 press conference in Philadelphia said that he has “every intention of setting” enforceable maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), although he did not rule out the possibility that EPA could elect not to set such a limit.
Asked whether EPA could potentially choose not to set an MCL upon making the regulatory determination, Wheeler said the agency is “going through the regulatory process,” but that “we can't predetermine what the outcome will be.”
But the agency's stance has drawn widespread criticisms that officials are moving too slowly -- especially since any proposed determination is not due until the end of the year and any MCL is likely years away.
Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), the ranking Democrat on the Senate environment committee, said in a statement that EPA is further delaying a decision on setting a PFOA and PFOS drinking water limit despite former Trump EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's assurances almost a year ago that he was close to making such a decision.
“It has taken the EPA nearly a year just to kick the can even further down the road. While EPA acts with the utmost urgency to repeal regulations, the agency ambles with complacency when it comes to taking real steps to protect the water we drink and the air we breathe,” he said.
Carper earlier this month had urged EPA to commit to enacting MCLs on PFAS and PFOS within two years as one of several concessions that he was seeking from Wheeler before agreeing not to allow a Senate floor vote on his nomination.
And Reps. Dan Kildee (D-MI) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) -- chairmen of the newly formed bipartisan Congressional PFAS Task Force -- gave a tepid reaction to the plan, calling it a “start” and urging EPA to “act with an urgency that matches the scale of the problem.”
They said “further aggressive and impactful actions must be taken by the Administration to protect Americans' communities.”
EPA's pledge to propose a regulatory determination is the centerpiece of its long-awaited PFAS action plan, which includes a series of short-and long-term measures -- including enforcement, monitoring and research actions -- to address PFAS but stops short of setting strict regulatory limits that many had sought.
In addition to the proposed SDWA regulatory determination, the plan also includes ongoing initiatives to bolster regulators' ability to require cleanups; better regulate new uses of the chemicals; expanded monitoring under SDWA and the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI); increased PFAS research, with a focus in certain areas such as air transport; and an effort to step up coordinated risk communication across the federal government to improve communications with the public on risks related to PFAS.
Health Advisory Level
PFAS are a class of over 4,000 chemicals that are widely used for their nonstick properties. But they have been linked to adverse health effects including certain cancers and ulcerative colitis and other conditions, sparking concern among communities as their discovery in community drinking water supplies has grown.
Environmentalists and communities have also called for EPA to regulate them as a class, rather than in a piecemeal fashion.
But EPA has been slow to set regulatory standards, and instead set a non-regulatory health advisory level for PFOA and PFOS at 70 parts per trillion (ppt).
Many states have set or are considering levels significantly more stringent than EPA's and a draft risk assessment released by the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry in 2018 suggested EPA's level was not adequately protective.
During his press conference, Wheeler signaled the agency's advisory level is a ceiling the agency is unlikely to go above, responding to reporters that “We feel right now that 70 parts per trillion is a safe level for drinking water.”
But he noted as the agency moves ahead in the MCL process, staff will look to see “whether or not lower levels are required according to where the science directs us.”
And in a separate briefing with reporters, EPA water chief Dave Ross said in weighing a potential MCL, EPA will both consider the agency's 70 ppt health advisory level as well as other “modern research.” He said, “we will develop the level at the standard that the science dictates for us.”
And while the existing drinking water health advisory of 70 ppt is a non-regulatory number, Wheeler stressed that the agency nonetheless will not “slow down on enforcing” that level even as it weighs setting MCLs. “I want to make sure that the public understands that we have not slowed down” and will continue to enforce that level, he said.
He also noted that regardless of the federal level, EPA will work in assisting states to enforce their drinking water and cleanup levels, even if they are more stringent.
Superfund Listing
The action plan includes a host of other measures -- many that were already in progress -- by other agency programs to bolster EPA's attempt to limit PFAS contamination.
Other major actions under the plan include the agency clarifying its cleanup strategies. Wheeler and Ross said EPA has already started the regulatory development process for listing PFOA and PFOS as “hazardous substances” under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act (CERCLA) -- a step that will aid states and communities in cleaning up contamination and recovering costs from responsible parties.
Wheeler noted that the agency expects to finish that listing shortly. He said EPA is making sure this and other measures are completed in a way that follows the regulatory process in order to ensure they will stand up in court, should legal challenges result.
Further, the officials said the agency expects to soon release interim groundwater recommendations for PFOA and PFOS -- an effort that has reportedly stalled in interagency review. “We are working with our federal partners to resolve any remaining questions,” Ross said, noting EPA intends to secure their release from the Office of Management & Budget as quickly as it can.
The recommendations will give states “a much needed framework to facilitate timely cleanup efforts that are protective of groundwater,” he said.
In addition, EPA is committing to expanding its monitoring of PFAS, planning to propose an unspecified number of PFAS in the next nationwide drinking water monitoring rule -- known as the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule. The agency previously monitored for a small number of PFAS, but was criticized for using weak minimum reporting levels (MRLs). Now EPA says in the plan it will use newer detection methods and lower MRLs than were previously possible.
Further, the agency plans to consider listing PFAS in the TRI.
Both of these actions are significant as they would give the agency more data on where to find PFAS in the environment, Ross said.
The agency also is promising to expand research, developing new analytical methods for detection in various media. In addition, it pledges to focus its research in four key areas: determining the human health and ecological effects of PFAS exposure; determining the significant sources and fate and transport pathways of the substances; measuring the cost and effectiveness of different methods for removing and remediating PFAS; and determining how EPA will support stakeholders in using science to protect public health and the environment, according to Ross.
“Our goal is to close the gap on the science as quickly as possible, especially as it relates to other emerging risks like GenX,” he said, referring to a PFAS that has been used as a replacement to older generation, phased-out PFAS.
Finally, the agency is also committed to work across the federal government in developing a PFAS risk communication toolbox that can be used by states, tribes and local entities to effectively communicate on PFAS risks to the public.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-hedges-regulatory-determination-pfas-sparking-criticisms
-
Deregulatory Agenda Complicates EPA Messaging On PFAS Actions
Feb 14, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
The Trump administration's deregulatory agenda rolling back a host of EPA rules appears to be impeding the agency's messaging on its landmark comprehensive action plan aimed at setting environmental protections to address contamination from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
While agency officials unveiled an action plan Feb. 14 to tackle PFAS pollution across several media, critics dismissed the plan for deferring a decision on setting an enforceable drinking water standard for the chemicals -- thought by many to be the centerpiece for any aggressive policy for protecting communities -- while citing the administration's more-aggressive deregulatory efforts.
“While EPA acts with utmost urgency to repeal regulations, the agency ambles with complacency when it comes to taking real steps to protect the water we drink and the air we breathe,” Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), the ranking Democrat on the Senate environment committee, said in a statement.
Such criticism underscores the hurdles acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler and other top officials have faced as they have sought to improve risk communication to help them justify some of the agency's deregulatory efforts.
But some agency advisors have warned that “Risk communication is often code for trying to minimize the danger” that neighborhoods face. Such concerns were also reflected in a series of polls issued throughout 2018, which showed growing public unease about the state of the environment and the Trump administration's handling of it.
Administration efforts to address PFAS have done little to help the agency make its case that its plans are adequate. For example, EPA drew widespread criticism after reports in Inside EPA and other outlets showed that the White House blocked the release of a draft PFAS assessment crafted by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) because EPA and DOD feared a “public relations nightmare,” as the draft adopted significantly stricter risk values than EPA's for PFAS chemicals.
In addition, many states are moving to adopt standards or other values that are more stringent than the drinking water advisory level of 70 parts per trillion (ppt) that EPA set for two PFAS in 2016.
While ATSDR eventually issued a draft version of its report, its risk values drove widespread calls for strengthened regulatory levels, even though officials sought -- unsuccessfully -- to downplay potential health concerns from exposures above its limits, cautioning the public not to read its levels as cleanup or health effects standards.
Officials also appear to be taking steps as part of their action plan to better communicate the risks posed by the substances.
“Risk communication and engagement are critical for the EPA to effectively support communities across the country that are addressing PFAS issues,” the plan says.
EPA is actively working to enhance the way in which agencies communicate about potential human health risks that may be associated with these chemicals, the agency adds, noting that “there is a lack of definitive scientific information about many chemicals in the PFAS family, making it challenging to communicate with the public about their associated health risks."
EPA 'Has Not Slowed Down'
During a Feb. 14 news conference unveiling the plan, Wheeler portrayed EPA as an agency Americans can rely on “every time they turn on the faucet,” and stressed the agency has “not slowed down” on enforcing the 70 ppt level even as it considers an MCL for PFOA and PFOS.
“We are stepping up to provide the leadership that the public needs and deserves,” he said.
Wheeler emphasized the groundbreaking efforts it took to develop the plan. “The PFAS Action Plan is the most comprehensive cross-agency plan to address an emerging chemical of concern ever undertaken by EPA,” he said.
He called the announcement a historic moment, and said it marks “the first time we've put together a multi-media, multi-program, national research and risk communication plan to address the challenge by PFAS."
Further, he underscored the significance of the announcement and its importance to communities by noting it was the first time all 10 EPA regions were holding simultaneous press conferences on the same topic.
EPA water office chief Dave Ross, speaking to reporters during a separate Feb. 14 briefing, said the plan is the product of unprecedented outreach to states and communities, noting it stems from the agency's national leadership summit on PFAS with states last May, listening sessions held in several regions last summer and the 120,000 comments the agency received in its public docket seeking input.
Wheeler also sought to show the agency's urgency in responding to the chemical -- that it was not waiting for the action plan in order to act. He highlighted that the agency is continuing to take enforcement actions to respond to PFAS -- noting the agency has taken eight direct enforcement actions and is providing technical assistance to states in dozens of other enforcement actions. Further, he told reporters that EPA can enforce cleanups using its health advisory -- despite it not being a regulation. “We don't have to have an MCL on order to force the cleanup,” he said. In addition, he said, regardless of what any national number is, EPA can work with states to enforce their cleanup levels, even if more stringent.
But EPA won few kudos for its efforts. Several Democrats, like Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), echoed Carper, as did many environmentalists.
“After a year of hemming and hawing, Scott Pruitt and Andrew Wheeler's EPA is punting on action to tackle a serious public health risk lurking in Americans' drinking water,” Whitehouse said in a statement.
“Meanwhile, Wheeler is pushing as hard as humanly possible to roll back vital environmental protections he thinks stand between his polluter patrons and bigger profits. It’s another example of an administration captured by polluter donors and their minions embedded in federal agencies.”
Others directly criticized EPA for failing to do enough to address PFAS despite officials' messaging. For example, Rob Bilott, an attorney who has successfully represented thousands of plaintiffs in tort litigation against PFAS manufacturers, warned that the administration's effort to talk up its PFAS efforts are inadequate.
“EPA has been promising to address the serious public health threat posed by PFAS chemical exposures for almost twenty years,” Bilott said in a statement distributed by the Environmental Working Group. “The last ‘action plan’ was released a decade ago -- in 2009. Unfortunately, despite the promising public relations messaging released in connection with EPA’s latest PFAS ‘Action Plan,’ EPA is still not actually taking any concrete action on PFAS.”
And a network of community groups around the country that form the National PFAS Contamination Coalition has come out highly critical of the plan, calling it “woefully inadequate” for those suffering from exposures to PFAS for decades, signaling communities have little patience for stalled actions or a slow regulatory process. The coalition has pushed for strict drinking water standards and addressing the chemicals as a class, rather than piecemeal.
“Comments we heard today such as 'in process,' 'committed to,' and 'very soon' we have now heard for years,” Loreen Hackett, with the community group #PFOAProjectNY, said in a Feb. 14 press release from the coalition.
Emily Donovan, with Clean Cape Fear, in the release said the plan does nothing for the 250,000 residents in North Carolina that rely on the Lower Cape Fear River -- which has been found to be polluted with PFAS -- as their main drinking water source. She noted that nearly all Wilmington, NC, residents have the long-chain PFAS Nafion byproduct 2 in their blood, but there is no available health data or scientific research on the chemical.
She contends “nothing Trump's EPA proposed today will address our concerns or fears. . . . We need Trump's EPA and our congressional leaders to take a bold stand against morally inept companies like DuPont and Chemours,” which have been producers of PFAS, she said.
Even some Republicans signaled that EPA will have to do more. “While I am encouraged by the attention the EPA has given this issue, I urge them to continue their work to finalize the toxicity report and move to develop a Maximum Contaminant Level for [the PFAS chemical] GenX so we may keep our water clean and safe for our citizens,” Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC), the lawmaker who represents part of North Carolina affected by PFAS contamination.
https://insideepa.com/weekly-focus/deregulatory-agenda-complicates-epa-messaging-pfas-actions
-
Dems Slam EPA Plan for Fighting Drinking Water Contaminants
Feb 14, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Democratic lawmakers are accusing the Trump administration of dragging its feet on plans to protect Americans from a key class of drinking water contaminants.
Lawmakers say the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) needs to commit to quickly setting a maximum allowable level in drinking water for per- and poly-fluoroalkyl (PFAS) substances, which have been linked to cancer and other health problems.
Acting EPA chief Andrew Wheeler rolled out an action plan for PFAS Thursday morning that includes cleaning up sources of contamination, helping local and state governments protect water sources and determining by the end of the year whether setting a maximum level for drinking water is appropriate.
But for Democrats, the action is too little, too late.
“The PFAS Action Plan being trumpeted by EPA today is insufficiently protective, and it explains why Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler would not commit to setting a drinking water standard for PFAS during his nomination hearing last month,” Sen. Tom Carper (Del.), the top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a statement.
“It has taken the EPA nearly a year just to kick the can even further down the road,” he said. “While EPA acts with the utmost urgency to repeal regulations, the agency ambles with complacency when it comes to taking real steps to protect the water we drink and the air we breathe.”
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.), chairman of that panel’s environment subcommittee, said in a joint statement that they appreciated forward movement on the PFAS issue from the EPA, but found it disappointing.
“While we applaud aspects of this plan that respond to demands by members who have been pushing to address dangerous PFAS contamination in their districts, ultimately this plan fails to meet the challenge our nation faces with this growing water contamination and health crisis,” the chairmen said.
“If EPA intends to drag its feet, Congress will have to step in and lead the fight to protect Americans from these dangerous chemicals.”
PFAS contamination issues have arisen in many specific areas around the country where it was used in manufacturing, firefighting or other activities.
Democrats representing those areas find the EPA’s actions insufficient.
“It falls short of delivering the certainty that families impacted by PFAS exposure need and deserve,” said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.).
“Without a commitment to develop enforceable drinking water standards for PFOA and PFOS, there’s no certainty that this strategy will sufficiently confront the challenges PFAS chemicals pose to states and affected communities,” she said, referring to two of the most common chemicals in the family.
At least one key Republican — Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), was left wanting more from the EPA.
“The Environmental Protection Agency’s PFAS plan is only a first step. As I have said before, EPA must speak clearly about the risk that this class of chemicals poses to public health and the environment,” he said in a statement.
“The agency must be willing to take decisive action where it is warranted.”
Other Republicans — even those who have been vocal on the need for more action on PFAS — welcomed the plan.
“I was pleased with the EPA’s announcement,” Sen. Shelley Moore Capito(R-W.Va.), who wants the agency to set a drinking water limit for the contaminants, told reporters.
“I think it’s certainly a step in the right direction, but it’s not a giant leap. And maybe we’ll get him to do the giant leap as we keep pushing,” she said.
“This action plan is a strong step forward for our community to continue to ensure our water is safe,” said Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio).
Rep. John Shimkus (Ill.), the top Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee’s environment subcommittee, said he understood complaints that the EPA is kicking the can down the road, but he supports the plan as it was laid out.
“Don’t get me wrong, I wish it could go faster,” he told The Hill. “When you’re trying to deal with chemicals, and you’re questioning the safety of it, and what amount, you want that information out.”
But he said the EPA is trying to do the science well, and that takes time.
“You’d rather do good science, and have good standards, versus standards based upon emotion.”
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/430094-dems-slam-epa-plan-for-drinking-water-contaminants
-
(ACC Blog) NARUC to Examine Key Barrier to CHP and WHP Growth
Feb 14, 2019 | American Chemistry Matters
The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) dispatched good news for expanded use of combined heat and power (CHP) and waste heat to power (WHP) this week, adopting a resolution to examine issues related to standby rates. ACC is proud to support the resolution, which focuses on two important industrial energy efficiency systems.
CHP and standby rates
Also known as cogeneration, CHP is the simultaneous production of electricity and heat from the same source. Since the energy is generated close to where it is needed, little is lost in transmission. The chemical industry is a longtime leader in this innovative, energy-saving technology. CHP is a smart strategy to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions while boosting the competitiveness of many U.S. manufacturers.
While CHP systems are often able to operate independently of the central grid, they sometimes need to interconnect for supplemental or backup power, such as during an outage. Utilities use standby rates to recover the costs associated with providing these users with reliable access to grid power. But when these rates are too costly, uncertain, inflexible, or confusing, it can discourage investment in and deployment of new CHP projects.“ACC believes the nation should strive to double electricity output generated from CHP and WHP systems. Policymakers must remove artificial barriers to distributed electricity generation, including CHP.”
– Owen Kean, American Chemistry CouncilTrombold-Place resolution builds on existing efforts
Introduced by the Public Utilities Commissioners of Ohio and Pennsylvania – states with significant manufacturing activity – the resolution approved by NARUC calls for further exploration of standby rates issues; “simple, transparent, and consistent” rates; and a recognition that CHP and WHP systems offer benefits such as reduced electricity demand, lower costs, and improved system reliability and resiliency.
A diverse set of manufacturers, clean energy businesses, and efficiency and environmental advocates support the resolution. They include the Electricity Consumers Resource Council (ELCON), American Chemistry Council, American Forest & Paper Association, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), Ohio Environmental Council, Midwest Cogeneration Association, Heat is Power, AMS Energy, Arctic Energy, Blue Sky Power, Capstone Turbines, HCS Group, and Integrated CHP Systems Corporation.
The Alliance for Industrial Efficiency has long advocated for fair, equitable, and transparent standby rates and played a leading role in engaging stakeholders in support of the resolution.
Key Facts
CHP systems today represent over 81 gigawatts (GW) – or almost 8 percent – of the nation’s total electricity capacity. (Source: U.S. Department of Energy)
CHP is deployed at various locations — from chemical plants to medical centers to universities — and to further promote CHP’s success, it is important to enact policies which will lift the barriers affecting its deployment. (Source: Alliance for Industrial Efficiency)
CHP is installed at more than 4,400 commercial, industrial, and institutional facilities across the nation, improving energy efficiency, ensuring environmental quality, promoting economic growth, and fostering a more robust and resilient energy infrastructure. (Source: U.S. Department of Energy)
CHP could supply 20 percent of U.S. electric capacity by 2030, reducing business costs and creating good-paying jobs, according to a 2008 scenario by DOE’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory. More recent technical analysis is consistent with this scenario. (Source: Alliance for Industrial Efficiency)
If CHP provided 20 percent of U.S. electric capacity, the United States could save more than 5 quadrillion Btu (Quads) of fuel annually, the equivalent of nearly half the total energy currently consumed by U.S. households. (Source: Alliance for Industrial Efficiency)
The U.S. Department of Energy has identified nearly 241 GW of remaining CHP technical potential capacity at more than 291,000 sites nationwide, equivalent to 480 conventional power plants. (Source: Alliance for Industrial Efficiency)
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2019/02/naruc-to-examine-key-barrier-to-chp-and-whp-growth/
-
Trade Wars, Plastic Bans Weigh on BP Market Forecast
Feb 15, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
World energy demand will grow by 30 percent over the next two decades with carbon emissions likely to rise about 7 percent, under a central forecast presented by BP PLC yesterday.
The high-level figures underline the company's central takeaway from its annual energy outlook, that the world faces a "dual challenge" of meeting growing energy demand to serve the massive population moving out of poverty into the global middle class, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions to limit climate change.
Beyond the big takeaway, the forecast highlights questions that BP is mulling about the direction of energy markets and policy in coming years, including how a lasting increase in trade frictions could affect energy supply and demand and what a growing backlash against plastic might mean for its producers.
"Rising prosperity is the major factor accounting for energy growth through 2040," BP Chief Economist Spencer Dale said in presenting the outlook, noting that all the projected growth in energy demand through 2040 comes from the developing world, especially India, China and other Asian countries.
Failing to meet that demand, he said, would constrain prosperity in those fast-developing countries and limit the living standard of people there.
BP sees about 85 percent of demand growth to 2040 to be met with renewable energy and natural gas under a central set of assumptions, making new energy supply "either clean or cleaner" than today's mix.
Renewables grow quickly from a small base in BP's forecasts and surpass coal to become the single largest source of power generation by 2040. Modeling found that increasing the pace of coal plant retirements drove renewables almost as much as technology change by opening market share.
"The capital intensity of the global energy system acts as a sort of speed bump on the pace at which new energy systems" are incorporated, Dale said.
The company subtly made the case against an argument embraced by some environmentalists, that oil and gas companies should cease all exploration work and drop new projects to limit new fossil fuel combustion, showing how the sudden plunge in supply would dramatically increase the call on alternatives that are already being counted on to meet unprecedented ramp-up rates.
BP's central scenario envisions transportation demand almost doubling over the next 20 years, but efficiency gains translate to just a 20 percent increase in transportation energy use. That includes a 50 percent efficiency improvement for car internal combustion engines and improvements in trucks.
BP, whose fortunes were founded on oil, forecasts crude demand growth to peak around 2035 before leveling out. But the fuel remains central to transportation systems: The forecast envisions oil declining from 94 percent to 85 percent of transport energy, while electricity, natural gas and biofuels each account for about 5 percent of transportation energy by 2040.Questions about trade, plastics
BP used this year's forecast to explore the potential ramifications of several trends affecting the energy business, including what role plastics play in future demand and "what might happen if the trade wars escalate."
"Non-combusted use" of fossil fuels, or use as a raw material for petrochemicals, accounted for about 15 million barrels per day of oil in 2017 and would reach nearly 25 million barrels per day in 2040 with expected demand growth, according to BP's central scenario.
BP's Dale said two-thirds of plastic production is for long-lived products like furniture and clothing, while the focus of a recent outpouring of environmental concern has been about single-use plastics that briefly serve in packaging, medical and other uses before their disposal.
Those single-use plastics use about 3.5 million barrels per day of oil today and could demand 6 million barrels per day in 20 years, he said.
If heightened concern led to a worldwide ban on single-use plastics by 2040, demand could drop by around 3 million barrels per day, BP found. But Dale warned of unintended consequences from such changes, saying alternatives to plastics could require more fossil fuels to produce or transport, and that poorer performance in applications like food storage could lead to increased agricultural energy expenditures.
On trade wars, Dale avoided any reference to President Trump or any specific spats that have cropped up over the last two years.
But he said if trade disputes become "more frequent and commonplace" over the coming decades, they could reduce global gross domestic product by 6 percent by 2040 and energy demand by 4 percent, due to slower transfer of technology advances.
If globalization were dented by a reluctance to trade, he said, it could lead to more nationalized use of energy, with China relying more on renewables and coal, while more U.S.-produced energy remained at home.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/02/15/stories/1060121151
-
Gulf Coast Petrochemical Plants Open, and New Ones Are Planned
Feb 14, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Michael McCoy
As more Gulf Coast petrochemical facilities are completed or near completion, a new group of shale-driven projects is starting to crop up.
Sasol says it has opened a polyethylene plant, the first of seven facilities, at a giant petrochemical complex it is building in Lake Charles, Louisiana. The other six will be completed later this year and early in 2020, the firm says.
Reaching this milestone wasn’t easy. When the South African firm green-lighted the project in 2014, it anticipated a cost of less than $9 billion and an opening date in 2018. Now the company expects the overall cost to be as high as $11.8 billion. Sasol blames delays on bad weather, changes to the scope of the project, and absenteeism at the work site.
Also in Lake Charles, South Korea’s Lotte Chemical says it just opened an ethylene glycol plant—on time. “Not too many people can say that,” says Jim Rock, director of the site for Lotte.
The glycol plant is part of a $3.1 billion complex that also includes an ethylene cracker with partner Westlake Chemical. Rock says he expects the cracker will open later this quarter.
These facilities join other new petrochemical complexes built to take advantage of low-cost raw materials extracted from shale. Chevron Phillips Chemical and ExxonMobil Chemical, for example, both opened facilities in Texas last year.
And chemical companies are already starting to talk about a new wave of projects. Chevron Phillips says Orange, Texas, is a finalist site for a second new ethylene cracker it may build. ExxonMobil and Sabic are mulling a joint cracker project. And Shell Chemical says it is exploring options for a large ethylene glycol plant.
Enough ethane will be extracted from US shale over the next decade to serve six or seven more petrochemical plants, says Steve Lewandowski, vice president for olefins at the consulting firm IHS Markit. But he cautions that they may not all be built in the US, as Chinese firms will also be competing for that ethane.
https://cen.acs.org/business/petrochemicals/Gulf-Coast-petrochemical-plants-open/97/i7
-
Carbon Capture Bills Move Through Congress
Feb 14, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
Bipartisan legislation designed to expand the market for carbon dioxide is moving through the House and Senate.
The bills, whose sponsors include Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and Rep. Marc Veasey, D-Texas, would direct government agencies to streamline permitting for carbon dioxide pipelines and pump more than $70 million in research funding into expanding applications for carbon dioxide and technology to remove carbon from the atmosphere.
The legislation comes amid increasingly dire climate change forecasts, as well as a groundswell of support for liberal Democrats' Green New Deal package, which seeks to dramatically shift the U.S. economy away from fossil fuels over the next decade.
Carbon capture offers a way to keep cut greenhouse gas emissions while still producing the oil and natural gas that are cornerstones of the economy in states like Texas.
As we know from numerous recent national and international studies, economy-wide adoption of carbon capture technologies will be critical to meeting mid-century emissions reductions goals," Carbon Capture Coalition co-directors Jeff Bobeck and Brad Crabtree said in a statement. "Provisions in this bill to increase federal and state support for a range of carbon capture technologies will accelerate deployment across a variety of applications and industries."
Similar legislation was introduced last year and passed the Senate Environment Committee but never received a vote on the Senate floor.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Carbon-capture-bills-move-through-Congress-13616323.php
-
Cassidy Sees Opening in 'Green New Deal' Debate
Feb 15, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
Sen. Bill Cassidy is in early talks with Republican senators about assembling a legislative package to counter the "Green New Deal," with an emphasis on policies that encourage the use of natural gas.
Faster permitting for pipelines and liquefied natural gas terminals as well as tax credits to promote natural gas as a transportation fuel are a few of the items the Louisiana Republican floated as possible components of the effort, which he described as in the "beginning stages."
"We want to have a response that creates jobs and uses American energy and lowers emissions," Cassidy told E&E News yesterday. "That's kind of our goal."
He declined to identify any of the senators he's spoken with but said he anticipates the effort will be informed by upcoming hearings in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee that will examine climate change.
Natural gas, a mainstay of Louisiana's economy and one that emits about half the carbon emissions of coal, will be front and center of the effort, which Cassidy said aims to "lower carbon emissions, but also makes our economy stronger."
He also noted his support for carbon capture and sequestration technology and advanced nuclear power, two areas that enjoy bipartisan support on the Energy Committee.
Cassidy said he wants to draw a contrast between the ambitious goals of the "Green New Deal" and Republicans' preference for market-based policies, repeatedly noting natural gas's role in displacing coal as a power source, lowering U.S. emissions since 2005.
"If the 'Green New Deal' is the left's dream, for Louisiana and the rest of the nation it would be a nightmare," Cassidy told reporters in his office yesterday. "It's going to raise utility rates and our taxes, eliminate jobs, and worsen global greenhouse gas emissions. Alternatively, the alternative we speak of will lower utility rates, it will preserve and create jobs, and it will decrease global greenhouse gas emissions. So we will make that case."'A Pro-Jobs Approach'
Hailing from oil- and gas-rich Louisiana, Cassidy nonetheless has sought to carve out space for his ideas in the climate change debate (E&E Daily, May 8, 2018).
In a roundtable with reporters, Cassidy said he accepts that carbon emissions should be lowered.
"Exxon, Chevron, Entergy have all come to my office and made that point, and they've also made the point that they are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to harden their facilities in order to address the issue of unstable climate," he said. "So if the three largest energy employers in my state are doing that, obviously you should listen."
Cassidy also noted his own state is "the most impacted by rising sea levels," which exacerbates coastal erosion that costs the state land roughly the size of a football field each hour or so.
The state's erosion is caused by a mix of flood control policies surrounding the Mississippi River as well as subsidence from oil and gas production, among other factors that Cassidy said include climate change.
"Clearly rising sea levels are part of that and my state has been incredibly impacted, and we need to have some sort of way to address it," he said.
While natural gas is anathema to environmentalists opposed to hydraulic fracturing, Cassidy in recent years has studiously honed a framework that he says will reduce emissions and boost manufacturing jobs with more use of the gas.
He laid out the plan yesterday in a new white paper titled "A Pro-Jobs Approach to Lowering Greenhouse Gas Emissions" that highlights natural gas's relatively lower carbon intensity and its potential to boost renewable deployment by acting as backup generation.
The paper also cites data from EPA and the International Energy Agency that supports his argument that overall greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas are lower than coal even when methane leakage is factored in. That point is hotly disputed by critics, who say leaking methane from oil and gas production far outweighs its environmental benefits.
Cassidy also charged that the "Green New Deal" would worsen greenhouse gas emissions globally by encouraging manufacturers to move overseas in search of cheaper energy sources and less regulation.
"It's important to notice that countries will not sacrifice economic growth for the abstraction of climate change," he said. "The more you shove industry to China, the more emissions you're going to have."
While initial talks have been with his GOP colleagues, Cassidy said he eventually hopes to attract Democrats to the effort, which he signaled would prioritize economic growth over environmental concerns that would also be addressed.
"If we're not talking about jobs for working Americans, we're living in some sort of ivory tower," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/02/15/stories/1060121179
-
Pitting Sectors, API Urges EPA To ‘Leverage’ Gas In Coal Plant GHG Rule
Feb 14, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
The American Petroleum Institute (API) is urging EPA to “leverage” natural gas in its proposed replacement greenhouse gas rule for new coal plants -- pitting “clean, reliable, and affordable natural gas” against coal, which the plan seeks to bolster by easing standards for new plants, even though no new coal plants are being planned.
API’s Howard Feldman delivered the request in Feb. 14 testimony at EPA’s public hearing in Washington, D.C., on proposed changes to the 2015 new source performance standards (NSPS) for the sector.
He says the group will provide detailed comments ahead of the March 18 deadline but told officials that if they finalize their planned NSPS revisions, they “must leverage the benefits of clean, reliable, and affordable natural gas. These attributes have changed, and will continue to change, the energy and environmental landscape in this country and beyond.”
Feldman also noted that recent record gas production and refining are occurring as GHGs are decreasing. He pointed out that API opposed the Obama administration’s NSPS, which set a performance rate of 1,000 (lbs CO2/MWh) for new natural gas power plants requiring combined-cycle technology and also required new coal plants to meet a 1,400 lbs CO2/MWh standard that effectively required them to install partial carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) or to cofire with gas.
In contrast, the Trump administration’s proposed replacement, issued in December, does not regulate new natural gas plants at all, and imposes a rate of 1,900 lbs CO2/MWh for new large coal plants, and a rate of 2,000 lbs CO2/MWh for small units. It replaces the CCS-based standard with limits based on the most efficient steam-cycle system in combination with best operational practices.
The proposal faced immediate criticism for imposing a limit on new coal plants that is higher than the 1,700 lbs CO2/MWh many meet today -- and acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler gave an uncertain defense of the limits at a Dec. 6 press briefing, suggesting they could be tightened based on public comment.
EPA extended the comment deadline due to the government shutdown and was also forced to postpone the public hearing.
API’s call for EPA to “leverage” gas is not the only bad sign for the coal sector. EPA’s rescheduled hearing came the same day that the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) board voted to retire two massive older coal plants -- the Paradise plant in Kentucky and the Bull Run plant in Tennessee, which have a combined capacity of nearly 2,000 megawatts -- due to economic inefficiencies.
The decision rejects calls from President Donald Trump to scrap its retirement plan for the Paradise plant, leading critics to charge that he was unfairly protecting the interests of his campaign supporter Robert Murray, whose coal firm supplies the plant.
API’s Feldman also acknowledged the “real” risks of climate change. “Clean and abundant natural gas is a key driver of reliability in power generation and any replacement of the . . . NSPS should recognize and facilitate the use of natural gas. In conclusion, we will be submitting comments on this rulemaking to ensure that the final rule is rooted in sound science and data, with a consideration of the costs and benefits, while protecting public health and the environment.”
Gas Co-Firing
In contrast to API, the National Mining Association’s Katie Sweeney testified in support of the proposal and said EPA’s technology re-analysis “properly considered and rejected . . . conversion to or co-firing with natural gas.”
She also stressed the “value” of coal and warned that “increased deployment of advanced coal plants will be needed to preserve fuel diversity. Over-reliance on natural gas, depending on just-in-time fuel delivery, poses a threat to reliability and affordability.”
With API weighing in, EPA could find itself under significant pressure to adjust its technology analysis, which in addition to rejecting natural gas co-firing also found CCS is not “adequately demonstrated” -- the Clean Air Act threshold for setting a GHG standard in an NSPS.
Meanwhile, Dan Chartier of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) backed the proposal in testimony that says CCS cannot be required because it must be implementable by all sources in a category, and CCS is barred by lack of geologic formations to store CO2 and because there is not a broad CO2 pipeline network.
“NRECA supports continued research and development activities that we anticipate will result in CCS becoming a future option for controlling CO2 emissions.” Chartier also noted that many of the projects EPA relied on in the 2015 rule have faced challenges since that make them unsuitable examples.
But Jay Duffy of the Clean Air Task Force in testimony urged EPA to revisit the CCS requirement, noting that the rule, being developed under section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act, “requires a forward-looking and technology-forcing approach. [CCS] remains adequately demonstrated and cost reasonable, based on large-scale power plant CCS projects in operation,” including the Petra Nova plant near Houston that came online on time and on budget since the Obama rule was finalized in 2015 and has captured more than 2 million tons of CO2.
Duffy also suggested legal deficiencies. “The current Proposal not only fails to distinguish the record before the Agency, it fails even to develop a record supporting the weaker rate it now advances. Cherry-picking and mischaracterizing the 2015 record and ignoring currently available information is not enough to disprove the state of the technology and science supporting CCS.”
Also weighing in against the proposal was Lissa Lynch of the Natural Resources Defense Council, who said in testimony that the proposal “looks backwards.”
“Instead of the stringent, technology-forcing standard the Clean Air Act mandates, this proposal is a lowest-common-denominator standard based on decades-old technology. Even worse, EPA’s own analysis estimates that one new coal plant would emit 1.1 million more tons of CO2 per year under this proposal, compared to the current standards. Inexplicably, the Agency did ‘not attempt to quantify the impacts of these increased emissions.”
GHG Endangerment
Shannon Heyck-Williams of the National Wildlife Federation said in her testimony that, “EPA’s proposal lowers the bar so low, it would essentially eliminate any need for coal plants to install new, cleaner technologies. And even more alarming, the agency is also asking for input on whether it needs additional rationale to regulate coal-fired power plants at all.”
Heyck-Williams was referring to a footnote in the proposal that seeks comment on whether EPA’s threshold GHG endangerment finding applies to coal plants. It asks whether EPA’s historic approach to endangerment should apply differently to GHGs -- suggesting a potential route to undercutting the agency’s landmark 2009 endangerment finding that made GHG’s subject to air law regulation.
Revoking the finding has been a key goal of some free-market groups, who welcome the opportunity to comment, though some are recently backing away from the need for an outright revocation, citing the current EPA’s apparent willingness to not enforce it.
Heyck-Williams added in her testimony that the proposal “seems to suggest that because these sources can’t be blamed for the entirety of climate change and its consequences, they may be blameless, OR, that because the coal industry is dying due to market forces, there is no need to regulate their carbon emissions. This is warped logic.”
Additionally, Ani Kame’enui of the National Parks Conservation Association said in testimony that by proposing such a vast rollback of the original NSPS, EPA is disregarding its statutory responsibilities and “ignores the record before it. EPA proposes an emission rate that is almost 20 percent higher than new coal plants being built in any other country.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/pitting-sectors-api-urges-epa-%E2%80%98leverage%E2%80%99-gas-coal-plant-ghg-rule
-
New big backer for Tellurian's $15B LNG project
Feb 14, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Marissa Luck
A major Indian LNG buyer is throwing its weight behind a $15 billion LNG terminal proposed by Houston-based Tellurian Inc.
Petronet LNG Limited INDIA is eyeing an investment in Tellurian's Driftwood project on the Gulf Coast after signing a memorandum of understanding with the Houston company, Tellurian announced Thursday.
Petronet LNG has set up India's first LNG receiving and regasification terminal at Dahej, Gujarat , and another terminal at Kochi, Kerala.
Meg Gentle, CEO of Tellurian, noted that Petronet is India's largest LNG importer, operating 20 million (metric) tonnes per annum (mtpa) of receiving terminal capacity with an additional 2.5 million metric tons of capacity under construction at its Dahej expansion and a further 5 million metric tons proposed at Gangavaram.
"We support Petronet's vision to be a key energy provider to India and look forward to delivering clean, low-cost and reliable natural gas from Driftwood LNG," Gentle said.
Tellurian declined to say how heavily Petronet is investing in the project or how much it could buy from the Drift wood project.
The tentative deal with Petronet is the latest win for Tellurian, which announced in December that the British energy and commodities company Vitol would be its first major customer and is also an investor in the Driftwood project.
Proposed for Lake Charles, Louisiana, Driftwood LNG would process 27.6 million metric tons of liquefied natural gas annually — enough to fill up an LNG tanker every day.
The scale of Tellurian's Driftwood terminal is bigger than the entire capacity of U.S. LNG exports currently, which is just over 20 million metric tons now, according to an analyst at S&P Global Platts.
The project would include five liquefied natural gas plants, three storage tanks and offloading and loading facilities, and would require the construction of about 96 miles of pipeline, plus three new compressor stations and 15 new meter stations in Calcasieu, Jefferson Davis, Acadia, and Evangeline parishes in Louisiana to deliver natural gas to the LNG Facility.
The Driftwood terminal and pipeline project recently received its final environmental impact statement, a key milestone in the federal permitting process before companies can get the green light to build a project from regulators.
Tellurian expects to make a final investment decision and begin construction on Driftwood in the first half of 2019 with operations starting in 2023.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/New-big-backer-for-Tellurian-s-15M-LNG-project-13616327.php
-
Despite Presidents’ Saber-Rattling, U.S. NatGas Exports to Mexico Expected to Continue
Feb 14, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Christopher Lenton
Piped U.S. natural gas exports to Mexico should remain an important part of energy trade, despite rhetoric from President Trump and his Mexican counterpart Andrés Manuel López Obrador that threaten the relationship, according to two experts on the subject.
On the U.S. side, natural gas exports are a boost to the national economy, with Mexico pipeline exports currently worth $6.5 billion/year, according to a senior fellow at the Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies at the University of California San Diego, John B. McNeece III. Any attempt by the Trump administration to apply pressure on the Mexican state through restricting natural gas likely would see considerable pushback.
“Gas producers would fight back,” McNeece said earlier this month in a webinar organized by think tank Institute of the Americas. Moreover, the U.S. Constitution prohibits tariffs on exports, thereby making an export tax on gas exports to Mexico “highly unlikely.”
On the Mexican side, NERA Economic Consulting’s Veronica Irastorza suggested that even if López Obrador were to meet his lofty goal of growing gas production by 50% during his six-year term, Mexico would still require gas imports to meet rising demand.
Mexico’s national oil company Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex) seeks to ramp up production to reach 5.7 Bcf/d by the end of 2024. However, projections from the energy ministry (Sener), indicate gas consumption in Mexico will exceed this figure by around 3 Bcf/d in 2024.
The U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) is forecasting Mexico’s import needs to increase by significantly more, hitting 7.25 Bcf/d in 2024. Sener is slightly more cautious, and projected imports of 4.97 Bcf/d in 2024, the year López Obrador leaves office.
In the first nine months of 2018, natural gas exports via pipeline from the United States into Mexico grew 11.2% year/year to reach 1.25 Tcf, or 4.6 Bcf/d, according to a report from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
Prices, a significant boost to competitiveness of Mexico’s industry and power plants, will also remain attractive, despite the projected boom in liquified natural gas (LNG) from the United States, according to Irastorza. The EIA predicted that gas prices should remain comparatively low through 2050.
Crucially, the cross-border infrastructure for gas trade is already in place. As of 2016, Mexico already had 7.5 Bcf of cross-border capacity. The Centro Nacional de Control del Gas Natural (Cenagas) is predicting it to increase to to 13.5 Bcf this year. Meanwhile there is a total of 15 Bcf of either existing, or authorized cross-border capacity, according to McNeese. Indeed in any calculation, capacity exceeds expected deliveries. But “developers think it’s needed and are putting their money on the line to support that,” he said.
Irastorza is expecting the Mexican gas market will continue its process of deregulation through the López Obrador years, leading to the creation of secondary and futures markets.
“I think it is possible, because Mexico has already been moving in that direction,” she said, “and if you see the latest Cenagas rates for example, they are moving to this direction of having a clear cost-based incremental tariff. So I am hopeful, and it is likely that we can move there.”
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/117411-despite-presidents-saber-rattling-us-natgas-exports-to-mexico-expected-to-continue
-
Legislation Aims to Expand Cost-Savings Program
Feb 15, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Jeremy Dillon
Two New England senators yesterday introduced legislation to establish a demand response pilot program for natural gas utility customers.
The legislation from Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Angus King (I-Maine) aims to open the cost-savings incentive to reduce energy use to the natural gas industry, especially in times of high demand during New England cold snaps.
"Demand response is proven in the electricity sector and is already working for a growing number of American natural gas consumers," Whitehouse said in a statement. "Our bill would build on that success."
Demand response refers to programs that incentivize electric utility users to decrease energy use during times of peak or high demand. The effort helps reduce the strains on the grid while also reducing the cost of electricity in wholesale markets during times of high demand.
The bill would direct the Department of Energy to establish a pilot program for the natural gas industry, "allowing gas utilities, local distribution companies and other stakeholders to develop demand response programs to provide greater flexibility in distributing natural gas," according to a press release.
The added benefit, the senators noted, is that it could also help lessen the natural gas infrastructure woes that have plagued New England states during extreme cold spells like the polar vortex.
"This is a common-sense bill that will expand and strengthen these programs so we can mitigate the effects of climate change and support people in Maine and across the country who need affordable ways to heat their homes during the winter," King said in a statement.
According to a Brattle Group analysis, a demand response program could reduce natural gas demand for heating homes by "40 million cubic feet of natural gas on a peak day — five percent of the average power sector demand for gas in the region during the winter months," the release said.
Whitehouse introduced similar legislation last Congress.
Some demand response programs offer different pricing methods for those peak periods, DOE said on its website.
Other programs have a more direct approach that enable power companies "to cycle air conditioners and water heaters on and off during periods of peak demand in exchange for a financial incentive and lower electric bills," DOE said.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/02/15/stories/1060121137
-
Chemical Safety Board Urges Robust Natural Gas Plant Inspections
Feb 14, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jeff Johnson
Near midnight on June 27, 2016, an uncontrolled release of methane, ethane, propane, and several other hydrocarbons occurred at the Enterprise Products Gas Plant in Pascagoula, Mississippi. The hydrocarbons ignited and the plant suffered a series of fires and explosions over the next 18 hours. No one was injured.
The site subsequently shut down for almost six months. The incident cost the company $17.5 million.
The incident was due to thermal degradation of a heat exchanger. Similar problems had occurred nine times over a 17-year period at Enterprise but had been corrected before a fire broke out, according to an investigation and final report by the US Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board issued Feb. 13.
The Enterprise plant receives raw natural gas via a pipeline from Gulf of Mexico deep-water oil wells. The plant separates the material into two products: natural gas liquids to be used as a chemical industry feedstock and a natural gas fuel stream that primarily contains methane.
More than 500 similar gas-processing facilities operate in the US and many use a cryogenic separation process with a brazed aluminum heat exchanger (BAHX) like the one that failed at Enterprise. The setup allows heat to transfer between different process streams while keeping the streams separate. Enterprise itself owns 26 midstream gas plants using similar cryogenic and BAHX technology.
“Extending the life cycle of equipment at these facilities requires more robust inspection protocols,” CSB interim executive Kristen Kulinowski says. “Operators shouldn’t take the risk of waiting to find a leak because, as this case demonstrates, that leak could result in a catastrophic failure.”
CSB is issuing recommendations to two trade associations, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and GPA Midstream Association, to share information related to failure hazards of BAHXs from thermal fatigue.
CSB also urges companies to develop more robust community alert networks that include social media and the ability to expand interactions with a community throughout an incident, following complaints from people living near the Enterprise plant that they did not know how to respond to the event.
https://cen.acs.org/safety/industrial-safety/Chemical-Safety-Board-urges-robust/97/i7
-
Lawmakers Question FERC Chairman over Pipeline Cyber Rules
Feb 15, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Peter Behr
Neil Chatterjee, chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, yesterday rebuffed calls for mandatory cybersecurity standards for natural gas pipelines, citing improvement in the industry's effort to strengthen its defenses.
Democrats on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee pressed Chatterjee on why the interstate power grid is under enforceable cybersecurity rules while the nation's gas pipelines are protected under voluntary standards and oversight by a small office in the Transportation Security Administration.
It was an issue Chatterjee had raised himself last June, when he and FERC Commissioner Richard Glick questioned TSA's oversight role.
They added, "Regardless of where Congress vests this responsibility, the regulator must have the statutory authority, resources and commitment to implement mandatory cybersecurity standards for gas pipelines."
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) replayed those concerns yesterday. "Isn't it time we had mandatory cybersecurity standard for this critical electric and gas infrastructure?" she asked.
"I have been impressed by the response I've seen from both industry and TSA," Chatterjee responded.
He noted a critical report in December by the Government Accountability Office that found "significant weaknesses" in TSA's oversight of pipelines, a finding TSA and the pipeline industry protested (Energywire, Dec. 20, 2018).
The GAO report shows "there is still much, much more work to do, and so while I'm pleased with the progress we've seen since we elevated this issue, I am going to remain vigilant," Chatterjee said.
"I didn't hear yes or no on mandatory cybersecurity standards," Stabenow said.
"Again, I think it's an ongoing dialogue that we'll have to see," Chatterjee responded. "I've been encouraged by improvement in the voluntary steps that the industry has taken and by the attention the TSA is putting to this."
Before Chatterjee and the commission is a thick set of industry comments in a year-old FERC proceeding about how to ensure the resilience of the power grid in the case of extreme disasters or cyber and physical attacks.
In that docket, the nation's largest grid operator, the PJM Interconnection, urged FERC to take action to tighten gas pipeline security performance.
Industry insiders reported a behind-the-scenes debate within the administration over whether pipeline cybersecurity oversight should remain in TSA or move to the Department of Energy.
Chatterjee has given no clues about what policies FERC may propose, but he stressed that any change in scrutiny of pipeline cybersecurity was up to Congress.
An exasperated Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) protested, saying, "There's a weird calmness about this hearing.
"This is not calm!" he continued, raising his voice.
"We are in a very dangerous place, and I just think this has to be an emergency, an urgent situation," he said. "I hope I've conveyed that here this morning."
Then King referred to the arm wrestling between Senate committees and between Senate and House committees about cybersecurity policy that has often kept legislation from making it through Congress.
"I don't think there's many more serious threats facing this country than this one," he said. "I don't want to go home to Maine and say we knew what was going on but we had four committees that had jurisdiction and we really couldn't quite get it done."
King added, "Of course there should be mandatory standards for gas pipelines."
"I want to give them the opportunity to work in good faith going forward," Chatterjee replied, referring to the pipeline industry and TSA.
"I appreciate working in good faith, but it seems to me we made a realization some years ago that mandatory standards made sense on the electric side, and if the natural gas pipeline system is now essentially a part of the electric system, I see no reason why that should not be the case in that industry," King said.How safe is the grid?
The pipeline industry has mobilized to head off any moves in Congress to impose mandatory cyber or physical security regulations, and it has won support from the administration for stepped-up voluntary actions.
In October, the Department of Homeland Security and DOE announced a "pipeline cybersecurity initiative" to strengthen the network's defenses.
Karen Evans, DOE assistant secretary for cybersecurity, energy security and emergency response, said the initiative would pull together TSA, DHS, DOE and industry threat coordinators to assess pipeline threats (Energywire, Oct. 4, 2018).
Important details of the effort aren't public, including how many of the largest pipelines will undergo voluntary reviews of their defenses, what the review schedule will be and how TSA will handle serious weaknesses if they appear.
The oversight issue was also raised at yesterday's hearing with James Robb, chief executive of the North American Electric Reliability Corp., chosen by FERC to administer the interstate power grid's mandatory cyber rules.
"While I can't comment authoritatively on the state of cybersecurity on the pipelines and the effectiveness of the voluntary standards, it is incumbent on the natural gas industry to be as secure as the [electric power] industry they are supporting," Robb said.
Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) asked Robb how his organization could be confident the grid was safe. "How do you know?"
Robb said NERC knows "because we have mandatory standards in place, we audit the utilities against those standards, and they are subject to a financial penalty if they are found in violation of those standards."
The only private-sector representative on the panel yesterday, David Whitehead, chief operating officer of Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories Inc., said the NERC standards didn't ensure security.
"You can be compliant [with the rules] but not necessarily secure. You can check all the [compliance] boxes and still have a challenge or an issue," said Whitehead, whose company is a leading manufacturer of grid controls. The essential approach to security was having people who deeply understand how their systems are designed and operated, and then create a security overlay based on that understanding, he said.
Robb disagreed. "For the most part, the standards we have in place don't require any unnatural acts. They really codify what good utility practice is," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/02/15/stories/1060121187
-
DuPont, Honeywell, 3M Face More PFOA Claims in New York
Feb 14, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
DuPont, Honeywell, 3M and Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics were hit with another suit Feb. 13 by a resident of Hoosick Falls, N.Y., alleging drinking water contamination from a nearby plastics plant.
Melissa Gorman alleges she developed thyroid disease as a result of her exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid released into the water supply from facilities operated by Saint-Gobain and Honeywell International Inc.
The complaint alleges 3M Co. and E.I DuPont de Nemours and Co. sold PFOA-containing products to Saint-Gobain and Honeywell for use in making stain-resistant fabric.Gorman is seeking compensatory and consequential damages, including the cost of medical monitoring and loss of property value.
The complaint includes claims of strict product liability and failure to warn against DuPont and 3M, negligence against all the companies, and trespass against Saint-Gobain and Honeywell.
The first personal injury lawsuit stemming from the PFOA water contamination in Hoosick Falls was filed in July 2016 against Saint-Gobain and Honeywell. It came just days after Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) signed a bill to extend the statute of limitations in these kinds of cases.
Hoosick Falls residents also filed a class action against the two companies in February 2016, seeking damages for contamination of their water supply.
The village conducted testing in the fall 2014 that confirmed high levels of PFOA in the municipal water.
In November 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency contacted residents and recommended the use of an alternative drinking water source.
In February 2016, the state named the former manufacturing facilities as a state Superfund site that presents a threat to public health or the environment.
Honeywell said it is working on cleanup efforts and is weighing the latest complaint.
“Honeywell remains focused on conducting the environmental investigations and necessary remediation under the state’s supervision and direction,” spokeswoman Victoria Ann Streitfeld told Bloomberg Law.
The other companies didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.
Chaffin Luhana LLP, Berezofsky Law Group, LLC, Cuker Law Firm LLC, Williams Cedar LLC, and Faraci, Lang LLP represent the plaintiffs.
Dechert LLP, Quinn, Emanuel Law Firm, and Hinckley, Allen Law Firm represent Saint-Gobain. Arnold & Porter, and Allen & Desnoyers LLP represent Honeywell International Inc. Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP represents DuPont. Mayer Brown LLP represents 3M.
The case is Gorman v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., N.D.N.Y., No. 19-cv-200, 2/13/19
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/dupont-honeywell-3m-face-more-pfoa-claims-in-new-york-1
-
Feds Requiring Regional Response Teams to Oil Train Wrecks
Feb 14, 2019 | AP (In The Washington Post, The New York Times)
By John Raby
Federal transportation officials are requiring railroads to establish regional response teams along oil train routes following a series of fiery derailments.
The new rule announced Thursday is aimed at having crews and equipment ready in the event of an accident. It applies to oil trains in continuous blocks of 20 or more loaded tank cars and those having 35 loaded tank cars.
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration issued the rule in coordination with the Federal Railroad Administration. The pipeline safety agency said a review identified challenges that occurred during previous responses to derailments.
“This final rule is necessary due to expansion in U.S. energy production having led to significant challenges for the country’s transportation system,” the agency said.
In 2014, the agency issued a report detailing the concerns of fire chiefs and emergency management officials in oil train accidents, including that emergency responders were not fully aware of resources available from railroads and other organizations that would be helpful in preparing for such disasters.
Rail carriers now will be required to provide information about oil trains to state and tribal emergency response agencies and identify someone to oversee each response zone along with organizations, crews and equipment that would be used in a “worst-case discharge.”
Environmentally sensitive areas along the route must be identified, along with the location where the response team will deploy and the location and description of equipment. A railroad must indicate whether information should be exempt from public disclosure due to security or proprietary concerns.
Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao said in a statement the rule “will make the transport of energy products by railroad safer.”
The greatest share of oil now moved by the nation’s 140,000-mile freight rail network goes from the Bakken oil patch of North Dakota and Montana to the West Coast.
In 2013, a runaway train carrying crude oil from North Dakota derailed in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, and exploded, killing 47 people. Other fiery crashes and fuel spills have occurred in Alabama, Illinois, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, Virginia, West Virginia and elsewhere.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/feds-requiring-regional-response-teams-to-oil-train-wrecks/2019/02/14/79242152-30b0-11e9-8781-763619f12cb4_story.html?utm_term=.50b9e5a929e0
-
DOT Boosts Emergency Planning for Oil by Rail
Feb 15, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The Department of Transportation has tightened emergency planning requirements for railroads hauling huge volumes of highly flammable crude oil.
Under a final rule issued yesterday, freight rail companies like BNSF Railway Co. and CSX Corp. will have to prepare "comprehensive oil spill response plans" when stringing together 20 or more tank cars full of oil.
Railroads' worst-case planning practices came under the spotlight following an oil train derailment and explosion in 2013 in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, that killed 47 people.
At that point, railroads carrying millions of gallons of crude in a single train did not have to file their plans for devastating spills or fires with regulators at the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
A loophole meant that companies were not required to keep track of vital emergency information such as available firefighting equipment and personnel along oil train routes (Energywire, April 22, 2014).
"This new rule will make the transport of energy products by railroad safer," U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao said in a statement.
The updated standards, drafted by PHMSA and the Federal Railroad Administration, take effect in six months. The regulations also require railroads to share information on oil train routes and volumes to state and local emergency response officials upon request, satisfying a mandate under the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act of 2015.
The final rule is also set to expand railroads' options for testing the initial boiling point of crude oil, a measure of its volatility.
Fred Millar, an independent hazardous materials consultant who has worked with environmental groups including Friends of the Earth, said the new rule did not address any major points for reducing hazmat risks, like routing decisions, speed and length of train consists.
"I think it's a distraction from what we really need to do," he said.
He pointed out that the information-sharing requirements don't necessarily mean people living near oil train routes will be kept in the loop. "There's some rhetoric about communicating with the public, but that is not really what's at stake here," he said. "It leaves the field open for [emergency planners] not to really communicate with the public at all."
Shipping crude by rail took off in the early 2010s as a way to keep pace with booming production from far-flung oil fields in the Bakken Shale play. As additional pipelines came online in places like North Dakota and Montana, crude-by-rail traffic dropped precipitously in 2015, and the United States experienced fewer corresponding derailments and fires.
But rail-bound oil shipments are on the upswing again in the United States, according to the most recent data available from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, more than doubling between November 2017 and November 2018 to 689,000 barrels per day. Much of the increase is coming from less explosive heavy crude imported from Canada, based on federal data.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/02/15/stories/1060121131
-
New York Threatens to Sue EPA over Interstate Ozone Air Petition
Feb 14, 2019 | Inside EPA
New York State is threatening to sue EPA to force the agency to grant or deny its Clean Air Act petition asking for direct federal regulation of air pollution sources in several upwind states that the Empire State says are responsible for much of its problems attaining federal ozone standards.
In a Nov. 7 letter to EPA, New York gives 60 days’ notice of its intent to sue EPA in federal district court to force the agency to respond to its March 12 petition for EPA to directly limit air emissions under Clean Air Act section 126 from sources in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia. The state says it will file its suit if EPA fails to issue a decision on the petition by their deadline.
Sources in these upwind states are contributing “significantly” to New York’s problems attaining and maintaining the 2008 and tougher 2015 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone, the state claims. The George W. Bush EPA set the 2008 ozone NAAQS at 75 parts per billion (ppb), which the Obama administration then tightened down to 70 ppb in 2015, requiring states to further cut emissions to attain the standard.
EPA missed a Nov. 9 deadline to respond to New York’s petition, a statutory deadline the agency already extended by six months from the 60 days allowed initially by the Clean Air Act.
EPA routinely misses its deadlines to respond to section 126 petitions, taking advantage of the extensions the air law allows. It has not granted such a petition under the Trump administration. The agency declined similar petitions from Maryland and Delaware that targeted multiple sources in several upwind states.
East Coast states have been pressing the Trump EPA to find solutions to interstate air pollution they cannot control themselves, filing section 126 petitions, seeking to expand the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) area of 12 northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states where tougher ozone controls apply than elsewhere, and challenging Trump EPA assertions that existing emissions trading programs for power plants will soon meet their objectives.
So far, the agency has resisted the pressure from coastal states to do more, arguing that all areas of the country outside of California will meet both the 2008 and 2015 ozone standards by 2023, and further steps to curb interstate ozone transport are therefore unnecessary. But some OTC-area states disagree, saying EPA’s projections are too optimistic, and 2023 is in any event beyond statutory attainment deadlines for states such as New York.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/new-york-threatens-sue-epa-over-interstate-ozone-air-petition
-
Bills Target Warming's Health Impacts, Carbon Removal
Feb 15, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Courtney Columbus
Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ed Markey and Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Matt Cartwright introduced legislation yesterday to address the impacts of climate change on public health.
The bill, one of several climate measures to emerge this week, would mandate a National Strategic Action Plan and a program to "ensure the public health and health care systems are prepared for and can respond to the impacts of climate change on health in the United States and other nations."
The process of creating the plan and program would involve consultation with a variety of agencies, Indian tribes, and state and local governments.
"Climate change is impacting our air quality, depleting our waterways, and raising food and health care costs for Americans," Cartwright said in a statement. He is vice chairman of the Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition.
"This bill is a necessary step towards protecting the health and well-being of families across the nation, especially those who live in our most vulnerable communities. I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve our nation's public health response to the disastrous effects of climate change," he added.
Separately, Markey introduced S. 477 along with Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.). The legislation would authorize NOAA to create a climate change education program.
The legislation would authorize $20 million in annual funding for the program from fiscal 2020 through 2025.
Several 2020 presidential candidates are co-sponsors of the measure, including Sens. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.).
H.R. 1166 by Reps. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) and David McKinley (R-W.Va.) would support technologies that remove and capture carbon from the air. Peters also introduced the bill during the last Congress.
"Congress must incentivize innovative approaches to solve America's — and the world's — most pressing energy challenges. The USE IT Act provides a step toward a clean energy economy by reducing emissions, diversifying our nation's energy resources, and spurring new technologies and uses for carbon," Peters said in a statement.
"It also offers a new approach to reducing carbon pollution: instead of releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, we can convert it into new uses," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/02/15/stories/1060121149
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested