Varying Government Response To Widespread Perchlorate Occurrence

Sep 13: The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report entitled, Perchlorate: Occurrence Is Widespread but at Varying Levels; Federal Agencies Have Taken Some Actions to Respond to and Lessen Releases (GAO-10-769,  August 12, 2010). The report was prepared at the request of Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), the Ranking Member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW).

 

    GAO reports that perchlorate is both a man-made and naturally occurring chemical. It is used in rocket fuel, explosives, fireworks, and other products. Naturally occurring perchlorate is produced through atmospheric processes and then settles on surface water or land. Perchlorate can disrupt the uptake of iodide in the thyroid, potentially interfering with thyroid function and negatively affecting fetal and infant brain development and growth. As of June 2010, there is no Federal regulatory standard for perchlorate in drinking water, and U.S. EPA, which has the authority to regulate contaminants in public drinking water systems, had not determined whether to establish one. The Department of Defense (DOD), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Department of Energy (DOE) are the primary Federal users of perchlorate.

 

    GAO was asked to examine: (1) what is known about the extent to which perchlorate occurs in the nation's water and food supply and its likely sources; (2) what actions DOD, NASA, and DOE have taken to respond to or lessen perchlorate releases; and, (3) what actions states, such as California and Massachusetts, have taken to regulate perchlorate. To address these questions, GAO analyzed data from EPA, DOD, NASA, and DOE, reviewed agency documents, and interviewed federal and state officials, researchers, and others. This report contains no recommendations.

 

   GAO found that perchlorate has been found in water and other media at varying levels in 45 states, as well as in the food supply, and comes from a variety of sources. EPA conducted one nationwide perchlorate sampling, between 2001 and 2005, and detected perchlorate at or above 4 parts per billion in 160 of the 3,865 public water systems tested (about 4.1 percent). In 31 of these 160 systems, perchlorate was found above 15 parts per billion, EPA's current "interim health advisory level." Sampling by DOD, NASA, and DOE detected perchlorate in drinking water, groundwater, surface water, soil, and sediment at some facilities. For example, GAO's analysis of DOD data showed that perchlorate was detected at almost 70 percent of the 407 installations sampled from fiscal years 1997 through 2009, with detections ranging from less than 1 part per billion to 2.6 million parts per billion. A 2006 Food and Drug Administration study found perchlorate in 74 percent of 285 food items tested, with certain foods, such as tomatoes and spinach, having higher perchlorate levels than others. According to researchers, concentrations of perchlorate at or above 100 parts per billion generally result from activities involving man-made perchlorate, such as the use of perchlorate as a rocket propellant. Lower concentrations can result from the use of man-made perchlorate, atmospheric processes, or the use of fertilizer containing naturally occurring perchlorate.

 

    According to DOD, NASA, and DOE officials, the agencies have sampled, monitored and, at several sites, begun cleaning up perchlorate. When DOD detects perchlorate at or above threshold levels—currently 15 parts per billion for water—DOD is to investigate further and may take additional actions. DOD has taken actions beyond initial sampling at 48 of the 53 installations with perchlorate detections above 15 parts per billion. NASA is in the midst of a cleanup at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California and is monitoring the level of perchlorate in groundwater at three other facilities. In addition, DOE is cleaning up perchlorate at two facilities involved in high explosives research, development, and testing and is monitoring the level of perchlorate in groundwater at two other facilities. According to DOD, NASA, and DOE officials, the perchlorate detected at their facilities is largely the result of past disposal practices. Officials at these agencies told us that by complying with current federal and state waste disposal laws and regulations, they have lessened their perchlorate releases. In addition, DOD is developing perchlorate substitutes for use in weapons simulators, flares, and rockets.

 

    In the absence of a federal regulatory standard for perchlorate in drinking water, California and Massachusetts have adopted their own standards. California adopted a drinking water standard of 6 parts per billion in 2007, and Massachusetts set a drinking water standard of 2 parts per billion in 2006. The key benefits of a regulatory standard cited by state officials include protecting public health and facilitating cleanup enforcement. However, limited information exists on the actual costs of regulating perchlorate in these states. Also, at least 10 other states have established guidance levels for perchlorate in drinking water (ranging from 1 to 18 parts per billion) or in groundwater.

 

    In April of this year U.S. EPA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a major 216-page report (plus appendices) entitled, Office of Inspector General Scientific Analysis of Perchlorate (April 19, 2010, No. 10-P-0101). OIG report that on February 18, 2005, EPA issued a perchlorate RfD that corresponds to a drinking water equivalent level of 24.5 parts per billion (ppb). The OIG analysis implemented a cumulative risk assessment that found the following among other items that EPA's perchlorate RfD is conservative and protective of human health, and further reducing the perchlorate exposure below the RfD does not effectively lower risk [See WIMS 4/20/10].

 

    Access the complete 63-page report (click here). Access the extensive 216-page OIG report (click here); and Appendix D (206-pages, click here) and Appendix E (81-pages, click here).

IAC Recommends Fundamental Reform In IPCC Climate Assessments

Aug 30: A new report from the InterAcademy Council (IAC), an Amsterdam-based organization of the world's science academies including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS), indicates that the process used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to produce its periodic assessment reports has been successful overall, but IPCC needs to fundamentally reform its management structure and strengthen its procedures to handle ever larger and increasingly complex climate assessments as well as the more intense public scrutiny coming from a world grappling with how best to respond to climate change.

 

    Harold Shapiro, president emeritus and professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University and chair of the committee that wrote the report said, "Operating under the public microscope the way IPCC does requires strong leadership, the continued and enthusiastic participation of distinguished scientists, an ability to adapt, and a commitment to openness if the value of these assessments to society is to be maintained."

 

    In a release the IAC indicates that The IPCC was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme to inform policy decisions through periodic assessments of what is known about the physical scientific aspects of climate change, its global and regional impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation. Representatives of 194 participating governments make up the Panel, which sets the scope of the assessments, elects the Bureau that oversees them, and approves the Summaries for Policymakers that accompany the massive assessment reports themselves, which are prepared by thousands of scientists who volunteer for three Working Groups.

 

    These assessment reports have gained IPCC much respect including a share of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. However, amid an increasingly intense public debate about the science of climate change and costs of curbing it, IPCC has come under closer scrutiny, and controversies have erupted over its perceived impartiality toward climate policy and the accuracy of its reports. This prompted U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and IPCC chair Rajendra K. Pachauri to issue a letter on March 10 this year requesting that the IAC review IPCC and recommend ways to strengthen the processes and procedures by which future assessments are prepared.

 

    The IAC report makes several recommendations to fortify IPCC's management structure, including establishing an executive committee to act on the Panel's behalf and ensure that an ongoing decision-making capability is maintained. To enhance its credibility and independence, the executive committee should include individuals from outside the IPCC or even outside the climate science community. IPCC also should appoint an executive director -- with the status of a senior scientist equal to that of the Working Group co-chairs -- to lead the Secretariat, handle day-to-day operations, and speak on behalf of the organization.

 

    Given that the IAC report was prompted in part by the revelation of errors in the last assessment, the committee examined IPCC's review process as well. It concluded that the process is thorough, but stronger enforcement of existing IPCC review procedures could minimize the number of errors. To that end, IPCC should encourage review editors to fully exercise their authority to ensure that all review comments are adequately considered. Review editors should also ensure that genuine controversies are reflected in the report and be satisfied that due consideration was given to properly documented alternative views. Lead authors should explicitly document that the full range of thoughtful scientific views has been considered.

 

    Additionally, the report indicates that the use of so-called gray literature from unpublished or non-peer-reviewed sources has been controversial, although often such sources of information and data are relevant and appropriate for inclusion in the assessment reports. Problems occur because authors do not follow IPCC's guidelines for evaluating such sources and because the guidelines themselves are too vague, the committee said. It recommended that these guidelines be made more specific -- including adding guidelines on what types of literature are unacceptable -- and strictly enforced to ensure that unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature is appropriately flagged. The committee also called for more consistency in how the Working Groups characterize uncertainty. In the last assessment, each Working Group used a different variation of IPCC's uncertainty guidelines, and the committee found that the guidance is not always followed.

 

    Also, among other recommendations the IAC indicated that IPCC's slow and inadequate response to revelations of errors in the last assessment, as well as complaints that its leaders have gone beyond IPCC's mandate to be "policy relevant, not policy prescriptive" in their public comments, have made communications a critical issue. The report recommends that IPCC complete and implement a communications strategy now in development. The strategy should emphasize transparency and include a plan for rapid but thoughtful response to crises.

 

    Access a lengthy release from IAC summarizing the recommendations (click here). Access the complete report (click here). Access a UN webcast (click here). Access an opening statement from Chairman Shapiro (click here). Access a statement from UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon (click here).

EPA Asks For Company Information On Hydraulic Fracturing

Sep 9: U.S. EPA announced that it has issued voluntary information requests to nine natural gas service companies regarding the process known as hydraulic fracturing. The Agency said the data requested is integral to a broad scientific study now underway by EPA, which Congress called for in 2009. The study is to determine whether hydraulic fracturing has an impact on drinking water and the public health of Americans living in the vicinity of hydraulic fracturing wells.

    In making the requests of the nine leading national and regional hydraulic fracturing service providers -- BJ Services, Complete Production Services, Halliburton, Key Energy Services, Patterson-UTI, RPC, Inc., Schlumberger, Superior Well Services, and Weatherford -- EPA is seeking information on the chemical composition of fluids used in the hydraulic fracturing process, data on the impacts of the chemicals on human health and the environment, standard operating procedures at their hydraulic fracturing sites and the locations of sites where fracturing has been conducted. The information will be used as the basis for gathering further detailed information on a representative selection of sites. 

    EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said, "This scientifically rigorous study will help us understand the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water -- a concern that has been raised by Congress and the American people. By sharing information about the chemicals and methods they are using, these companies will help us make a thorough and efficient review of hydraulic fracturing and determine the best path forward. Natural gas is an important part of our nation's energy future, and it's critical that the extraction of this valuable natural resource does not come at the expense of safe water and healthy communities. EPA will do everything in its power, as it is obligated to do, to protect the health of the American people and will respond to demonstrated threats while the study is underway."

    Hydraulic fracturing is a process in which large volumes of water, sand and chemicals are injected at high pressures to extract oil and natural gas from underground rock formations. The process creates fractures in formations such as shale rock, allowing natural gas or oil to escape into the well and be recovered. During the past few years, the use of hydraulic fracturing has expanded across much of the country.

    EPA announced in March that it will study the potential adverse impact that hydraulic fracturing may have on drinking water [See WIMS 3/19/10]. To solicit input on the scope of the study, EPA is holding a series of public meetings in major oil and gas production regions to hear from citizens, independent experts and industry. The initial results of the study will be announced in late 2012. EPA will identify additional information for industry to provide -- including information on fluid disposal practices and geological features -- that will help EPA carry out the study.

    EPA has requested the information be provided on a voluntary basis within 30 days, and has asked the companies to respond within seven days to inform the Agency whether they will provide all of the information sought. The data being sought is similar to information that has already been provided separately to Congress by the industry. Therefore, EPA expects the companies to cooperate with these voluntary requests. If not, EPA is prepared to use its authorities to require the information needed to carry out its study. EPA said it is currently working with state and local governments who play an important role in overseeing and regulating fracturing operations and are at the forefront of protecting local air and water quality from adverse impacts.

 

    Access a release from EPA (click here). Access the letter on the voluntary information request (click here). Access EPA's Hydraulic Fracturing website for more information (click here). Access more information on the Science Advisory Board hydraulic fracturing review committee and the supporting documents (click here).

DOI Review Calls For Offshore Oil & Gas Operations Reforms

Sep 8: Department of Interior (DOI) Secretary Ken Salazar announced that a team led by senior officials at DOI, including Interior's Inspector General, have completed a review of offshore oil and gas oversight and regulation and have delivered a set of recommendations that reinforce and expand on ongoing reforms being carried out by Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE) Director Michael Bromwich. The report of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Safety Oversight Board, which Secretary Salazar established immediately following the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig, provides recommendations to strengthen permitting, inspections, enforcement and environmental stewardship. Director Bromwich announced that BOEMRE has developed an implementation plan for the recommendations, many of which are already underway or planned.

    Secretary Salazar said, "I tasked the OCS Safety Board with taking a hard, thorough look -- top to bottom -- at how this department regulates and oversees offshore oil and gas operations and provide me their honest and unvarnished recommendations for reform. The report is what I was looking for: it is honest; it doesn't sugarcoat challenges we know are there; it provides a blueprint for solving them; and it shows that we are on precisely the right track with our reform agenda. We are absolutely committed to building a regulatory agency that has the authorities, resources, and support to provide strong and effective regulation and oversight -- and we are on our way to accomplishing that goal."

    DOI indicated in a release that the Safety Oversight Board's findings and recommendations provide a framework to build upon reforms to create more accountability, efficiency and effectiveness in the Interior agencies that carry out the Department's offshore energy management responsibilities. The recommendations address both short- and long-term efforts that complement other ongoing reports and reviews, such as the Secretary's May 27 report to the President, the Presidential inquiry into the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and the U.S. Coast Guard-Interior investigation into the causes of the incident.

    The recommendations range from improved consistency and communication of BOEMRE's operational policies to technology improvements and day-to-day management in the field. Strengthening inspections and enforcement -- from personnel training to the deterrent effect of fines and civil penalties -- is a major focus of the recommendations. BOEMRE's implementation plan outlines the initiatives and programs that the Bureau is undertaking which address the report's recommendations, including: reorganizing MMS to address real and perceived conflicts between resource management, safety and environmental oversight and enforcement, and revenue collection responsibilities; seeking additional resources in the form of funding, personnel, equipment and information systems; ethics reforms that include the establishment of an Investigations and Review Unit and a new recusal policy to address potential conflicts of interests within BOEMRE and industry; and Inter-Agency coordination with Federal agencies related to oil spill response and the mitigation of environmental effects of offshore energy development.

    The DOI review and recommendations follow the release on September 7 of the recommendations of two U.S. oil and natural gas industry task forces on preventing oil spills, enhancing oil spill response and improving subsea well control. Those recommendations are part of a comprehensive effort led by the American Petroleum Institute (API) to strengthen all aspects of offshore safety, while continuing to produce energy and create jobs for Americans.

    The two task forces provided more than 50 recommendations. They include recommendations for quicker and more effective methods for capping a runaway well to recommendations for how to better remove oil from the water and keep it from coming ashore. In May, two other industry task forces provided recommendations to the Department of the Interior on industry operating procedures and equipment. And one of those has recently followed up with a new recommendation for offshore operators and drilling contractors to employ a well construction interfacing document that would integrate all aspects of safety management systems.

    Access a release from DOI with links to the OCS Safety Oversight Board Report and the BOEM Implementation Plan (click here). Access a release from API and link to the task force documents (click here).

President's $50 Billion Infrastructure Plan; Republicans Oppose

Sep 6: In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, President Obama announced a comprehensive infrastructure plan to expand and renew our nation's roads, railways and runways. The White House said the proposal is among a set of targeted initiatives that the President will outline in Cleveland on Wednesday (September 8) to support our economic recovery and ensure long-term sustainable growth. The plan builds upon the infrastructure investments the President has already made through the Recovery Act, includes principles the President put forth during the campaign, and emphasizes American competitiveness and innovation. 

 

    The President said, "I am announcing a new plan for rebuilding and modernizing America's roads and rails and runways for the long term.  (Applause.)  I want America to have the best infrastructure in the world. We used to have the best infrastructure in the world.  We can have it again.  We are going to make it happen. Over the next six years, over the next six years, we are going to rebuild 150,000 miles of our roads -- that's enough to circle the world six times. That's a lot of road. We're going to lay and maintain 4,000 miles of our railways -- enough to stretch coast to coast. We're going to restore 150 miles of runways. And we're going to advance a next-generation air-traffic control system to reduce travel time and delays for American travelers. . .

 

    "This is a plan that will be fully paid for. It will not add to the deficit over time -- we're going to work with Congress to see to that. We want to set up an infrastructure bank to leverage federal dollars and focus on the smartest investments. We're going to continue our strategy to build a national high-speed rail network that reduces congestion and travel times and reduces harmful emissions. . . But the bottom line is this, Milwaukee -- this will not only create jobs immediately, it's also going to make our economy hum over the long haul. It's a plan that history tells us can and should attract bipartisan support. . ."

 

    House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) issued a statement on the stimulus spending plan President Obama outlined in Milwaukee and said, "As the American people, facing near double-digit unemployment, mark Labor Day by asking, where are the jobs, the White House has chosen to double-down on more of the same failed 'stimulus' spending. Eighteen months ago, the Administration promised that if we passed their trillion-dollar 'stimulus' it would create jobs 'immediately' and keep unemployment below eight percent. Instead, millions of Americans have lost their jobs, and unemployment is approaching 10 percent. If we've learned anything from the past 18 months, it's that we can't spend our way to prosperity. We don't need more government 'stimulus' spending -- we need to end Washington Democrats' out-of-control spending spree, stop their tax hikes, and create jobs by eliminating the job-killing uncertainty that is hampering our small businesses."

 

    U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) issued a statement on what he called "the administration's latest stimulus and tax hike proposal for infrastructure spending" and said, "After the administration pledged that a trillion dollars in borrowed stimulus money would create 4 million jobs and keep the unemployment rate under 8 percent, their latest plan for another stimulus should be met with justifiable skepticism. After failing to deliver on their economic promises for more than 18 months, the administration wants to do it again--this time with higher taxes for even more new spending. Americans are rightly skeptical about Washington Democrats asking for more of their money -- and their patience; after all, they're still looking for the 'shovel-ready' jobs they were promised more than a year ago. A last-minute, cobbled-together stimulus bill with more than $50 billion in new tax hikes will not reverse the complete lack of confidence Americans have in Washington Democrats' ability to help this economy."

   

    Today (September 8) the President was delivering remarks between 2-4 PM outlining a set of targeted initiatives to support economic recovery and ensure long-term sustainable growth at the Cuyahoga Community College West Campus in Cleveland, Ohio. The President proposed a research and development tax credit and investment tax credits for business development in the U.S. Before the White House had posted the text of the speech or further details, the Republican Senate and House leaders issued statements opposing the plan.

 

    Representative Boehner said, "If the president is serious about finally focusing on jobs, a good start would be taking the advice of his recently departed budget director and freezing all tax rates, coupled with cutting federal spending to where it was before all the bailouts, government takeovers, and 'stimulus' spending sprees." Senator McConnell said, "If the President wanted to have an immediate impact on hiring, he could begin by changing his mind and announcing today his opposition to the job-killing tax hikes on small businesses. America's job creators have already been hit with higher health care costs and related taxes, new bureaucracy and a financial regulation bill. Americans want jobs, not more government, more debt and more taxes. Let's start today with a declarative statement against tax hikes on the small businesses that are critical to expand and create jobs."

 

    Access the full text of the President's Milwaukee speech (click here). Access a White House fact sheet on the proposal (click here). Access a White House blog posting from Ray LaHood Secretary of Transportation on the proposal with links to related information and video (click here). Access the statement from Representative Boehner (click here). Access the statement from Senator McConnell (click here).

Day 139 BP Oil Spill: BOP & Booms Removed

Sep 7: On September 4, Thad Allen, National Incident Commander for the BP oil spill announced that BP had successfully changed out the Blow Out Preventers (BOP) on the Macondo Well. The BOP Lower Marine Riser Package is being transported by the Q4000 closer to shore where both Lower Marine Riser Package and Blow Out Preventer was transferred to other vessels for transfer to the area where the BOP was taken into custody and is now part of the evidence material that's been required by the joint investigative team and is being done under the supervision of the Department of Justice. Law enforcement personnel were onboard the vessels supervising each step as well as documented with ROV coverage.  At the well itself monitoring of the well continues and there have been no anomalies associated with the well.

    Development Driller II has placed a new BOP on the well head which is being flushed with fluids and BP is replacing the riser pipe. Allen said the new riser pipe would create "the complete functionality of the riser pipe connect to the BOP to this well as if it were a functioning well itself with the BOP on top. At that point, in fact, where we are at now with the new BOP on the well is we basically have secured this well as we would any well that was under production and then being closed out with a kill. There is cement in the well casing itself. There's a Blow Out Preventer that has been pressure tested on top. And we have essentially eliminated the threat of discharge from the well at this point."

    Allen said there are a series of events that will be taking place throughout the next several days that actually create a transition from controlling the source of the spill to "plugging an abandonment" which is a regulatory term used by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) in supervising how a well is put into a reserve status.

    He said once the control of the source and the final steps to plug and abandon the well are achieved the operation will shift to the oversight of the Department of Interior and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. And when there is no further threat of discharge in the well and it has been killed it will no longer be under the purview of Allen as a National Incident Commander -- it will shift to the Department of Energy at that point.  

    Allen explained that following some diagnostics to further understand the condition of the well the science team in conjunction with the Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management will make a decision on the next couple of steps. Work will begin again on the relief well and bottom kill operations this week. 

    On September 7, the Unified Command announced that all of the "hard (containment) boom" deployed as part of the Federal-led response in Mississippi, Alabama and the Florida Panhandle has now been recovered. The Incident Command Post (ICP) at Mobile announced that more than 1.6 million feet of hard boom has been removed from those state waters. Crews are currently in the process of removing the remaining fragments of storm-damaged hard boom from areas where it was stranded. ICP said the boom now posed potentially more risk than it offered protection for shorelines. During the oil spill response, a total of more than 3.7 million feet of hard boom was placed at critical points to protect wildlife refuges, estuaries, beaches, marshes and other environmentally sensitive and economically significant lands throughout the Gulf Coast.

    On August 27, NOAA reopened 4,281 square miles of Gulf waters off western Louisiana to commercial and recreational fishing; and then again on September 3, the Agency reopened another 3,114 square miles of Gulf waters offshore of the western Florida panhandle. The closed area now covers 39,885 square miles, or about 17 percent of the Federal waters in the Gulf, which was 37 percent at its height on June 2. On September 7, NOAA and other agencies released a report finding decreased, but stabilized levels of dissolved oxygen in Gulf areas with subsurface oil. They said there were no "dead zones" observed or expected as part of the BJP Deepwater Horizon oil spill (See related article in this report).

    On September 7, BP announced that The Deepwater Horizon accident investigation report prepared by BP's internal investigation team on the causes of the Gulf of Mexico tragedy, is expected to be published tomorrow at 7:00 AM EDT. When published, the full report will be available on the BP website (see below). BP also announced it is providing $10 million to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under its Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative (GRI) to support a study of potential public health issues relating to the Gulf oil spill and other spill-related health research. The GRI is a 10-year, $500 million independent research program established by BP to better understand and mitigate the environmental and potential health effects of the Gulf spill.

    Access the transcript of the September 4 briefing (click here). Access the latest NOAA fishing area report (click here). Access a release from NOAA on the dissolved oxygen report (click here). Access more information on BP activities from the BP response website (click here). Access the Restore the Gulf website for more information (click here).

Day 121 BP Oil Spill: Maybe A "Kill" Labor Day Week; 22-Mile Plume

Aug 20: At the August 19, press briefing, Thad Allen, National Incident Commander explained that over the last week or so that intense negotiations and discussions between the government science, team headed by Energy Secretary Steven Chu and the BP engineers in Houston have taken place regarding the so-called "bottom kill" operation to intercept the well bore with a relief well and permanently close the well with mud and cement.

 

    Allen explained that the central point of discussion has revolved around the likelihood of pressure building in the annulus between the well and well bore at the time of intersection. The consultations thus far revolved around two potential scenarios. One involves going ahead and intersecting the annulus with the current blow out preventer and the capping stack in place. The other one is to replace the current blow out preventer and capping stack with a new blow out preventer prior to conducting the intersect. 

 

    He said that as those discussions were taking place, BP was directed to prepare the blow out preventer on Development Driller II -- the one that's associated with the second relief well -- for use as a blow out preventer, should it be needed. BP was also directed to flush out the current blow out preventer and capping stack, clean it out and fill it with sea water in anticipation of an ambient test with sea water in the BOP that is the same liquid that we have outside the BOP to allow us to do a more accurate pressure test. He said those operations have been completed and late August 18, the decision was made to proceed to remove the current blow out preventer and capping stack, replace it with a new blow preventer in advance of the well kill subject to conditions.
 
    Allen said the ambient pressure testing would take approximately 48 hours (i.e. ending August 21) and if there are no anomalies and no hydrocarbons present, then they would conduct what is being called a "fishing experiment." He said, "We are going to actually put a drill bit down in the blow out preventer and attempt to extract the drill pipe. The reason we want to try and extract the drill pipe that reduces the risk that when we remove the blow out preventer and put the new one on, there won't be an (off score) or some kind of a bar to having a seal with the new blow out preventer. And we have told BP you need to do the ambient test, conduct the fishing experiment, come back to us with the results and then we will proceed after that. . ."

    Allen said all of the operations have been done with an "overabundance of caution related to minimizing risk associated with the intersection of the well." He said, "We are very, very close to the end. This gets to be a very, very complex evolution and there are no black and white choices here and this has required a significant amount of discussion. . . At the press brief yesterday someone asked about a timeline, I said there was no timeline at the present and that was true.  There remains a sequence of events that will be carried out. They are conditions based. When we take one step and we are successful, we will move to the next step. Should all these steps prove successful and we move towards the eventual intersection of the well, that could take place sometime the week after Labor Day.

 

Researchers Find "Conclusively" A 22-Mile Gulf Oil Plume 

 

Aug 19: Scientists at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) have detected a plume of hydrocarbons that is at least 22 miles long and more than 3,000 feet below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, a residue of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The 1.2-mile-wide, 650-foot-high plume of trapped hydrocarbons provides at least a partial answer to recent questions asking where all the oil has gone as surface slicks shrink and disappear [See WIMS 8/17/10]. Christopher Reddy, a WHOI marine geochemist and oil spill expert and one of the authors of the study, which appears in the August 19 issue of the journal Science said, "These results indicate that efforts to book keep where the oil went must now include this plume" in the Gulf. 

    The researchers measured distinguishing petroleum hydrocarbons in the plume and, using them as an investigative tool, determined that the source of the plume could not have been natural oil seeps but had to have come from the blown out well. Moreover, they reported that deep-sea microbes were degrading the plume relatively slowly, and that it was possible that the plume had and will persist for some time.

    The WHOI team based its findings on some 57,000 discrete chemical analyses measured in real time during a June 19-28 scientific cruise aboard the R/V Endeavor, which is owned by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and operated by the University of Rhode Island. They accomplished their feat using two highly advanced technologies: the autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) Sentry and a type of underwater mass spectrometer known as TETHYS (Tethered Yearlong Spectrometer). Richard Camilli of WHOI's Applied Ocean Physics and Engineering Department, chief scientist of the cruise and lead author of the paper said, "We've shown conclusively not only that a plume exists, but also defined its origin and near-field structure. Until now, these have been treated as a theoretical matter in the literature."

 

    Camilli said, the plume has shown that the oil already "is persisting for longer periods than we would have expected. Many people speculated that subsurface oil droplets were being easily biodegraded. Well, we didn't find that. We found it was still there." Reddy said, "Whether the plume's existence poses a significant threat to the Gulf is not yet clear, the researchers say. We don't know how toxic it is and we don't know how it formed, or why. But knowing the size, shape, depth, and heading of this plume will be vital for answering many of these questions."

   

    Access the transcript of the August 19 press briefing with Q&As (click here). Access more information on BP activities from the BP response website (click here). Access the Restore the Gulf website for more information (click here). [*Energy/OilSpill]

Access a lengthy release on the WHOI research with pictures, graphics and video (click here).

EPA Sets Dates For Hearings On Coal Ash Regulations

Aug 19: The U.S. EPA announced that it will be hosting seven public hearings on the Agency's controversial proposal to regulate the disposal and management of coal ash from coal-fired power plants. On May 4, U.S. EPA announced it was proposing the first-ever national rules to ensure the safe disposal and management of coal ash from coal-fired power plants. Coal ash, are byproducts of the combustion of coal at power plants and are disposed of in liquid form at large surface impoundments and in solid form at landfills. The residuals contain contaminants like mercury, cadmium and arsenic, which are associated with cancer and various other serious health effects. EPA's risk assessment and damage cases demonstrate that, without proper protections, these contaminants can leach into groundwater and can migrate to drinking water sources, posing significant health public concerns [See WIMS 5/4/10].

 

    On July 29, U.S. Representative Rick Boucher (D-VA) and 30 Members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce sent a letter to U.S. EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, expressing his strong opposition to an EPA proposal to regulate coal combustion residuals (i.e. coal ash) [See WIMS 8/2/10]. Among other things, Boucher said, EPA regulation of coal ash as a hazardous waste could have the effect of destroying jobs by preventing the recycling of coal ash into useful construction products like cement and wall board. Among the signers to the letter were Michigan Representatives Bart Stupak (D) and Fred Upton (R).

 

    EPA said that each hearing will begin at 10:00 AM and continue until 9:00 PM with a break at noon and 5:00 PM local time. The hearings will continue past 9:00 PM if necessary. People who wish for a guaranteed slot to speak must register no later than three business days before each hearing (See link below). Additionally, walk-ins and written comments will be accepted at each hearing. The Agency will consider the public's comments in its final decision.

    The hearings are scheduled for: August 30: Hyatt Regency, 2799 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA; September 2: Grand Hyatt, 1750 Welton Street, Denver, CO; September 8: Hyatt Regency Dallas, 300 Reunion Boulevard, Dallas, TX; September 14: Holiday Inn Charlotte (Airport), 2707 Little Rock Road, Charlotte, NC; September 16: Hilton Chicago, 720 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL; September 21: Omni Hotel, 530 William Penn Place, Pittsburgh, PA; and September 28: Seelbach Hilton, 500 Fourth Street, Louisville, KY.

    EPA said the need for national management criteria and regulation was emphasized by the December 2008 spill of coal ash from a surface impoundment near Kingston, TN. EPA indicated that the proposal would ensure for the first time that protective controls, such as liners and ground water monitoring, are in place at new landfills to protect groundwater and human health. Existing surface impoundments will also require liners, with strong incentives to close these impoundments and transition to safer landfills which store coal ash in dry form. The proposed regulations would ensure stronger oversight of the structural integrity of impoundments and promote environmentally safe and desirable forms of recycling coal ash, known as beneficial uses. EPA has proposed two main management approaches, one of which phases out surface impoundments and moves all coal ash to landfills; the other allows coal ash to be disposed in surface impoundments, but with stricter safety criteria.

    Access a release from EPA on the meetings (click here). Access EPA's docket on the coal ash regulations (click here). Access more information about the proposed regulation (click here). Access pre-register information by calling (703) 308-8429 or online (click here). Access more information about the proposed regulation (click here). Access a chart comparing the two proposed approaches (click here).

62 Companies "Road Test" Two New GHG Protocol Standards

Aug 17: A release from World Resources Institute (WRI) indicates that more than 60 companies have completed the "road testing" of new global standards designed to help measure the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of their products and supply chains. Developed by WRI and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), the two new GHG Protocol standards -- the Product Lifecycle Accounting and Reporting Standard and the Scope 3 (Corporate Value Chain) Accounting and Reporting Standard -- provide methods to account for emissions associated with individual products across their life-cycles and of corporations across their value chains.

    The 62 companies from multiple sectors and 17 countries started road testing the standards in January. In June, they submitted written feedback on their usability along with final GHG inventory reports. A summary of the feedback is posted on the GHG Protocol website. Jennifer Morgan, director of WRI's Climate and Energy Program said, "The road testing experience illustrates how developing rules around measurement, reporting, and verification involves complex technical and policy decisions that need real-world feedback to ensure the right balance is achieved between rigor and ease of use while keeping in view the capacity of both experienced and new users. The GHG Protocol approach to develop international standards provides us a model on how we might want to pursue the development of rules on tracking emissions at the country-level as well."

    The companies that road tested the Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard reported they had little difficulty completing an inventory in conformance with the requirements and found the guidance provided in the draft helpful. The companies that road tested the Scope 3 Accounting and Reporting Standard found it achievable to complete a Scope 3 inventory and many companies believe it practical to complete one on an annual basis.

    The road testers shared similar views on the business value of using the standards. Most road testers agree that the standards help in identifying GHG reduction opportunities and prioritizing reduction efforts; engaging suppliers and enabling supply chain GHG management; understanding risks and opportunities associated with emissions in the supply chain; creating competitive advantage and product differentiation; and improving credibility and transparency in GHG reporting. The next steps will be to revise the standards based on feedback from the road testers as well as the Steering Committee and Technical Working Groups. The revised standards will be released at the end of September for a 30 day public comment period. The text will be finalized at the end of 2010 and the final versions will be published by March 2011.

    Companies that participated in the road testing exercise include: 3M, Abengoa, Acer Inc, Airbus S.A.S, AkzoNobel, Alcoa, Amcor, Ampacet, Anvil Knitwear, Inc., Autodesk, Inc., Baoshan Iron & Steel Co. Ltd, BASF SE, Belron International, Bloomberg LP, BT plc, Coca-Cola Erfrischungsgetränke AG, Danisco A/S, Deutsche Post DHL, Deutsche Telekom AG, DuPont, Ecolab, Ford Motor Company, General Electric, Gold'n Plump Poultry, LLC, Herman Miller, Inc, IKEA, Italcementi Group, JohnsonDiversey, Kraft Foods, Kun Shan Tai Ying Paint Co, Ltd., Lenovo, Levi Strauss & Co., Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation, National Grid, New Belgium Brewing¸ Ocean Spray Cranberries, Otarian, PE International, PepsiCo, Inc., Pfizer, Pinchin Environmental Ltd., PricewaterhouseCoopers (Hong Kong), Procter & Gamble Eurocor, Public Service Enterprise Group, Inc., Rogers Communications, SAP AG, SC Johnson, Shanghai Zidan Food Packaging and Printing Co., Ltd., Shell International Petroleum Company Ltd., Siemens AG, Suzano Pulp and Paper, Swire Beverages, TAL Apparel Limited, Tech-Front (Shanghai) Computer Co., Ltd. / Quanta Shanghai Manufacturing City, Veolia Water, Verso Paper Corp., Webcor Builders, WorldAutoSteel.

    Access a release from WRI (click here). Access the GHG Protocol website (click here).

Day 118 BP Oil Spill: 75% Gone; 79% Left; Confused?

Aug 16: A report released on August 16, by the Georgia Sea Grant and the University of Georgia concludes that up to 79 percent of the oil released into the Gulf of Mexico from the Deepwater Horizon well has not been recovered and remains a threat to the ecosystem. Perhaps that sounds confusing because on August 4, the Federal government issued a report indicating that the vast majority of the oil from the BP oil spill (i.e. approximately 75 percent) had either evaporated or been burned, skimmed, recovered from the wellhead or dispersed -- much of which is in the process of being degraded [See WIMS 8/4/10]. At the time the government report was release officials said a significant amount of the removal was "the direct result of the robust federal response efforts." 

    The differences are significant because the percentages must be applied to the latest government estimate released by the Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG) on August 2, indicating that 4.9 million barrels -- nearly 206 million gallons -- of oil were released into the Gulf by the BP leak. The University of Georgia report also corrects that figure and says that it uses a figure of 4.1 million barrels since .8 million barrels were piped directly from the well to surface ships and, therefore, never entered Gulf waters.

    The University of Georgia report, authored by five prominent marine scientists, strongly contradicts media reports that suggest that only 25 percent of the oil from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill remains. Charles Hopkinson, director of Georgia Sea Grant and professor of marine sciences in the University of Georgia Franklin College of Arts and Sciences said, "One major misconception is that oil that has dissolved into water is gone and, therefore, harmless. The oil is still out there, and it will likely take years to completely degrade. We are still far from a complete understanding of what its impacts are."

    Co-authors on the paper include Jay Brandes, associate professor, Skidaway Institute of Oceanography; Samantha Joye, professor of marine sciences, UGA; Richard Lee, professor emeritus, Skidaway; and Ming-yi Sun, professor of marine sciences UGA. The group analyzed data from the August 2, National Incident Command Report, which calculated an "oil budget" that was widely interpreted to suggest that only 25 percent of the oil from the spill remained.

    Hopkinson notes that the reports arrive at different conclusions largely because the Sea Grant and UGA scientists estimate that the vast majority of the oil classified as dispersed, dissolved or residual is still present, whereas the NIC report has been interpreted to suggest that only the "residual" form of oil is still present. Hopkinson said that his group also estimated how much of the oil could have evaporated, degraded or weathered as of the date of the report. Using a range of reasonable evaporation and degradation estimates, the group calculated that 70-79 percent of oil spilled into the Gulf still remains. The group showed that "it was impossible for all the dissolved oil to have evaporated because only oil at the surface of the ocean can evaporate into the atmosphere and large plumes of oil are trapped in deep water."

    On a positive note, the group said that natural processes continue to transform, dilute, degrade and evaporate the oil. They add that circular current known as the Franklin Eddy is preventing the Loop Current from bringing oil-contaminated water from the Gulf to the Atlantic, which bodes well for the East Coast. Professor Joye said that both the NIC report and the Sea Grant report are best estimates and emphasizes the need for a sustained and coordinated research effort to better understand the impacts of what has become the world's worst maritime oil spill. She warned that neither report accounted for hydrocarbon gasses such as methane in their oil budgets. She said, "That's a gaping hole because hydrocarbon gasses are a huge portion of what was ejected from the well."

    Marine scientist Professor Joye and other faculty members directly involved in assessing the impacts of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill have been holding regular briefings for media since June 22. Joye continues to provide regular updates on her research findings through her widely read blog (see contact below). Joye is an expert in the cycling of nutrients, metals, and organic materials between the living and non-living components of the ecosystem (a field known as biogeochemistry) as well as microbial ecology, metabolism and physiology. She has conducted research in the Gulf of Mexico for about 15 years. When the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded on April 20, she was coordinating a research mission aboard a NOAA-funded research vessel that was just 8 miles from the disaster site.

    At an August 16, press briefing Thad Allen, National Incident Commander (NIC) explained in some details the current status of the BP attempt to intercept the well and conduct the so-called "bottom kill." He explained that BP engineers and the government's science team are working to look at test results and do investigations to define the best way to mitigate any risk of intercepting the annulus and increasing the pressure in the annulus. He said, "We want to make sure before I give the order and direct BP to do that, that we know the implications of that pressure, and how we will deal with it. There're basically two courses of action that are being looked at right now and at the same time we are continuing to do what we call a near ambient pressure test on the blow out preventer." The science team was scheduled to meet late yesterday and then would brief Secretary Chu and Secretary Salazar.  And the science team and Secretary Chu will make a recommendation on how to proceed. 

    Access a release from University of Georgia (click here). Access the complete Georgia Sea Grant/University of Georgia Oil Spill report (click here). Access figures from the report (click here). Access the Gulf Oil Blog by Professor Joye (click here). Access the latest NIC press briefing transcript with details on the intercept options (click here). Access more information on BP activities from the BP response website (click here). Access the Restore the Gulf website for more information (click here).

Day 117 BP Oil Spill: "Turning The Corner In the Gulf"

Aug 16: In a blog posting on the White House website, Carol Browner the Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, provided an update on the progress the Administration has made in responding to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and said, "we're beginning to turn the corner in the Gulf." Browner also announce a live chat with Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), about the safety of seafood from the region. The chat was scheduled to begin at 2 PM EDT today.

    Browner said, "I'm pleased to report that no oil has leaked into the Gulf of Mexico since July 15, and because of the progress we've made capping the well, we don't anticipate that any additional oil will spill into the Gulf. We also have new information about the effectiveness of the Federal Government's response to the spill: Recently, government scientists released a report stating that the vast majority of the oil that spilled into the Gulf has evaporated, skimmed, burned off, been recovered from the wellhead or dispersed [See WIMS 8/4/10].

 

   "Over the weekend, President Obama and the First Lady travelled to Panama City, Florida and met with small business owners to discuss the impact the oil spill has had on their businesses. While we're beginning to turn the corner, it's clear that we still have a lot of work to do for the individuals, families and businesses in the region that have been impacted by this spill. We will hold BP accountable for the damage this spill has caused to the environment and the economy. We will not rest until the delicate ecosystems along the Gulf Coast and the people who call this region home have been made whole.

 

    "The men and women of the Gulf who make their livelihood harvesting fish, shrimp and oysters have been among those hardest hit by this spill. And I know many of you may have questions about the safety of seafood from the Gulf of Mexico. The Federal Government is paying close attention to the safety of seafood in the Gulf. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and NOAA, working closely with the states, are closely monitoring and testing the Gulf waters so they can be reopened as soon as they become safe. Seafood from these open areas is safe for you and your family to eat. In fact, if you're looking for a simple way to support the people of the Gulf who have been battered by this spill, enjoying some local seafood is one of the best things you can do."

 

    In a follow-up to last week's report that the static kill (from the top) may have permanently closed the well, Thad Allen, National Incident Commander (NIC) said in a briefing on Saturday, ". . .we have advised BP and I will be issuing a directive that will tell them to proceed with the relief well in the bottom kill, if you will. Prior to that, though, I will issue an order to BP this afternoon.  I've already communicated with their senior leadership, that required them to do some tests ahead of the time so we can make sure that we've accounted for any potential risk associated with the bottom kill. We're going to continue the -- what we call the near ambient pressure test, that is testing the pressure currently in the blowout preventer and the capping stack and we're going to continue to take pressure readings off of that.  We've also asked BP to provide us an analysis of the risks associated with the annulus and any risk associated that might cause communication between the reservoir and the annulus."

 

    Allen said, "Right now, the drill bit is at 3-1/2 feet away from the Macondo well and about 50 feet above the intercept point and they will be ready to go as soon as we give the order. In the meantime, we're going to conduct this ambient pressure test and analysis of the stability of the well to make sure that as we move forward we know exactly what we can expect and we have the best conversation we can have between the federal science team and the BP engineers. . . I would advise everybody, we're still dealing with part of the well that we can't see and only know from pressure readings and external indications what the condition is and we will not know until we actually intercept the well.

 

    Also, today (August 16), BP announced that it is providing $52 million to Federal and state health organizations to fund behavioral health support and outreach programs across the US Gulf Coast region. Specifically, BP is providing funding to five agencies, one at the federal level and one in each of the affected states. The funding is designed to help residents link up with support that is available through providers in their communities, through a variety of local outreach programs and a special toll free phone line where people can turn for information on available services. Lamar McKay, President of BP America and incoming leader of the Gulf Coast Restoration Organization said, "We appreciate that there is a great deal of stress and anxiety across the region and as part of our determination to make things right for the people of the region, we are providing this assistance now to help make sure individuals who need help know where to turn." 

 

    Additionally, NIC Allen announced the deployment of 19 additional Economic Assessment and Evaluation Teams to communities affected by the oil spill. The interagency teams will work with communities in Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, and Texas to help them orient to their economic situation, develop action steps, and will offer guidance geared towards spearheading post-event economic recovery efforts. Brian McGowan, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development, who is coordinating the interagency National Incident Command Economic Solutions Team said, "Communities along the Gulf Coast are facing difficult and uncertain economic times. The Obama administration is committed to helping the region regain its economic footing and these assessments are one important step in the process to get local residents and the economy working again. This effort will help ensure a collaborative recovery process that targets resources and optimizes economic recovery efforts." Two pilot teams have already been deployed to communities in Louisiana, for a total of 21 teams.

 

    Access the White House blog for the Carol Browner posting (click here, posted soon). Access a lengthy speech from the President delivered in Panama City, FL (click here). Access links to the NOAA chat (click here). Access the full text of the NIC press briefing from Saturday (click here). Access the NIC order to BP (click here). Access a release from BP with further details on the $52 million funding (click here). Access an NIC release on the Evaluation Teams (click here).

Day 114 BP Oil Spill: Well May Be Permanently Plugged

Aug 13: In the evening of August 12, BP reported that, operating with the guidance and approval of the National Incident Commander (NIC), it had completed the four-hour near ambient pressure test on the MC252 well in the Gulf of Mexico. The results were under review on August 13 between BP and the Federal science team and a recommendation on the path forward is expected to go to the NIC.

 

    Yesterday afternoon, at a press briefing National Incident Commander Thad Allen explained the importance of the pressure testing and indicated, in fact they may show that the well is already "killed" or permanently closed from the top and bottom. In response to a question, Allen said, "We may be the victims of our own success here in that once they looked at the results of the cementing from the static kill from the top they raised the question of whether or not the cement that entered the reservoir might have actually gone back up the annulus and sealed that. We think this is a low probability outcome. But we didn't want to pass by it and not actually consider it just in case that happened because if you start pumping mud into the annulus and there is a seal on the bottom there is no communication with the reservoir it would travel up the annulus to the point where it goes to the hangar at the top which is where the -- all of the casing and everything is suspended from and with enough pressure there is a way for that hangar to rise and the seal to open which would move it up into the blow out preventer and the capping stack. . ."

    So, in response to a question -- Based on the results of the pressure test in response to a question does that mean you don't have to intercept the well? -- Allen said, "We would have the option not to do that. The decision not to do that would have to be accompanied by the analysis of the risks and that would be based on the results of the pressure tests that are being run right now. I wouldn't rule out anything at this point. We think it's a low probability that we would not finish the relief well and cement but we need to run the test and analyze the data. . ."

    In response to a follow-up question -- "Basically you're saying you may not do the bottom kill because as everyone's always been saying that will be final kill. That may not be the case now?" -- Allen replied, "No, the bottom kill is the bottom kill. The question is did we somehow accomplish part of that through the top kill with the cement going back up the annulus. And then we have oil just trapped in the annulus that actually could be taken care of some other way as we plug and abandon the well. We just don't know and we're trying to use this pressure test as a way to understand that. This well would not be permanently killed unless it is sealed off completely in the casing and the annulus. The issue is somehow is there a chance we might have accomplished that through the static kill and to the point where if we try to do a kill from the relief well there would be enough pressure increase in there it would drive up through the seals and to the blow out preventer and the capping stack. . ." [Note: As of early afternoon the NIC had not reported on the final decision. A report should be forthcoming soon].

    Also, the White House announced that on Monday, August 16, at 2:00 PM EDT, Director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Dr. Jane Lubchenco will host a live chat to answer your questions about the safety of seafood from the Gulf of Mexico. A White House announcement indicates that, "The men and women of the Gulf who make their livelihood harvesting fish, shrimp, and oysters have been among those hardest hit by this spill. Enjoying some local seafood is one simple way Americans can support the people of the Gulf who have been battered by this spill." Questions may be submitted ahead of time via Facebook or a webform.

    Access a release from BP on the pressure test (click here). Access the transcript of the August 12 press briefing NIC (click here). Access an announcement and details on the White House live chat (click here). Access more information on BP activities from the BP response website (click here). Access the Restore the Gulf website for more information (click here). Access the Unified Command website which contains additional information (click here).

Task Force On Carbon Capture & Storage Recommendations

Aug 12: President Obama's Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), co-chaired by the U.S. EPA and the Department of Energy (DOE), delivered a series of recommendations to the President today (August 12) on overcoming the barriers to the widespread, cost-effective deployment of CCS within 10 years. CCS is a group of technologies for capturing, compressing, transporting and permanently storing power plant and industrial source emissions of carbon dioxide. Rapid development and deployment of clean coal technologies, particularly carbon capture and storage (CCS), will help position the United States as a leader in the global clean energy race. The report concludes that CCS can play an important role in domestic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions while preserving the option of using coal and other abundant domestic fossil energy resources.

    In February 2010, the President charged the task force with proposing a plan to overcome the barriers to the widespread, cost-effective deployment of carbon capture and storage within 10 years, with a goal of bringing five to 10 commercial demonstration projects online by 2016 [See WIMS 2/4/10]. The Task Force announcement follows the August 6 announcement from DOE on the $1 billion award toward the FutureGen 2.0, a clean coal repowering program and carbon dioxide (CO2) storage network -- the world's first, commercial-scale, oxy-combustion power plant [See WIMS 8/6/10].

    In a release from EPA & DOE the agencies said charting the path toward clean coal is essential to achieving the administration's clean energy goals, supporting American jobs and reducing emissions of carbon pollution. Already, the United States has made the largest government investment in carbon capture and storage of any nation in history, and these investments are being matched by private capital. DOE is currently pursuing multiple demonstration projects using close to $4 billion in Federal funds, matched by more than $7 billion in private investments, which will begin to pave the way for widespread deployment of advanced CCS technologies within a decade. Ongoing EPA efforts will clarify the existing regulatory framework by developing requirements tailored for CCS, which will reduce uncertainty for early projects and help to ensure safe and effective deployment.

    President Obama told the nation's governors when establishing the task force, "If we can develop the technology to capture the carbon pollution released by coal, it can create jobs and provide energy well into the future." EPA Administrator Jackson commented on the Task Force report and said, "These recommendations mark an important step forward in combating climate change and strengthening our economy through green jobs -- top priorities for this administration. Consistent with these recommendations, EPA is proactively developing regulations tailored to carbon storage technology that will reduce uncertainty for early projects and help to ensure safe and effective use of the technology. By encouraging efforts to develop clean coal technology we will obtain new tools to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, create jobs, and make our nation more competitive in the global race for clean energy technology."

    DOE Secretary Chu said, "Around the world countries are moving aggressively on investing in clean energy. The U.S. has the ability to develop clean energy innovation here at home. Rather than sending billions overseas to pay for clean technologies, we should invest these dollars here -- in America's workers, industries, and innovations."

    Nancy Sutley, Chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) said, "A diversified energy portfolio, which includes coal, is important for a strong 21st century American economy. These recommendations move us toward bringing safe and deployable CCS technologies to the marketplace to help us meet the goal of reducing harmful carbon emissions while continuing to use this energy source."

 

    The report reflects input from 14 Federal agencies and departments as well as hundreds of stakeholders and CCS experts. It addresses the incentives for CCS adoption and any financial, economic, technological, legal, institutional, or other barriers to deployment. The Task Force also considered how best to coordinate existing Federal authorities and programs, as well as identify areas where additional federal authority may be necessary. The report's main findings and recommendations include:

• CCS is Viable: There are no insurmountable technical, legal, institutional, or other barriers to the deployment of this technology.
• A Carbon Price is Critical: Widespread cost-effective deployment of CCS is best achieved with a carbon price, but there are market drivers and actions that can and are taking place now, which are essential to support near-term CCS demonstration projects that will pave the way for broader deployment after a carbon price is in place.
• Federal Coordination should be Strengthened: With additional Federal actions and coordination, the Task Force believes the nation can meet the President's near-term goal and get 5-10 commercial demonstration CCS demonstration projects online by 2016. The report recommends the creation of a standing Federal agency roundtable and expert committee to facilitate that goal.
• Recommendations on Liability: The Task Force conducted an in-depth analysis of options to address concerns that long-term liability could be a barrier to CCS deployment. It concluded that open-ended Federal indemnification is not a viable alternative but that four approaches merit further consideration: relying on existing frameworks, limits on claims, a trust fund, and transfer of liability to the Federal government (with contingencies). Efforts to improve long-term liability and stewardship frameworks led by EPA, DOE and the Department of Justice (DOJ) will continue in order to provide evaluation and recommendations in these areas by late 2011.

    Additional recommendations include setting up an effort by DOE and EPA -- in consultation with other agencies -- to track regulatory implementation for early commercial CCS demonstration projects and consider whether additional statutory revisions are needed. The report also encourages leveraging existing efforts among Federal agencies, states, industry, and NGOs to gather information and evaluate potential key concerns about CCS in different areas of the United States and develop a comprehensive outreach strategy that would include: (1) a broad plan for public outreach targeted at the general public and decision makers; and (2) a more focused engagement with communities that are candidates for CCS projects, to address such issues as environmental justice.

    The agencies said many experts consider CCS an important option as part of a portfolio of strategies -- including increased efficiency and greater use of low-carbon energy resources -- to help mitigate growing atmospheric CO2 emissions from human sources. It can play a major role in reducing GHG emissions globally. However, widespread cost-effective deployment of CCS will occur only if the technology is commercially available at economically competitive prices and supportive national policy frameworks, such as a cap on carbon pollution, are in place. The administration's policy and technology initiatives are intended to address these needs.

    Access a release from the agencies (click here). Access the full report, the presidential memorandum, a fact sheet, an FAQ document, and executive summary (click here); or (click here). [*Energy/Coal; *Climate]

---

EPA Proposed Rules For GHG Emissions Permitting - Aug 12: U.S. EPA is proposing two rules to ensure that businesses planning to build new, large facilities or make major expansions to existing ones will be able to obtain Clean Air Act (CAA) permits that address their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In the spring of 2010, EPA finalized the GHG Tailoring Rule [See WIMS 5/14/10], which specifies that beginning in 2011, projects that will increase GHG emissions substantially will require an air permit. EPA said, "Today's rules will help ensure that these sources will be able to get those permits regardless of where they are located."

    According to a release, the Tailoring Rule covers large industrial facilities like power plants and oil refineries that are responsible for 70 percent of the GHGs from stationary sources. The new proposals announced today are a critical component for implementing the Tailoring Rule and would ensure that GHG emissions from these large facilities are minimized in all 50 states and that local economies can continue to grow. The Clean Air Act requires states to develop EPA-approved implementation plans that include requirements for issuing air permits. When Federal permitting requirements change, as they did after EPA finalized the GHG Tailoring Rule, states may need to modify these plans.

    In the first rule, EPA said it is proposing to require permitting programs in 13 states to make changes to their implementation plans to ensure that GHG emissions will be covered. All other states that implement an EPA-approved air permitting program must review their existing permitting authority and inform EPA if their programs do not address GHG emissions. The 13 specified states and substate areas are: Alaska; Arizona: Pinal County; Rest of Arizona (Excludes Maricopa County, Pima County, and Indian Country); Arkansas; California: Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD; Connecticut; Florida; Idaho; Kansas; Kentucky: Jefferson County; Rest of Kentucky; Nebraska: Lincoln Lancaster; Omaha; Rest of Nebraska; Nevada: Clark County; Oregon; and Texas.

    Because some states may not be able to develop and submit revisions to their plans before the Tailoring Rule becomes effective in 2011, in the second rule, EPA is proposing a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP), which would allow EPA to issue permits for large GHG emitters located in these states. This would be a temporary measure that is in place until the state can revise its own plan and resume responsibility for GHG permitting. 

    EPA said, states are best-suited to issue permits to sources of GHG emissions and have long-standing experience working together with industrial facilities. EPA will work closely and promptly with states to help them develop, submit, and approve necessary revisions to enable the affected states to issue air permits to GHG-emitting sources. Additionally, EPA will continue to provide guidance and act as a resource for the states as they make the various required permitting decisions for GHG emissions.

    EPA will accept comment on the first proposal for updated state implementation plans for 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. EPA has scheduled a hearing on the second proposal for the FIP on August 25, 2010, and will accept comment for 30 days after that hearing. The Agency is working to finalize these rules prior to January 2, 2011, the earliest GHG permitting requirements will be effective.

 

    Access a release from EPA (click here). Access links to the proposed rules, fact sheet and notice of hearing (click here).