Thoughts: A Message from a Proud Los Angeles Bicycle Riding Resident!

Source: New York Times

We are living in a divisive society.  At least, that is what is conveyed by the popular news agencies lately.  Especially with the heightened divisive language used by the President of the United States.  One man should not be able to divide an entire nation. Admittedly, not all of the United States citizens believe that we are NOT a nation of immigrants.  We ARE a nation founded on immigrants from around the entire world.

With the above introduction in mind, I would like to share a personal statement from a fellow bicycle advocate who writes a daily newsletter "BikingInLA" -- Ted Rogers:

Let me start with a brief personal message today. 

Like many people, I’ve struggled to comprehend the incomprehensible in recent days, and make sense of a world that doesn’t any more. So let me say how fucking proud I am to live in a city made up of countless races, religions and communities.

Simply put, Los Angeles is richer for all of us.

I love being part of our rainbow-hued, multi-ethnic, multi-faith and multi-oriented bicycling community.

And I’m proud to be a small part of such a vital segment of our city — one that keeps riding, regardless of how much we’re marginalized, and despite those who would force us off the roads and elected leaders who turn their backs on us.

We’ve got a long way to go just to break even and claim even a small part of the streets for our own. 

But we’ll get there. 

And riding bikes helps it all make just a little more sense. 

As Ted noted in the personal statement, several aspects of human society already divide us as a nation.  Let us not let one man (President Trump) divide us further.

Let us stand up as a nation and stand for immigrants along with our citizens in these United States.  Hate and intolerance should be no longer an accepted practice in our country.  Let us strive to get along with one another and work through our differences.    

Have a good weekend.

Disassembling A System is Simple; Assembling One is Not So Easy

                               Photo by Denny Müller on Unsplash

Have you ever taken apart something, only to find that recording the disassembly would have helped tremendously in reassembling the part?



Oh, my goodness! Let me tell you about the most common situation which has repeatedly bit me in the rear end. When will I ever learn? Read the instructions. If no guidelines exist, film the disassembly of a mechanical part to assist when assembling the piece back together. Sounds simple right?



My adventure of taking apart a vacuum pump starts without instructions. Only to find out that recording videos on disassembly would have helped out very much.



I had anxiety. I was at work. For the last year, the Mass Spectrometer sat with a broken internal pump.



Each time that I walked down the hallway, the scientists who mainly use the instrument would ask, “Any word on the repair of the Mass Spectrometer Mike?”



My response, “We are still waiting on the funding…”



That was true for the first 11 months. That is until the funding became available and the service engineer came out from the company only to find that an external vacuum pump had seized up.



My thought, “Why did I not check the pump before he came to fix the instrument?” I was kicking myself mentally for the next two weeks.

How to Rebuild a Vaccum Pump?

I ordered a rebuilding kit. A kit with about 20 different o-rings, gaskets, and small springs. None of which I knew where they would go inside the vacuum pump. I had never taken a vacuum pump apart.



The service engineer from the company suggested that I watched a ‘YouTube’ video on the disassembly. That would have helped if there had existed one online. My search for a video revealed that every other model produced had a ‘YouTube’ — just not mine.



Solution: I figured I would follow a similar disassembly of a similar design. From the outside, the two pumps looked very similar in appearances.



On a parallel route of inquiry, I found the actual blueprint of the design from a manual. Problem: no instructions on how to disassemble. The diagram had the part expanded into about 100 pieces with lines and print in a ten font.



What to do next?



I figured, go for it. Be methodical in your disassembly of the pump. Line up all of the screws as viewed in the expanded version.



Sounds good right?



I mentioned above that I did find a video of the disassembly of a different model of the vacuum pump. The two looked similar from the outside. After watching the video, the disassembly seemed rather straight forward.



Upon loosening the first four main bolts, I realized that while the two pumps appeared to look similar, the disassembly was not the same at all. The four main bolts are located on the other side of the pump. Not to mention, they were difficult to access with a traditional tool.



Time for a break, I guess!



When I finally convinced myself that the vacuum pump would not disassemble itself — no matter how hard I tried to send mental signals from my office, I returned to the vacuum pump and re-engaged with the disassembly. I started taking bolts apart. Two halves of the vacuum pump fell apart and almost ripped a connecting wire apart.



How did I miss that connecting wire? And what does that connecting wire do?



Moving on, focusing on one half of the vacuum pump, I chose to disassemble the pump further. I was dead set on accessing the spin vane portion of the pump. I will not go into details.



But yes, the spin vane is responsible for creating a vacuum while a shat spins.



As I disassemble further, more springs and o-rings are appearing out of nowhere. Not nowhere, but I am not keeping track of them.



Right about now, I wish that there is a manual with instructions or some other online content.

Take a Break and Regain Composure

As I sit in my office taking a break, I have a vacuum pump disassembled to the point of near completion. A section of the pump — which is the most critical section is seized up.



I am thinking of that video which made the disassembly of the different model look so easy.



Why can’t my project be that easy?



Now, I think that the personnel on that video had rebuilt around a 1000 vacuum pumps before this rebuild. The video is spot on with instructions and patience, no of which I have at the moment.



I am thinking to myself, how could I have made this process easier on myself?



Maybe I should have used my ‘smartphone’ and filmed the disassembly?



Why did I not use my ‘smartphone’ to film the disassembly?



The most probable cause is that I was having anxiety associated with venturing into the unknown of disassembling a vacuum pump. Further, I was having a fear of hearing the scientists asking me the following question, “Mike, when is the company coming out to fix the Mass Spectrometer?”



Now, I have more anxiety. Why? Because I have disassembled the entire vacuum pump and was unable to fix the pump. The only solution from here is to call a friend or the company and plead for help.



Note to self: In the future, use your ‘smartphone’ to track your disassembly of such a part.




Index of past blog sites:


1) Dimensional Analysis Of Statistics And Large Numbers - Index Of Blog Posts


2) Science Topics, Thoughts, and Parameters Regarding Science, Politics, And The Environment!

DOE Secretary Rick Perry walks a fine line to satisfy both Congress and the Trump administration

Source: PBS.org

Every presidential administration has an agenda to fulfill during their own time in the Oval Office.  The Trump administration is no different.  How is the plan fulfilled? To start, by nominating key personnel into important positions -- such as administrators of federal and state agencies.  Which sets the administration up to guide financing toward projects which fulfill campaign promises of the boss in the Oval Office.  Everything is fine and dandy, right?



Not necessarily.  There is a second branch of government (i.e., Congress) which holds the purse strings of the cash (funding) which supports all funding measures to make the United States operational.  Hence, the need for many 'oversight committees' to hold agency heads accountable.  This much is the basic government.



A refresher from time to time is right.



DOE Secretary traveled to the capital in June of this year to unveil the Fiscal Year budget 2020 for the Department of Energy.  For those readers who are unfamiliar with the general agenda of Congressional meetings, here is a quick outline.



First, each ranking member (Congressional leader) from each party gives an opening statement which is read into the records as a 'testimony.'  After which each member of the panel of experts does the same. Finally, the remainder of the meeting is accomplished through question & answers from members of Congress to the expert regarding the subject matter at hand.  In the end, a decision is entertained, or a motion or a conclusion is drawn at a later date.



Last June, DOE Secretary Rick Perry entered into record the following statement regarding FY 2020 budget:

Testimony of Secretary Rick Perry

U.S. Department of Energy

Before the

U.S. House Committee on Science, Space and Technology

June 25, 2019

Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, and Members of the Committee, it is an honor to appear before you today to discuss the President’s FY 2020 Budget Request (“Budget Request” or “Budget”) for the Department of Energy (“the Department” or “DOE”).

It continues to be a great privilege and an honor to serve as the 14th Secretary of Energy.

This Budget is a request to the American people through their representatives in Congress to secure America’s future through energy independence, scientific innovation, and national security.

As such, it represents a commitment from all of us at DOE that we will honor the trust of our citizens with increased stewardship, accountability, and commitment to excellence. For too long, government success has been measured by how much we spend on it. This Budget Request makes clear that success will be measured by how effectively and efficiently government is able to manage the precious resources entrusted to them by the American taxpayer to achieve its mission.

When I appeared before this Committee last year, I committed to protect our critical electric grid and energy infrastructure from cyber threats; improve resilience and reliability of the Nation’s electricity system; make progress on the Federal Government’s responsibility to dispose of the Nation’s nuclear waste; focus resources on early-stage, cutting edge Research and Development (R&D); advance exascale and quantum computing; address responsibilities for the cleanup and disposition of facilities; and, rebuild and restore our Nation’s security.

This FY 2020 $31.7 billion Budget Request for the Department of Energy focuses on advancing these commitments – from opening a New American Energy Era to sustaining our recent historic economic growth by investing in reliable, affordable energy, transformative scientific innovation, and national security.

The Department’s world-leading science and technology enterprise generates the innovations needed to fulfill our missions. Through support of cutting-edge research at our 17 National Laboratories and at over 300 universities across the Nation, we are expanding the frontiers of scientific knowledge and laying the groundwork for new technologies to address our greatest challenges.

When I became Secretary of Energy, I made a promise to visit all 17 of the Department’s National Laboratories. I am pleased to report that I have fulfilled that promise and have witnessed first-hand the innovative and brilliant work performed by the dedicated individuals at each of these sites across the Nation. The National Laboratories are doing outstanding work in many areas. Each has a unique, rich history of innovation across a broad scope of scientific expertise, and the record of collaboration across the National Laboratory system – which makes its impact greater than the sum of its parts – has bettered the lives of millions across the globe.

For example, in 2018, the National Laboratories won 32 of the prestigious R&D 100 Awards, including technologies regarding new materials, protecting the environment, incorporating renewable energy reliably to the electric grid, and sophisticated cybersecurity tools. These are just a few examples of the work the National Laboratories have done just last year to push the boundaries of research, development, commercialization, and national security.

I am especially proud of the work the National Laboratories are doing in collaboration with other federal agencies, universities, doctors, and researchers to harness the power of our world-class supercomputers to maintain America’s leadership in High Performance Computing (HPC), advance Exascale computing, and push for breakthroughs in Artificial Intelligence (AI).

To do so, this Budget proposes nearly $11 billion in early-stage R&D that will focus the intellectual prowess of scientists and engineers on the development of technologies that the ingenuity and capital of America’s entrepreneurs and businesses can convert into commercial applications and products to improve the lives and security of all Americans. The Budget also invests in laboratory infrastructure and test beds for future breakthroughs in energy. It prioritizes funding to maintain the world-class nature of national laboratory facilities and better facilitate private sector demonstration and deployment of energy technologies.

Securing Against Cyber Threats

In addition to nuclear security, our national security also depends on a resilient electric grid and successfully countering the ever-evolving, increasing threat of cyber and other attacks on networks, data, facilities, and infrastructure. Among the most critical missions at the Department is to develop science and technology that advances these aims.

At stake is continued U.S. economic competiveness and leadership, as well as the overall safety and security of the nation. We need to understand the increasing and evolving natural and man-made threats and develop the tools to respond to those threats across our energy infrastructure.

To that end, the Budget provides $157 million for the Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response (CESER) to develop tools needed to protect the U.S. energy sector against threats and hazards, mitigate the risks and the extent of damage from cyberattacks and other disruptive events, and improve resilience through the development of techniques for more rapid restoration of capabilities.

Securing against cyber threats means we must also protect against threats to the Department’s own infrastructure in science, technology, and nuclear security. This Budget takes major steps to safeguard DOE’s enterprise-wide assets against cyber threats. It provides $71 million for the Chief Information Officer directed funding to secure our own networks, modernize infrastructure, and improve cybersecurity across the DOE IT enterprise. Funding for cybersecurity in the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is increased to $208 million to enhance security for our nuclear security enterprise. In the Environmental Management program, we provide $37 million for cybersecurity at seven cleanup sites.

This Budget provides the resources we require to secure DOE systems and energy infrastructure.

Improving Grid Resilience

As we protect our energy infrastructure from cyber threats, we also must improve the resilience and reliability of the nation’s electricity system. The Budget provides $183 million for the Office of Electricity to support transmission system resource adequacy and generation diversity. The Budget will explore new architecture approaches for electric transmission and distribution systems, including the development of the North American Energy Resilience Model that will provide unique and ground-breaking national-scale energy planning and real-time situational awareness capabilities to enhance security and resilience. The Budget continues to advance energy storage through the Advanced Energy Storage Initiative (AESI), including development of a new Grid Storage Launchpad aimed at accelerating materials development, testing, and independent evaluation of battery materials and systems for grid applications. In addition, the Budget supports R&D at DOE’s National Laboratories to develop technologies that strengthen, transform, and improve energy infrastructure so that consumers have access to reliable and secure sources of energy.

Addressing the Imperative of Nuclear Waste Management

The Budget includes $116 million, of which $26 million is in defense funds, to move ahead in fulfilling the Federal Government’s responsibility to dispose of the Nation’s nuclear waste. This request is dedicated to resuming regulatory activities concerning the Yucca Mountain site and initiating a robust interim storage program.

The Budget Request supports functions necessary to support regulatory activities, including legal support to represent the Department as well as responding to litigation and other legal matters. The Budget also provides for technical and scientific work necessary to support and respond to any challenges in the regulatory process. Resuming regulatory activities at Yucca Mountain and committing to a robust interim storage capability for near-term acceptance of spent nuclear fuel, our Budget demonstrates the Administration’s commitment to nuclear waste management and will help accelerate fulfillment of the Federal Government’s obligations to address nuclear waste, enhance national security, and reduce future burdens on taxpayers. This also will increase public confidence in the safety and security of nuclear energy, thus helping nuclear energy remain a significant contributor to the country’s energy needs for generations to come.

Energy Independence and Innovation

The Budget requests $2.3 billion in funding for energy independence and innovation. Within the applied energy program offices, the FY 2020 Budget focuses resources on early-stage, cutting-edge R&D conducted by the scientists and engineers at our 17 National Laboratories who are striving to develop the next great innovations that will strengthen American competitiveness and transform society as these breakthroughs reach the private marketplace.

The Harsh Environment Materials Initiative (HEMI) is a new coordinated effort within the Offices of Fossil Energy R&D (FE), Nuclear Energy (NE), and Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) to use common investments. This effort will coordinate interrelated R&D in materials, sensors, and component manufacturing R&D for advanced thermoelectric power plants between FE and NE. 

For example, NE’s budget includes $23 million for the Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies (NEET) Transformational Challenge Reactor (TCR) program, which enhances the development of breakthrough technologies that provide the ability to manufacture small/micro advanced reactor components using additive manufacturing techniques. Investments will also be aligned with EERE’s Advanced Manufacturing Office R&D in materials and manufacturing process research, as well as flexible combined heat and power systems.

The AESI is a coordinated effort across DOE that will accelerate the development of energy storage R&D as key to increasing energy security, reliability, resilience, and system flexibility technologies. The AESI will focus DOE’s efforts to take a broad, more holistic view of energy storage as a set of capabilities with temporal flexibility in the conversion of energy resources to useful energy services. The initiative will develop a coordinated strategy for aligning DOE R&D for cost competitive energy storage services.

The Budget supports, and makes for more efficient, programs focused on bringing technologies to the market in the Office of Technology Transitions, requesting a 7% increase from the FY 2019 enacted level. Through coordination with our Labs, these efforts will reduce costs to the taxpayer while at the same time providing an enhanced technology transfer program to transfer breakthroughs from the National Laboratories to the private sector.

Nuclear Energy The Budget for Nuclear Energy focuses funding on early-stage R&D, such as the NEET program, which includes $23 million for the (TCR), at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, to continue to develop an advanced manufacturing technique to demonstrate a new approach to nuclear design, qualification, and manufacturing of advanced reactor technologies.

The FY 2020 Budget includes $215 million for the Reactor Concepts Research, Development and Demonstration program. Within this total, the Budget provides $100 million to put DOE on a path to construct the Versatile Test Reactor, a facility that would enable development and testing of advanced fuels and materials for the next generation of commercial nuclear reactors. This is one of the highest priorities for the Department. The Budget also provides $85 million for early-stage R&D on advanced reactor technologies, including $10 million for the Advanced Small Modular Reactor R&D subprogram. 

Within the Fuel Cycle R&D program, the Budget requests $40 million in the Civil Nuclear Enrichment subprogram for the high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) demonstration project. This three-year cost-shared subprogram is designed to demonstrate U.S.-origin enrichment technology that could produce HALEU. We understand that multiple reactor designs under development by U.S. advanced reactor developers will require fuel containing HALEU. In addition, the Budget requests $36 million for the Fuel Cycle R&D program’s early-stage R&D work in support of industry’s development of light water reactor accident tolerant fuels.

Finally, the Budget for Nuclear Energy also supports a safeguards and security program with funding at $138 million for protection of our nuclear energy infrastructure and investments at Idaho National Laboratory facilities.

Fossil Energy Research and Development

The Fossil Energy Research and Development (FER&D) program advances transformative science and innovative technologies needed for the reliable, efficient, affordable, and environmentally sound use of fossil fuels. Fossil energy sources currently constitute over 81 percent of the country’s total energy use and are critical for the nation’s security, economic prosperity, and growth. The FY 2020 Budget focuses 89 percent, or $501 million, on cutting-edge fossil energy R&D to secure energy dominance, further energy security, advance strong domestic energy production, and support America’s coal industry through innovative clean coal technologies.

FER&D will support early-stage research in advanced technologies, such as materials, sensors, and processes, to expand the knowledge base upon which industry can improve the efficiency, flexibility, and resilience of the existing fleet of coal fired power plants.

The request also focuses funding on early-stage component research that will enable the next generation of high efficiency and low emission coal fired power plants that can increase the resiliency and reliability of the electric grid by providing low-cost reliable power 24/7.

Funding is also provided to support competitive awards with industry, National Laboratories and academia geared toward innovative early-stage R&D to improve the reliability, availability, efficiency, and environmental performance of advanced fossil-based power systems. For example, the Advanced Energy Systems subprogram will focus on the following six activities: 1) Advanced Combustion/Gasification Systems, 2) Advanced Turbines, 3) Solid Oxide Fuel Cells, 4) Advanced Sensors and Controls, 5) Power Generation Efficiency, and 6) Advanced Energy Materials. While the primary focus is on coal-based power systems, improvements to these technologies will result in spillover benefits that can reduce the cost of converting other carbon-based fuels, such as natural gas, biomass, or petroleum coke into power and other useful products in an environmentallysound manner.

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

The Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy budget requests $696 million, including the use of $353 million in prior year balances, towards maintaining America’s leadership in transformative science and emerging energy technologies in sustainable transportation, renewable power, and energy efficiency.

The Budget emphasizes early stage R&D and other activities, which private industry does not have the technical capability to undertake. Knowledge generated by early-stage R&D to facilitate U.S. industries, businesses, and entrepreneurs to develop and deploy innovative energy technologies, and to gain the competitive edge needed to excel in the rapidly changing global energy economy.

The request funds $105 million for the AESI, which takes a holistic approach to energy storage and develops electric grid technologies to create flexible generation and load, thereby increasing the reliability and resilience of the U.S. electric grid.

The request supports DOE’s Grid Modernization Initiative, which includes reliably integrating an increasing amount of variable generation into the electric grid through R&D infrastructure investments at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to accelerate the conversion of the National Wind Technology Center (NWTC) campus into an experimental microgrid capable of testing grid integration at the megawatt scale.

Strategic Petroleum Reserve

The Department of Energy is responsible for the Nation’s energy security, and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), one component of that effort, protects the U.S. economy from disruptions in critical petroleum supplies and meets the U.S. obligations under the International Energy Program. The Budget includes $174 million to support the Reserve’s operational readiness and drawdown capabilities.

The Department is requesting authorization to deposit into the SPR Petroleum Account up to $27 million in proceeds from the sale of one-million barrels of refined petroleum product (gasoline blendstock) from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to fund the cost of drawdowns.

The Budget also proposes to disestablish the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve (NEHHOR). In its two decades of existence, the NEHHOR has not been used for its intended purpose, and the Administration believes the continued taxpayer-funded expense of maintaining the reserve is unwarranted, particularly as the existing commercial storage contracts are up for renewal in March 2020. The Budget also proposes to disestablish the Northeast Gasoline Supply Reserve (NGSR). The NGSR has not been used since its establishment, and is not considered to be cost efficient or operationally effective. Proceeds of the combined sales of the NEHHOR and NGSR (estimated at $130 million in receipts, net of the $27 million retained for mandatory sale drawdown costs) will be contributed to deficit reduction.

Power Marketing Administrations

The Budget includes $78 million for the Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs). The Budget proposes the sale of the transmission assets of the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), and the Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA) and to reform the laws governing how the PMAs establish power rates to require the consideration of market based incentives, including whether rates are just and reasonable. The Budget also proposes to repeal the $3.25 billion borrowing authority for WAPA authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

Leading World-Class Scientific Research

The Department of Energy is the Nation’s largest Federal supporter of basic research in the physical sciences, and the President’s FY 2020 Budget provides $5.5 billion for the Office of Science (Science) to continue and strengthen American leadership in scientific inquiry. By focusing funding on early-stage research, this Budget will ensure that the Department’s National Laboratories continue to be the backbone of American science leadership by supporting cutting-edge basic research, and by building and operating the world’s most advanced scientific user facilities, which will be used by over 22,000 researchers in FY 2020.

Support for Core Research and Facilities

We provide $921 million for Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR), a decrease of $15 million below the FY 2019 enacted level. This funding will continue supporting the Nation’s world-class high-performance computers that make possible cutting-edge basic research, while devoting $500 million in the Office of Science to reflect the Department’s plan to deploy an exascale computing system in calendar year 2021. The FY 2020 Request also supports quantum computing R&D and core research in applied mathematics and computer science, and high-performance computer simulation and modeling.

The Budget also provides $1.9 billion for Basic Energy Sciences (BES), supporting core research activities in ultrafast chemistry and materials science and the Energy Frontier Research Centers. We will continue construction of the Advanced Photon Source Upgrade at the Argonne National Laboratory, and initiate the Advanced Light Source Upgrade project at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and the Linac Coherence Light Source-II High Energy project at SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory. The operations of the light sources across the DOE science complex and supporting research across the Nation maintain U.S. world leadership in light sources and the science they make possible. The Budget also supports continued construction for Spallation Neutron Source Proton Power Upgrade and Second Target Station at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

The Budget requests $768 million for High Energy Physics (HEP), including $100 million for construction of the Long Baseline Neutrino Facility and Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment at Fermilab, $30 million below the enacted FY 2019 level. We will continue to fund ongoing major items of equipment projects, including three new projects at the Large Hadron Collider: the High Luminosity Large Hadron Collider Accelerator Project; the High Luminosity ATLAS; and the High Luminosity CMS detector upgrade projects. By supporting the highest priority activities and projects identified by the U.S. high energy physics community, this program will pursue cutting-edge research to understand how the universe works at its most fundamental level.

The Budget for the Office of Science provides $403 million for Fusion Energy Sciences (FES), including $296 million for domestic research and fusion facilities and $107 million for the ITER project to continue to support delivery of the highest priority in-kind hardware systems contributions. For Nuclear Physics (NP), the budget provides $625 million to discover, explore, and understand nuclear matter, including $40 million for continued construction of the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams and operations of facilities. For Biological and Environmental Research (BER), the Budget includes $494 million to support foundational genomic sciences, including the Bioenergy Research Centers, and to focus on increasing the sensitivity and reducing the uncertainty of earth and environmental systems predictions.

Advancing Exascale Computing

As I discussed last year, the Department’s leadership in developing and building the world’s fastest computers faced increasingly fierce global competition over the last decade. Maintaining the Nation’s international primacy in high-performance computing is more critical than ever for national security, economic prosperity, and a continued leadership role in science and innovation.

I am proud to say that, as of the present day, the Department is actively sustaining America’s leadership in this vital area. As of June 2019, the world’s two fastest supercomputers were located at DOE National Laboratories – Summit at Oak Ridge and Sierra at Lawrence Livermore. In fact, the Summit system achieved the global number one ranking as the world’s fastest system in June 2016, was delivered nine months ahead of schedule and $13.5 million below budget, and is another example of the DOE lab continued project management excellence. In all, the United States currently owns five out of the world’s top ten supercomputers, with four of those located at DOE national laboratories. In addition, teams from DOE’s Oak Ridge

and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories captured the 2018 Gordon Bell Prize, the most prestigious award for achievement in high performance computing software and applications. These coupled achievements in both hardware and software are significant, since it is by sustaining integrated capabilities in hardware, software, algorithms, and applications – along with basic research in applied mathematics –that America will maintain leadership in this critical field.

To cement America’s leadership position, the Budget includes $809 million to accelerate development of an exascale computing system, including $500 million in the Office of Science (Science) and $309 million in NNSA. This reflects the Department’s plan to deploy an exascale machine for the Office of Science in calendar year 2021 at Argonne National Laboratory, a second machine with a different architecture in the 2021-2022 timeframe at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and provides support for the procurement of and site preparation for a third exascale system, architecturally similar to the second machine at Oak Ridge, delivered to NNSA at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in FY 2023.

To achieve these goals, the Science/NNSA partnership will focus on hardware and software technologies needed to produce an exascale system, and the critical DOE applications needed to use such a platform. This world-leading exascale program will bolster our national security by supporting the nuclear stockpile, while also supporting the next generation of scientific breakthroughs not possible with today’s computing systems.

Quantum Information Science

Even as we prepare to deploy exascale systems, we are pursuing research in Quantum Information Science (QIS), an emerging multidisciplinary area that has the potential to define the next frontier in information processing and a range of other fields. Our QIS effort is genuinely interdisciplinary, a $168 million investment involving all six major DOE Office of Science program offices: ASCR, BES, BER, FES, HEP, and NP.

The potential of QIS to contribute to a wide range of disciplines is striking. Quantum computing promises the capability to attack large problems that elude classical computing and to provide new insights into materials and chemistry through accurate modeling and simulation of quantum systems. In addition, QIS holds the potential of developing exquisitely sensitive quantum sensors, for applications ranging from biology to the effort to detect Dark Matter. Finally, QIS may hold the key to ultra-secure networking, at a time when cybersecurity is a mounting concern.

The Budget provides $40 million to ASCR, BES and HEP to establish a new QIS center, which would integrate universities with National Laboratories, through investments across all six Science program offices. We are seeking to sustain U.S. leadership in this important and highly competitive area.

Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning

Artificial Intelligence (AI), including Machine Learning (ML) defines another critical cross-disciplinary activity, with the potential to contribute to advances across multiple fields. This is another rapidly developing area in which it is vital for America to maintain a leadership role.

In a world awash with data, AI holds the promise of harnessing and deriving new insights from massive data sets. The massive quantities of data generated by DOE Office of Science user facilities such as X-ray lights sources are believed to provide a major opportunity for the development of new AI applications for data analysis. It is also believed that AI may provide a pathway to improving the performance of particle accelerators and other key facilities. The FY 2020 Budget provides $71 million for AI/ML spread across all six Science program offices for both the application of AI/ML to research and the development of new AI/ML approaches and algorithms as well as $48 million requested in the FY 2020 Budget for NNSA for AI.

Microelectronics

By virtue of its leadership in supporting high-performance computing, as well as its longstanding sponsorship of research in materials science, the DOE Office of Science has been a major contributor over the decades to the development of microelectronics. Science has helped lay the fundamental scientific foundation for advances in these technologies, while partnering with industry in the development of new systems requiring new chips. This role is becoming increasingly important as we approach the end of Moore’s Law and stand at the threshold of what is likely to be a new era in microelectronics. In an important new initiative, the FY 2020 Budget provides $25 million for redoubled research efforts on microelectronics.

The research will benefit from groundwork laid at an October 2018 DOE workshop on “Basic Research Needs in Microelectronics,” bringing together top experts and co-sponsored by ASCR, BES, and HEP. 

Biosecurity

As mentioned, back in 1986, the Department provided the original impetus and idea for the Human Genome Project, and later partnered with the National Institutes of Health, to successfully complete the sequencing of a human genome in 2000. Since then the Department’s Office of Science has remained on the cutting-edge of genomics-based system biology, making major contributions to the continued advancement of the relevant technologies. These dual use technologies have now advanced to a point where they pose new and unprecedented security challenges.

To address this growing challenge, the FY 2020 Budget includes $20 million for BER for research related to biosecurity.

Isotopes

One of the Department’s important contributions to medicine and industry is the Isotope Development & Production for Research and Applications Program, known more simply as the DOE Isotope Program. The program, managed by Science’s Office of Nuclear Physics, supports the production and development of production techniques, as well as radioactive and stable isotopes that are in short supply for research and applications. In doing so, it provides a vital contribution to research, medicine, and industry. The Budget provides $5 million to initiate a construction project for a U.S. Stable Isotope Production and Research Center at ORNL.

Fulfilling Legacy Cleanup Responsibilities

The mission of the Department’s Environmental Management (EM) program is to complete cleanup of legacy nuclear weapons development and research sites. It is the largest program of its kind in the world and represents one of the top financial liabilities to the American taxpayer. EM is working collaboratively with regulators, federal, state, and local governments, and others toward a future that drives cleanup toward completion safer, sooner and at a responsible cost. As EM is put on a sustainable path forward, the FY 2020 Budget Request provides the resources necessary to build upon recent successes and bring a renewed sense of urgency to the program for meaningful and measurable progress at projects and sites throughout the cleanup complex.

The Budget Request includes $6.5 billion for EM to address its responsibilities for the cleanup and disposition of excess facilities, radioactive waste, spent nuclear fuel, and other materials resulting from five decades of nuclear weapons development and production and Government-sponsored nuclear energy research.

To-date, EM has completed cleanup activities at 91 sites in 30 states and Puerto Rico, and is responsible for cleaning up the remaining 16 sites in 11 states –some of the most challenging sites in the cleanup portfolio.

The Budget Request includes $1.4 billion for the Office of River Protection at the Hanford Site for continued work at the Hanford Tank Farms and to make progress on the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant. This budget will continue progress toward important cleanup required by the Consent Decree and Tri-Party Agreement to include a milestone to complete hot commissioning of the Low Activity Waste Facility by December 31, 2023. The Budget also includes $718 million to continue cleanup activities at Richland. The Budget continues River Corridor decontamination and decommissioning activities including remediation of the highly contaminated 300-296 waste site under the 324 Building. For Savannah River, the Budget provides $1.6 billion, $91 million above enacted FY 2019, to support activities at the site. This will include the Liquid Tank Waste Management Program, completing cold commissioning beginning operation of the Salt Waste Processing Facility, continued construction activities for Saltstone Disposal Unit #7 and #8/9 design and construction activities for Saltstone Disposal Unit #10-#12, and funding to support design and construction of the Advanced Manufacturing Collaborative facility.

The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) is essential for the disposition of transuranic defense-generated waste across the DOE complex, and the Budget provides $398 million to safely continue waste emplacement at WIPP. The Budget Request will continue WIPP operations, including waste emplacements, shipments, and maintaining enhancements and improvements, and progress on critical infrastructure repair/replacement projects, including $58 million for the Safety Significant Confinement Ventilation System and $35 million for the Utility Shaft (formerly Exhaust Shaft). These steps will increase airflow in the WIPP underground for simultaneous mining and waste emplacement operations.

The Budget Request includes $348 million to continue cleanup projects at the Idaho site, such as the Integrated Waste Treatment Unit, and to process, characterize, and package transuranic waste for disposal at offsite facilities. It provides $429 million for Oak Ridge to continue deactivation and demolition of remaining facilities at the East Tennessee Technology Park, continue preparation of Building 2026 to support processing of the remaining U-233 material at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and support construction activities for the Outfall 200 Mercury Treatment Facility at the Y-12 National Security Complex and design for a new On-Site Waste Disposal Facility to support cleanup.

For Portsmouth, the Budget Request includes $426 million to continue progress on the deactivation and decommissioning project at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, safe operation of the Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Facility, and construction activities at the On-Site Waste Disposal facility. At Paducah, the Budget Request includes $277 million to continue ongoing environmental cleanup and depleted uranium hexafluoride (DUF6) conversion facility operations at the Paducah site. In addition, the FY 2020 Budget Request supports activities to continue the environmental remediation and further stabilize the gaseous diffusion plant.

The Budget continues funding of $128 million to address specific high-risk contaminated excess facilities at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

Together, these investments for EM will make significant progress in fulfilling our cleanup responsibilities while also beginning to address our high-risk excess facilities at NNSA sites.  National Security through Nuclear Security: Sustaining and Modernizing the Nuclear Stockpile and Infrastructure.

Our national security rests upon the foundation of the Nation’s nuclear security enterprise and the deterrent it provides. The Budget funds the overdue modernization of the nuclear stockpile and the aging infrastructure that supports it; strengthens key science, technology, and engineering capabilities that support stockpile modernization; reduces global nuclear threats through nonproliferation and counterterrorism initiatives; and designs and maintains safe and effective nuclear propulsion systems for the U.S. Navy for years to come.

The Budget fulfills the President’s vision of rebuilding and restoring our Nation’s security through investments in the Department’s nuclear security mission. The Budget provides $16.5 billion for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). Of this amount, the Budget Request includes $12.4 billion for Weapons Activities. This $1.3 billion increase supports maintaining the safety, security, and effectiveness of the nuclear stockpile; continuing the nuclear modernization program; and modernizing NNSA’s nuclear security infrastructure portfolio in alignment with the Nuclear Posture Review.

The Budget includes $2.1 billion for our ongoing Life Extension Programs (LEP), Major Alteration, and Modifications, a $197 million increase. I am pleased to report that the W76-1 LEP completed its last production unit in December 2018. Final deliveries to the Navy will be completed by the end of this fiscal year. The W76-2 Modification, the low-yield variant of the W76, is on schedule, on budget, and will be completed consistent with Nuclear WeaponsCouncil (NWC) direction.. We also continue to make progress on the B61-12 LEP and the W88 Alteration 370. That said, we are currently working through recently identified challenges that will impact delivery schedules and we are assessing options with the Department of Defense to mitigate delays. The Budget also supports the Air Force’s Long-Range Stand-Off program through an increase of $244 million from the FY 2019 enacted level for the W80-4 LEP to deliver the first production unit in FY 2025 of the cruise missile warhead. The request includes $112 million for the W87-1 Modification Program, which will replace the W78, one of the oldest warheads in the stockpile, by 2030.

The Weapons Activities Budget request also includes $309 million for NNSA collaboration with the Office of Science on the development of exascale computer systems; $778 million for the protection of personnel, facilities, nuclear weapons, and materials across the Department’s nuclear security enterprise; and $309 million for information technology and cybersecurity protection. 

The infrastructure portion in Weapons Activities increases investments to modernize our nuclear infrastructure, improve working conditions of NNSA’s aging facilities and equipment, and address safety and programmatic risks through facility and equipment recapitalization and the stabilization of deferred maintenance. In this Budget is $745 million for construction of the Uranium Processing Facility, which is needed to replace deteriorating facilities at the Y-12 National Security Complex, as well as $123 million for the High Explosives Science and Engineering Facility at Pantex, $27 million for a Tritium Finishing Facility at the Savannah River Site (SRS), and $32 million for a Lithium Processing Facility at Y-12. The Budget also includes $168 million to support the Department’s commitment to finishing the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Facility Project, which is necessary to support the pit production mission and other actinide activities at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL).

The highest NNSA infrastructure priority is re-establishing a plutonium pit production capability to meet military requirements, supported by numerous studies and analyses, of no fewer than 80 war reserve pits per year by 2030. Last May, the NWC endorsed NNSA’s recommended alternative calling for plutonium pit production at LANL and SRS. This two-site approach bolsters the nuclear security enterprise’s responsiveness and resiliency.

The Budget also includes $2.0 billion for the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation program to reduce global threats from nuclear weapons. This critical national security program prevents the spread of nuclear and radiological materials, and technologies, advances technologies that detect nuclear and radiological proliferation worldwide, and eliminates or secures inventories of surplus materials and infrastructure usable for nuclear weapons.

The Budget invests $774 million at SRS in FY 2020, a 76 percent increase over FY 2019. NNSA will continue termination activities for the orderly and safe closure of the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility Project. The Budget will also continue to pursue a dilute and dispose strategy to fulfill the U.S. commitment to dispose of 34 metric tons (MT) of plutonium and modernize SRS infrastructure to support the tritium supply chain.

The Budget provides $372 million for Nuclear Counterterrorism and Incident Response, $53 million above the FY 2019 enacted level, to work domestically and around the world to improve our ability to respond to radiological or nuclear incidents, in conjunction with other agencies in a broader U.S. Government effort.

In the NNSA’s Office of Naval Reactors, the Department has the ongoing  responsibility to provide militarily effective nuclear propulsion plants for the Navy and to ensure their safe, reliable and long-lived operation. The Budget provides $1.6 billion to support the operation of the Navy’s nuclear-powered fleet, the continuation of the Columbia-class reactor plant design, refueling of the land-based prototype reactor, and the construction of the Naval Spent Fuel Handling Facility.

Today, nearly 45% of the Navy’s major combatants are nuclear powered. The Department’s role in propulsion plant design, spent fuel handling, and recapitalization is critical to the Navy’s ability to conduct its missions around the globe.

Finally, the Budget includes $435 million for Federal Salaries and Expenses at the NNSA. This $25 million increase is essential to ensuring our world-class workforce of dedicated men and women can effectively oversee NNSA’s critical national security missions.

Focusing Priorities on Core Missions

The Budget continues to focus the Department’s energy and science programs on early-stage research and development at our National Laboratories to advance American primacy in scientific and energy research in an efficient and costeffective manner.

Also, in line with Administration priorities, the Budget terminates the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, known as ARPA-E, and the Department’s Loan Programs, while maintaining necessary federal staff to oversee existing awards and loans. Termination of these programs will save over $850 million in FY 2020 alone while significantly reducing financial risk to the taxpayer moving forward.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I reaffirm my pledge that the Department of Energy, along with our National Laboratories, will continue to support the world’s best enterprise of scientists and engineers who create innovations to drive American security, prosperity, and competitiveness. The President’s FY 2020 Budget Request for the Department of Energy reflects the priorities to enhance our energy, economic, and national security today, while making strategic investments to accelerate the breakthroughs that will fuel America’s tomorrow.

In the coming weeks and months, I look forward to working with you and your colleagues in Congress on the specific programs mentioned in this testimony and throughout the Department. Congress has an important role in the path forward on spending decisions for the taxpayer, and I will, in turn, ensure DOE is run efficiently, effectively, and that we accomplish our mission-driven goals. Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions.

The initial direction of the Department of Energy under the Trump administration has changed given education on Secretary Perry's part.  When Secretary Perry first came into office, he planned to run the DOE in a similar style to his Governing of Texas years ago.



Upon entering the position, Secretary Perry learned the actual way that the Department of Energy operated.  He met a considerable amount of obstacles in implementing the Trump administrations goal of reviving the coal industry at the expense of moving toward renewable energy.



This I classify as his education throughout the last year and a half.  Also, he met considerable opposition each time he was asked to report to Congress.  Which is reasonable for any new administrator.  Although, when the goal is to roll back measures that have been previously passed by Congress, the plan will inevitably be met with a significant amount of opposition.  This is understandable given that Congress has already ruled on the matter.



Here is the full Congressional hearing (in video form) shown below:

Related Blog Posts:


Thoughts: Trump Administration Realizes Renewable Energy Is Here To Stay?


Thoughts: Florida Gets Offshore Oil Drilling Ban - Why Not Pacific Coast Too?

French President Macron Organizes Climate Conference With Pledges Of Trillions Of Dollars For Climate Risk Management From World Organizations

Coal Magnate Murray Shames Fossil Fuel Industry For Being "Forward Thinkers" For Energy

Environmental Entrepreneurs Weigh In On Repealing The Clean Power Plan


Trump Administration's Enthusiasm For Coal Energy At Bonn (Germany) Is Met With Disappointment



Paris Climate Agreement Is A Start Toward The Renewable Energy Future



World Goes Left, While Trump Leads Right - On Climate - Why?



Trump Goes Right On Paris Agreement, Part Of U.S. And World Head Left



President Trump's Understanding of the Paris Agreement



What Is Going To Be Discussed At The G-20 Summit in Hamburg, Germany?

A Good Start: Republicans Accept Climate Change As Real



There Is No Climate Debate -- Scientific Facts Have Settled The Issue?



How Is Our Environment (Climate, etc.) Becoming Politicized?

Republicans Endorse Carbon Tax For Climate Change? Wow

Local Politicians Are Leaving President Trump Behind In Continuing To Meet Paris Climate Agreements

What Does Testifying Before Congress Look Like For Secretary of Energy Rick Perry?

Any Discussions of Climate Plans in the Second Democratic Debate in Detroit?

Source: Politico

A couple of days ago, Politico reported (in brief) on the small amount of discussion surrounding climate change and the environment at the first Democratic Debate in Detroit (Michigan).  Why should anyone care about what is discussed in Detroit (Michigan)? To a first approximation, each American should care about a potential presidential candidate's view on the environment.  Look no further than Houston (Texas) after Hurricane Harvey or Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria.  These regions are still experiencing difficulty in repairing the damage done from these storms.



With the increase in the frequency of storms, climate change should be on the back of each American mind.  Of course, yes, there are other more immediate concerns -- jobs, access to healthcare, and taxes to watch before climate change.  Although, the root cause of storms is linked to the changing climate.  Looking back at the second Democratic Debate, what was said regarding climate change plans -- reported by Politico:

DEMS DEBATE CLIMATE AMBITION: It arrived more than an hour and a half into the debate, but Democratic presidential candidates fought over how aggressive their plans to address climate change must be. "Climate change is not a single issue. It's every issue," Washington Gov. Jay Inslee said on the stage, directing his fire at former Vice President Joe Biden. "These deadlines are set by science," he told Biden. "Unfortunately, your plan is just too late."

Biden pushed back that his plan called for "immediate action" and, pressed by moderators, vowed coal and fracking would receive no subsidies in his administration after officials "work it out." But that prompted Inslee to shoot back: "We cannot work this out. Our house is on fire."

Sen. Cory Booker (N.J.) laid out a new benchmark for candidates. "Nobody should get applause for rejoining the Paris climate accord. That's kindergarten," he said. "The only way we're going to deal with this is if the U.S. leads."

Aside from the threat posed by climate change, the investment opportunity presents a real opportunity.  Recently, a report showed the investment group Blackwater has lost around $90 billion in investment opportunities.  Instead of investing in renewable energy, Blackwater has invested in large oil companies which have not paid off as dearly as they had hoped.  This can affect the job market along with other aspects of the economy.



As the frequency of storms increases over time, potential residents and investors have to change their perspective when looking to live (and invest) in a city.  If the city chooses to ignore the need to invest in flood infrastructure, the city could be potentially downgraded on the creditworthiness.  Meaning, when a storm hits, creditors ask: How does the city plan to repay the debt? Especially, before the next storm hits (and the next after)?  These are questions which are starting to emerge on investors minds.

Good Questions

Right before the last presidential election in 2016, I posted the questions from an organization called 'Science Debate.'  The mission is to elevate science in every aspect of society from policy making to voter awareness.  For the 2018 midterm elections, the following questions were posted on the website.  These questions are valid for today's candidates and should be entertained by each of us while watching any political debate:

2018 Q&A for House, Senate and Gubernatorial Candidates

Candidates: Please send responses to answers@sciencedebate.org in a word document with your name, state and seat you are running for in the subject line.

INNOVATION. Science and technology have been responsible for half the growth of the U.S. economy since World War II. What role, if any, should government play in stimulating innovative science and technology so we continue to benefit from them?

CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY. What are your views on climate change and how would they affect your energy policies if at all?

CYBER SECURITY. What will you do to protect America from cyber attacks while also protecting personal privacy?

MENTAL HEALTH. PTSD, traumatic brain injuries, depression, anxiety, drug addiction, and suicide affect millions of Americans with cost of care and lost productivity greater than $400 billion a year. What mental health policies will you support if you are elected?

EDUCATION. In an age dominated by complex science and technology, how can we ensure that students receive adequate STEM education?

WATER. The long-term security of water supplies is threatened by aging infrastructure, pollution, climate variability and a growing population. What should government do to ensure access to clean water?

FOOD. How would you manage American agriculture so it provides healthy and affordable food grown in a just and sustainable way?

SPACE. What should America’s goals be for space exploration and earth observation and what steps would you take to achieve them?

OCEANS. Large areas of our oceans are polluted, acidification is damaging coral reefs and other habitats, and overfishing could wipe out certain species and diminish this vital source of food. What will you do to improve ocean health?

SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY. Politicians are disputing settled science and firing government scientists for political reasons. How will you foster a culture that respects scientific evidence and protects scientists?

Share any science policy issues involving medicine, national security, environment, education, the economy or other pressing issues that impact your state/district that you would like to expand on

The questions above serve as good food for thought regarding a wide range of issues which are related to science.  Typically, science in politics is predominantly linked to hot topic issues like climate change, or the environment.  Although, the range is much wider than expected.  There are more issues linked to the elevation of science in society than previously thought.



The list of questions above could potentially change for the 2020 presidential candidates.  If that turns out to be the case, check back on this site for updated questions from Science Debate.  Until then, read over the questions above and think critically about which candidate offers the best solution to any, if all of the questions.  Science should play a larger role in policymaking.  Especially, since science directly or indirectly impacts every aspect of our lives on a daily basis.



Have a great weekend!



Related Blog Posts:


Listen to Democratic Candidates Answers Tonight Regarding Climate Science and Green New Deal


Science Topics, Thoughts, and Parameters Regarding Science, Politics, And The Environment!


Can The President Prevent The Public From Learning About Scientific Research???

What Promises Did President Trump Make Science Research During His Campaign?

READ THIS BEFORE VOTING -- Presidential Science (WORLD) Issues!

20 Questions Politicians Answer Regarding Science Issues

Did The Environment Come Up In the First Democratic Debate In Detroit?

Source: ABC News

The political fighting going on these days is discouraging.  President Trump is a disappointment (not that I voted for him), and Democratic candidates are widely represented.  Which is to say, there are a whole lot of them?  What are their views on Climate Change, along with other environmental issues plaguing our country today?  In an earlier post last month, I hyperlinked a few of the Democratic candidate's climate plans as offered in the news article cited.



Since I did not get a chance to watch the debate in Detroit, I will rely on Politico to summarize up the debate for me -- as shown below:

ABOUT LAST NIGHT: Democratic hopefuls once again only discussed their climate plans briefly last night, but the discussion managed to span issues including the Flint, Mich., drinking water crisis to a declaration by Sen. Bernie Sanders that the fossil fuel industry is criminal.

"We've got to ask ourselves a simple question: What do you do with an industry that willingly, for billions of dollars in short-term profits, is destroying this planet. I say that is criminal activity that cannot be allowed to continue," Sanders (I-Vt.) said.

The response came after more than an hour without a specific climate question. Former Maryland Rep. John Delaney was the first to get a chance to respond to a climate question, by calling for a direct air capture market and panning the Green New Deal as unrealistic. Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan, meanwhile, called for "a sustainable and regenerative agriculture system that sequesters carbon into the soil," and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren highlighted a "green industrial policy" plan that "takes advantage of the fact that we do what we do best, which is innovate and create."

Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar said "a voice from the Heartland" is required to make progress on infrastructure and climate change, and called for changing the capital gains rate to pay for rural broadband and green infrastructure. Author Marianne Williamson used her time to put the drinking water crisis in plain terms: "We need to say it like it is, it's bigger than Flint. It's all over this country. It's particularly people of color. It's particularly people who do not have the money to fight back."

READY FOR ROUND 2: The remaining 10 Democrats will debate tonight, and it's expected to be more combative. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee has signaled he'll go after his opponents for their lack of action on climate change. Inslee — who unveiled another climate plan Monday — wrote an op-ed this week on the need for Democrats to increase their focus on the issue, and tweeted last night that he was "mad as hell" climate was not brought up in the first hour. Not to mention, the super PAC supporting him unveiled new ads this week hitting several front-runners for not making climate change a high priority.

Eyes will also be on former Vice President Joe Biden after his previous debate clash with Sen. Kamala Harris, whom he'll face again tonight. This time the California Democrat will come armed with new environmental justice legislation she crafted with Green New Deal author Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).

Who's debating tonight: Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet; Biden; New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker; former HUD Secretary Julián Castro; New York Mayor Bill de Blasio; Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard; New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand ; Harris; Inslee and entrepreneur Andrew Yang.

Regardless of whoever occupies the Oval Office in 2020, the change that accompanies climate change will inevitably have to contain substantial infrastructure changes.  To change an entire nation (the U.S.A) will require an extensive funding measure. A measure which is incomprehensible and unimaginable in size. Which is why modifications made on the state level are better.



State-level management is enough to drive change.  Change that can happen on familiar territory.  A one size fits all plan will not work for the entire U.S.  There are too many diverse states (and local regions) for a one size fits all method to work.  If local and state politicians start realizing plans which will work in their districts, large scale change will be possible.  The one major component which needs to happen first is a change of political will.  Currently, there are 'pockets' of 'political will' throughout the United States, which are proof that change is on the horizon.



Nonetheless, funding decisions need to be made by politicians in Washington, D.C. -- which is why candidates position/platform on such funding is critical toward moving forward.  Funding which will pay for large-scale projects.  Projects looking into the future.  Projects which deal with cleaning up from the past -- a result of climate change disasters occurring more frequently.  The first step toward changing the nation is a discussion.  Enjoy the second debate.


Related Blog Posts:


Listen to Democratic Candidates Answers Tonight Regarding Climate Science and Green New Deal


Science Topics, Thoughts, and Parameters Regarding Science, Politics, And The Environment!

Per Fluoro Alkyl Substances (PFAS) Bills Travel Through Congress While Lobbyists Try To Narrow Restrictions

Source: Midwest Environmental Advocates

Perfluorinated Alkyl Substances (PFAS and PFOS) have received considerable attention in the news.  Last year, evidence emerged of a potential downplay of risks associated with the chemical class of compounds (read about it here and here).  The news flies against knowledge spanning decades of potential harms by various companies (such as 3M).  Legislation has been traveling through Congress to deal with the issue at hand.



Recent reporting by 'Politico Energy' outlines the problem with making legislation at the federal level with the class of chemicals:

PFAS ON THE MIND: Political pressure over toxic PFAS contamination in their districts back home is driving some lawmakers to press for an aggressive drinking water limit as part of a broader legislative package they hope will influence negotiations this fall over the annual defense bill, Pro's Annie Snider reports this morning.

The situation: The PFAS package included in the House's recently passed National Defense Authorization Act does not have any Safe Drinking Water Act provisions for jurisdictional reasons and instead focused on issues more directly related to the Defense Department, like ending the military's use of firefighting foam containing PFAS. Now, members of the Energy and Commerce Committee are seeking to strike a deal on broader legislation that could include drinking water limits, public reporting and other issues under their jurisdiction, Annie reports.

Back home: But whether the House can reach agreement on a bipartisan approach to the drinking water issue that goes beyond the Senate's own compromise defense bill remains an open question. And while that's playing out, some advocates are quietly worrying that a federal limit, done wrong, could end up causing more harm than good.

Some states — like Michigan, Vermont, New Hampshire and New Jersey — have their own ongoing efforts to set drinking water limits that are far lower than EPA's recommended limit. And in some states, laws are on the books that prevent or restrict their agencies from issuing regulations that are more stringent than the federal standards.

"Selfishly, I would say I wouldn't want the feds to move forward with a drinking water standard because I think we would get a much better outcome in Michigan from our process," said Charlotte Jameson with the Michigan Environmental Council, an advocacy group. "That said, I know there are a number of states across the country that have PFAS issues that are not looking to promulgate a state rule and I don't want to leave them in the lurch."

On what level is action appropriate to take regarding the issue with the rank of chemical compounds? Legislation has been traveling through Congress over the past six months. Read the testimonies below to get an idea of what has been said and reported about the hazardous class of chemicals,


Further, there is a short video showing statement from a former director of the American Chemical Council showing support for narrowing the restrictions on chemicals.  The council supports industry and their efforts to minimize the regulations which protect the American consumer.  Read the brief history below.  This will give the reader an idea as to the future of management of such dangerous chemicals.

Where Did We Come From?

The reporting by 'Politico Energy' describes the journey through Congress, which several PFAS bills are charting. Additionally, testimony from lobbyists (ACC) trying to narrow the broad class restrictions -- in favor of fewer restrictions are shown below:

PFAS TALKING: Six bills focused on contamination from toxic PFAS chemicals are up today before the Senate EPW Committee.

The panel is taking a different tack than lawmakers in the House. Senators are focusing on the chemical compounds that research has shown to be harmful to humans rather than tackling all of the roughly 5,000 members of the chemical class, Pro's Annie Snider and Anthony Adragna report. That includes, S. 1507 (116), on tap today from ranking member Tom Carper (Del.), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) that would require public reporting of emissions of a subset of PFAS under the Toxic Release Inventory.

The House-Senate divide on the issue echoes the overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act three years ago, when the Senate's compromise bill prevailed over the House's. That defeat still hangs over House Energy and Commerce Committee leaders as they take on PFAS. "I think they are coming into this like Rocky II: Somehow they’re going to come back and recapture their glory," said a chemicals industry lobbyist who speaks regularly with Democrats. Read more.

— Senators will hear from witnesses today spanning Kim White of the American Chemistry Council to Scott Faber of the Environmental Working Group, an organization in favor of aggressive PFAS regulation by handling the thousands of chemicals as a class. But ACC, which represents companies that manufacture, formulate or process PFAS, has supported EPA's PFAS Action Plan and efforts to regulate the two most well known PFAS — PFOA and PFOS — but has fiercely opposed efforts to regulate the whole class.

G. Tracy Mehan III of American Water Works Association will also testify. During last week's House hearing, AWWA was skeptical of overly broad regulation, particularly over concerns that utilities will be hit with the costs of treating water to remove PFAS.

Historically, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) has taken the position of narrowing any class of chemicals. The was exemplified in Former ACC Director Cody Sisco testimony back in 2011 -- shown in the video below:

Wow.



Next, below is the hearing which occurred back in May on the risks of PFAS and PFOS class of chemicals.

Whenever I get to watch the hearings in Congress, I like to read the testimony of the panel members.  Below are key documents from the Congressional Hearing which include initial testimony of witnesses present:



Erik D. Olson Testimony:

BRIEF SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY OF ERIK D. OLSON

PFAS unfortunately tend to share three problematic properties:

1. PFAS are highly persistent “forever chemicals” that don’t not break down easily and can accumulate in the bodies of people and food that we eat.

2. PFAS are highly mobile and spread quickly in the environment and are found in our drinking water, air, food, and homes.

3. PFAS are highly toxic and can be harmful at low doses (at low part per trillion levels).

Health Risks Posed by PFAS

As reviewed in a recent extensive NRDC scientific report, PFAS have been linked to a wide range of serious illnesses, some of which can occur at very low levels of exposure. For example, a massive study of 69,000 people exposed to PFAS in their drinking water near a factory in West Virginia found that there is a probable link between certain PFAS and cancer of the kidneys and testicles, thyroid disease, pregnancy-related hypertension, high cholesterol that can lead to heart disease, and the autoimmune disease ulcerative colitis. Other studies have confirmed many of these findings and shown that PFAS are also likely linked to lower fertility in women; harm to developing fetuses, infants and children; liver disease; and weakened immune systems. Unfortunately, evidence uncovered in litigation shows that the manufacturers of PFAS have known for decades that some of these chemicalspose serious health threats, but they hid the information from the public.

The Widening PFAS Crisis: A National Health Threat

PFAS, a class of about 4,700 chemicals, are found in the bodies of more than 98% of Americans—probably in every one of you, your families, and your constituents. A Harvard study found that just two members of this class of toxic chemicals, PFOA and PFOS, are present in the tap water of at least 16.5 million people in 33 states, including 6 million Americans at levels above EPA’s current weak and unenforceable “health advisories.” Evidence indicates that tens of millions of Americans may have tap water containing PFAS at levels CDC and independent scientists consider unacceptable.

Urgent Action is Needed to Address the PFAS Crisis

• “If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.” Will Rogers’ adage applies here. We must:

o Stop approving new PFAS and new uses of existing PFAS.

o Phaseout manufacture of existing PFAS and products using them, such as firefighting foams, food contact substances, clothing, cookware, etc.

• Document and Publicly Disclose the Extent of the Problem.

o Test drinking water, groundwater, and soil for PFAS and publicly disclose results.

o Require PFAS manufacturers or processers to publicly disclose all uses and releases.

o Require EPA to establish “Safer Choice” PFAS-free cookware and other products.

• Regulate and Require Cleanup of PFAS.

o List all PFAS as hazardous substances under Superfund/CERCLA §102

o Require PFAS polluters to pay for cleanup and water treatment

o List the PFAS class as hazardous air pollutants (Clean Air Act §112), as toxic pollutants/hazardous substances under the Clean Water Act (§§307 & 311), and strengthen sludge rules to protect against PFAS contamination.

o Strictly regulate PFAS disposal and suspend PFAS incineration.

o Fix the Safe Drinking Water Act standard setting provisions and set strict healthbased National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for the PFAS class.

o Fund water utility PFAS treatment through a fee on polluters and federal funds.

o Cleanup federal facilities, in compliance with strict state and federal standards.

As I mentioned, the full record is located here.



Jamie DeWitt, Ph.D., DABT Testimony:

United States House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change “Protecting Americans at Risk of PFAS Contamination & Exposure” 

Testimony of Jamie C. DeWitt, PhD, DABT

Associate Professor

Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology

Brody School of Medicine

East Carolina University

May 15, 2019

Brief Summary of PFAS

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are described as “forever chemicals” due to their persistence in the environment. They aren’t readily broken down by sunlight, microbes, or other processes. We, as a scientific community, have not yet uncovered an easy way by which these chemicals can be degraded, so forever chemical is an appropriate description of PFAS. In addition, this class of chemicals is highly mobile once released to the environment. PFAS have been found everywhere scientists have looked, from the Arctic circle to the Marianas Trench.

When exposure occurs, PFAS move from the environment into bodies of plants and animals, including people. Because PFAS are so long-lasting in our environment, scientists do not yet know all of the ways we are exposed to these chemicals. What we do know is that exposure begins in the womb, even before we are born. Exposures then continue throughout the course of a person’s lifetime. Many Americans are exposed daily from sources such as the water they drink, consumer products, and food packaging that contains PFAS. Given that they are forever chemicals, even if production is stopped today, human exposure will be ongoing into the distant future. PFAS also are slow to be excreted from human bodies and can take years to be eliminated. Therefore, concerns for human health are not going away.

Once in our bodies, PFAS interact with a wide range of molecules and biological systems to produce multiple types of adverse health effects. Studies of human populations exposed to PFAS have uncovered adverse health effects to include: kidney and testicular cancer, decreased antibody responses to vaccines, liver damage, changes in serum lipids and cholesterol, increased risk of thyroid disease, increased risk of asthma, increased risk of decreased fertility, decreases in birth weight, and increased risk of pregnancy-induced hypertension and preeclampsia. PFAS are truly “multi-system toxicants.” These forever chemicals possess tremendous risks to Public Health – they are Persistent in the environment and in human bodies; they Bioaccumulate from the environment into the bodies of living organisms, including humans; and they are Toxic and able to produce adverse health effects in humans and wildlife.

Testimony

Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member Shimkus, and Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change, good morning and thank you for inviting me to speak with you about health effects of exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, chemicals that are estimated to contaminate the drinking water of 19 million Americans1. My name is Dr. Jamie DeWitt and I am an Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology at the Brody School of Medicine of East Carolina University in Greenville, North Carolina. I have been conducting research on health effects of PFAS since 2005 with a focus on the immune system.

PFAS are a class of nearly 5,000 closely related chemicals that all contain a carbon-fluorine bond. This bond makes them highly stable, heat resistant, and versatile in manufacturing processes and consumer goods. This bond also makes PFAS extremely long-lived in our environment and our bodies because they do not readily degrade. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention2 assesses the US population’s exposure to environmental chemicals in a cross-section of the US population. They have reported that 98% of Americans have one or more PFAS in their blood3. Currently, my state of North Carolina part of the PFAS crisis. To better understand PFAS contamination and health risks, I am part of the “PFAS Testing Network, 4” which is a collaborative partnership of seven different North Carolina-based universities using both federal grants and a substantial state investment to manage and focus our PFAS research efforts. The North Carolina Policy Collaboratory, 5 which was created in 2016 by the North Carolina General Assembly to better utilize academic expertise across institutions of higher learning within our State and assist policymakers with complex issues that rely on scientific input and expertise, oversees the Network. We can be a model for other states.

Regarding the health effects of PFAS, our scientific understanding is still somewhat limited. Of the 5,000 PFAS, only two have been well-studied and a handful of others have limited data.

That said, in the last couple of years there has been a concerted effort among researchers to expand our understanding of PFAS. A comprehensive evaluation of the toxicological data for 14 different PFAS compiled by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry6 reported that people exposed to PFAS experience prevalence of a wide variety of health effects. These associations include decreased antibody responses to vaccines, liver damage, changes in serum lipids and cholesterol, increased risk of thyroid disease, increased risk of asthma, increased risk of decreased fertility, decreases in birth weight, and increased risk of pregnancy-induced hypertension and preeclampsia. Some populations have also seen increases in kidney and testicular cancer associated with PFAS exposure. These adverse health effects indicate that developing organisms, the immune system, the endocrine system, and lipid metabolism are all sensitive to PFAS exposure and that PFAS also have carcinogenic abilities. These adverse health effects also have been observed in experimental animals fed individual PFAS. Data from experimental animals is an important component of human health effects research as is research into the molecular mechanisms by which PFAS produce adverse health effects. It is this combination of data from studies of exposed human populations, experimental animals, and molecular mechanisms that has broadened our understanding of how PFAS exposure leads to adverse health effects in humans7. Finally, it’s important to note that as these health effects are being seen at levels lower than the US EPA Health Advisory Level of 70 parts per trillion set in 20168, we now know that this level is not health protective for all Americans.

Prevention, including vaccines, is a first line of defense against diseases. We need vaccines to be as effective as possible. Exposure to PFOA and PFOS, two well-studied PFAS, reduces the  immune system’s ability to produce antibodies, making our vaccines less effective. PFASassociated immune system effects observed in epidemiological studies of children and adults - and in experimental animal studies of individual PFAS - have supported a causal relationship. In 2016, the National Toxicology Program evaluated studies on immune effects of PFOA and PFOS and concluded that they are presumed to be immune hazards in humans9. This conclusion was based on evidence that PFOA and PFOS can suppress the ability of the immune system to make antibodies in experimental animals and evidence that they can do the same in humans8. The Program also highlighted evidence that PFOA and PFOS can affect multiple immune outcomes, including allergic responses, resistance to infectious disease, and autoimmune disease11.

The US EPA has not set a legally binding regulatory limit for any chemical in two decades; it is time for Congress to act. Of the 5,000 known PFAS, the vast majority have NO associated research data or standards for human biomonitoring. It is not feasible from a time or resource perspective to “TEST” our way out of this crisis. Employing a “CLASS” approach for ALL PFAS will be protective for vulnerable populations and the general public. It is not too late. Following the voluntary removal of PFOA and PFOS, levels of these PFAS have decreased in the environment and in our bodies. Since that time, replacement PFAS have increased in production. We need to learn more about these replacement compounds and ask ourselves, “Are these essential for the public good?”10 Thank you all for understanding the need for legislation that will diminish the number and amounts of PFAS contaminating our environment and our bodies.

Emily Marpe Testimony:

Testimony of Emily Marpe

Before the Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on “Protecting Americans at Risk of PFAS Contamination and Exposure”

May 15, 2019

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Emily Marpe, and until recently, I was a resident of an upstate New York home my family once called “Cloud Nine.”

On February 11, 2016, I received a letter from the Rensselaer County Health Department. The letter offered free water sampling and reassurance that PFOA had been detected in our water but that the levels were not likely to be above EPA guidelines.

Residents were being given bottled water – but only during the town clerk’s office hours, and only if you had tickets, which was a major inconvenience for a working mom with two kids. For the first time in my life, I had to ration my water.

On March 2, my tap water was tested. On March 12, my daughter, Gwen, and I returned home from recycling our bottles and found a message on the answering machine from Rich Elder, from the Rensselaer County Health Department. I called Rich, and he told me: “You guys better stop brushing your teeth” with tap water.

The test results for the water in my home in Petersburgh showed PFOA levels of 2,100 parts per trillion.

I immediately dropped to me knees and started to dry-heave while still on the phone. Rich tried to comfort me by saying it was like a drop of water in an Olympic-sized pool, that I would be the first on the list to get a filter.

That was the day I was forced to become an expert on PFOA – something no mom should ever have to do.

Before moving into Cloud Nine, we lived in a two-bedroom, one-bath trailer. At times, there were seven of us in the trailer.

In 2010, with help from my mom, I began the long and daunting process of buying my dream home – a spacious three-bedroom ranch on 2.38 acres in Petersburgh, with no neighbors.  

Although it was my dream house, many repairs were needed, and my family and I spent a month working around the clock to make the necessary upgrades. Every step of the process, I’d joke, was a different cloud, until the seller handed me the keys and I said, “I am on Cloud Nine.”

Our family tradition is to name our properties, and my stepfather surprised me with a sign in the shape of a cloud and the words “Cloud Nine.”

That day in October 2011 when my two children walked to the end of the driveway to finally pull out the “For Sale” sign was probably the proudest moment of my life. I wasn’t even 30 and I had my own home.

Little did I know then that our closest neighbor – Taconic Plastic – would change everything we had worked so hard for.

After the call from Rich, I learned everything I could about PFOA. The more I read, the more upset, anxious and angry I became. With the help of Michael Hickey, who detected PFAS in the water after his dad died from kidney cancer, I learned about the impacts of PFOA on other communities, including Parkersburg. The more I read, the more I realized that town officials were trying to play down the water contamination crisis. After I raised concerns, one town supervisor accused me of threatening hundreds of jobs. Nevertheless, I resolved to be at every town meeting and to take my case to state officials in Albany. It was not a role I ever wanted, but no one else was willing to step up to the plate.

Around the same time, my daughter, Gwen, was diagnosed with a lump in her breast, which sent me into a tailspin, given everything I had learned about the links between PFOA, cancer and other health effects. None of the people charged with protecting families like ours were listening – not even the medical community. By March 21, I was so beside myself with fear that I was rushed to the emergency room with a panic attack. I was so afraid of our water that our family didn’t shower without the window open.

The next day, Taconic Plastic offered to install a water filtration system into my home. But when the contractor came, he refused to share any documentation. It was only after I threatened to call the local news station that two Taconic Plastic employees relented.

On March 31, my family had their blood tested for PFOA. Many of my neighbors were being denied blood testing and water filters unless the PFOA in their well water was above 70 ppt.

On June 6, we finally got the blood test results in the mail. I stopped my car in the driveway and opened each envelope.

Keep in mind that the national average for PFOA in blood is about 2 parts per billion, or ppb.

I opened my son’s first, because he spent weekends with his father, and I figured his results

would be the lowest. I was right, but the number still shocked me: 103 ppb

Next I opened my daughter Gwen’s results: 207 ppb.

Then I open the results for me and my boyfriend: 322 ppb and 418 ppb, respectively. I was completely floored. We had only been living in Cloud Nine for four and a half years!

Less than two weeks later, I learned that the water in our local elementary school was also contaminated with PFOA.

I knew I had to sell my dream house, even though we would ultimately lose all the equity we had built. For a while, we split up among friends and were basically homeless. Ultimately, we bought a home in Hoosick Falls. The mortgage is more expensive, my daughter has been forced to change schools, I have a longer drive to work – and we still have to buy bottled water.

In December 2017, I found out I was pregnant. I was concerned from the start about birth defects and, as an expert on PFOA, I knew that I would not be able to breastfeed my baby.

Most women at 20 weeks are excited to to find out the sex of their baby; I was just relieved that Eliana’s eyes were in the right place and she had two nostrils.

Not surprisingly, she weighed just over six pounds, the smallest of my three children. I say “not surprisingly” because low birth-weight is a common health effect of PFAS chemicals like PFOA.

When my baby Eliana was just seven weeks old, we had her blood tested. To get it done, I had to hold her down while she screamed. The result: 75.9 ppb, even though it had been more than two years since I had stopped drinking contaminated water.

As I said, no mom should ever have to go through I’ve been through.

Congress needs to treat this contamination crisis like a crisis. It needs to end PFAS pollution and clean up PFAS contamination. At a minimum, Congress needs to force companies like Taconic Plastic to report their PFAS releases and force our water utilities to tell us if our drinking water is polluted with PFAS chemicals.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

Brian Steglitz Testimony:  Click on Brian Steglitz's name to the left, which is hyperlinked to access his testimony.



Tracy Mehan III Testimony:

Protecting Americans at Risk of PFAS Contamination & Exposure

Presented by

G. Tracy Mehan, III

Executive Director, Government Affairs

American Water Works Association

Before the House Subcommittee on the Environment and Climate Change

May 15, 2019

Good morning, Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member Shimkus, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Tracy Mehan, and I am Executive Director for Government Affairs for the American Water Works Association, or AWWA, on whose behalf I am speaking today. I appreciate this opportunity to offer AWWA’s perspectives on the many issues surrounding perand polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS.

AWWA’s 50,000 members represent the full spectrum of water utilities – small and large, rural and urban, municipal and investor-owned. We are an international, non-profit, scientific and educational society dedicated to protecting public health through the provision of safe drinking water. While AWWA is primarily a drinking water association, about 60 percent of our utility members are dual utilities, that is they have a division of drinking water and a division of wastewater and possibly stormwater as well. I speak not only from the perspective of AWWA, but as a former state and federal regulator and an adjunct professor of environmental law.

AWWA would like to bring to the subcommittee’s attention several issues regarding PFAS. We understand the committee’s concerns that PFAS compounds may pose both human health and ecological risks that warrant greater attention and management. The number of bills introduced regarding PFAS and the variety of issues they address illustrate the breadth of concern over these compounds.

PFAS compounds are a group of more than 3,000 man-made chemicals manufactured in the United States and other countries since the 1940s. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports that more than 1,200 PFAS compounds have been used in commerce, and that about 600 are still in use today. They may be found in food packaging, non-stick products, stainand water-repellent products, fire-fighting foams, polishes, cleaning agents and other commercial products. The most well-known and common of these compounds are perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perflurorooctane sulfontate (PFOS). Related compounds are also causing concern: perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA), perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS), perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA), perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) and fluoropolymers made through the process known as GenX. Much of our current data is focused on legacy PFAS compounds that are no longer manufactured, such as PFAS and PFOA.

Currently 11 states have policies in place regarding PFAS compounds and drinking water, with four more developing policies. Also, 10 states have source water protection policies for PFAS, and at least one more state is developing such policies. One state, New Jersey, has its own maximum contaminant level, and several have MCLs in development. 

Use of Existing Authorities to Address PFAS

Drinking water utilities and state environmental agencies need to know where to focus monitoring resources to understand what risks may be in source waters. We need to know where PFAS compounds have been produced and in what volumes. There are existing tools that EPA could be using to a greater degree to help address such concerns regarding PFAS. In particular, there is the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). TSCA has data-gathering authority that the agency could use to garner more information from the manufacturing sector about the number of PFAS compounds that have been developed, in what quantities they were produced and where they were produced. TSCA data indicates that manufacturers have already discontinued the use of a number of PFAS compounds, but state and local risk managers need more information than is currently available to manage legacy compounds and proactively manage PFAS that are currently in use. Deploying TSCA authorities in the service of safe drinking water is “source water protection” at the strategic level.

Utilizing its oversight authority over the work of federal agencies, we urge Congress to ensure that EPA takes advantage of existing authorities under TSCA and the Safe Drinking Water Act to manage risks posed by PFAS compounds. Using such authorities, the agency needs to: 

 -- provide a report in one year and update it every two years describing the location of current and past PFAS production, import, processing and use in the United States for individual PFAS compounds based on data collected through TSCA;

 -- appropriate actions taken or planned under TSCA to restrict production, use and import of PFAS and support improved risk communications with the public;

 -- actions taken by other federal agencies, and in particular the department.

 -- summarizes statutory and non-statutory barriers encountered in gathering and distributing information on PFAS in order to inform risk management decisions by EPA, states and local risk managers.

We understand the sentiment for designating some PFAS compounds as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). However, we must flag some unintended consequences of such actions.

Wastewater utilities receive and treat water from a range of sources from homeowners to industries. That water may contain PFAS compounds. Even though they are not the source of these compounds, wastewater or stormwater utilities could end up liable for cleaning up these substances. If biosolids from wastewater treatment plants have been applied to land as fertilizer, such liability increases. Removing PFAS from wastewater requires advanced technologies, such as granular activated carbon, ion exchange or reverse osmosis. Then, as with advance drinking water treatment techniques, there is the issue of how to dispose of the concentrated PFAS mix.

The Clean Water Act (CWA) comes into play as well. Information gleaned via TSCA to target assessments of PFAS in the environment will assist development of industrial pre-treatment actions under that act. CWA authority will also come into play in the development of analytical methods for PFAS in industrial wastewaters and in development of appropriate and reliable treatment methods.

PFAS Action Plan

EPA released its PFAS Action Plan earlier this year. While we saw some positive steps promised in that plan, we believe authorities exist for federal entities to do even more. Agency officials have provided briefings on that plan, so I will not repeat it in detail. EPA officials promised progress under the Safe Drinking Water Act’s (SDWA’s) process for developing drinking water standards, beginning with making proposed regulatory determinations for PFOA and PFOS this year. We urge Congress to support EPA’s Office of Water, particularly in appropriations, as it works through the rule determination process. It was monitoring under the SDWA’s unregulated monitoring requirements that set the stage for the current PFAS policy debate. EPA will require a second round of monitoring for additional PFAS in the upcoming fifth round of the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule. In late April, EPA proposed interim clean-up guidelines for PFOA and PFOS under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA also has a process under way to determine if PFOA and PFOS can be listed as hazardous substances under CERCLA. Equally important, EPA committed itself to improving risk communication for PFAS compounds. Members of the public and policymakers such as yourselves are understandably concerned about the unknown risks associated with a group of contaminants that is both manmade and is seemingly an avoidable risk. Effective risk communication is significant to addressing these concerns.

With regard to the federal drinking water standard setting process, we understand that this process can be frustratingly slow. However, a scientific, risk-based and data-driven process that discerns what substances are to be regulated, and at what levels, is indeed going to take a significant amount of time. We caution against setting a precedent of by-passing these established processes via legislative action. The nation tested that approach with the 1986 Amendments to the SDWA with untoward results. That said, we are eager to follow the data on PFAS compounds wherever it may go in the investigative process so that we may know how to best protect public health. We will prepare our members to comply with any new regulations.

Removing PFAS compounds from water typically requires treatment techniques such as filtration through granular activated carbon or ion exchange. While these advanced technologies can be effective, they are also expensive, and generate waste streams that require specialized disposal methods that are not readily available across the country.

AWWA members are looking for a cohesive risk management strategy that addresses legacy compounds and ensures that current and future PFAS compounds are not a threat to the country’s water supplies. We are concerned that states are considering MCLs for PFAS compounds over a range of values that will have markedly different treatment implications, sometimes without adequate benefit-cost analysis. This makes intelligible, accurate, defensible risk communication impossible. Drinking water standards are part of a holistic risk management strategy. In our 2012 study, Buried No Longer, AWWA determined that the United States needs to spend about $1 trillion over 25 years to maintain and expand our current level of water service. Therefore, over time, regulatory actions needs to be prudently implemented to avoid aggravating affordability issues for customers, particularly those with low incomes. Water systems across the United States are striving to provide the best water quality possible at a reasonable cost to their customers. Investing in a treatment requirement based on inadequate information can leave fewer resources to address other known risks, such as failing infrastructure. 

Research

Research is key in addressing PFAS. The lack of health effects data on substances such as PFAS compounds has long held back regulatory determinations under the SDWA. Before a substance can be regulated, the SDWA requires that it “is known to occur or there is a substantial likelihood that the contaminant will occur in public water systems with a frequency and at levels of public health concern; and in the sole judgment of the Administrator, regulation of such contaminant presents a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by public water systems.” Research is expensive and has been inadequately funded at EPA.

Further research is needed in these areas:

• Health effects data to identify which PFAS compounds pose a human health risk;

• Analytical methods to quantify levels of PFAS compounds in environmental samples (natural waters, wastewaters, soil, finished water);

• Technologies to economically destroy PFAS compounds in wastes from drinking water and wastewater treatment so that these long-lived chemicals are not re-introduced into groundwater or surface waters; and

• Technologies to cost-effectively remove problematic PFAS compounds from drinking water and wastewaters to levels that do not pose public health concerns.

We urge Congress to ensure that EPA and other relevant agencies or research bodies have the tools and resources they need to answer the needs listed above.

AWWA and water systems across the United States are committed to providing high-quality drinking water and protecting consumers from demonstrable risks. To assure that PFAS risks are effectively and efficiently reduced, these compounds must be properly addressed within the scientific framework of the SDWA. Water systems also need Congress to ensure that EPA has the funding to properly execute its work under all of the available statutes to protect our nation’s water resources.

Finally, I want to note that AWWA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recognized last week as “Drinking Water Week.” The theme this year was, “Protect the Source.”

I hope that the discussions at this hearing and the discussions this hearing generates will help us all do more to protect our sources of drinking water from substances posing a threat to human and environmental health. 

G. Tracy Mehan, III

G. Tracy Mehan, III, became AWWA’s Executive Director for Government Affairs in August 2015. Before that, he was a principal with The Cadmus Group, Inc., an environmental consulting firm. Mehan served as Assistant Administrator for Water at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from 2001 to 2003, directing both the Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act programs. He developed new policies and guidances on watershed-based permitting and water quality trading. He also promoted and expanded ambient water quality monitoring and innovative approaches to meeting the challenge of the infrastructure financing gap. Mehan served as director of the Michigan Office of the Great Lakes (1993-2001) and as Associate Deputy Administrator of EPA in 1992. He served as director of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources from 1989 to 1992, managing the state’s environmental, parks, historic preservation, geology and other programs. He represented Missouri in all negotiations over the management of the Missouri River. Mehan is a graduate of Saint Louis University and its School of Law. Mehan is an adjunct professor in environmental law at George Mason University School of Law.

What is the American Water Works Association?

The American Water Works Association (AWWA) is an international, nonprofit, scientific and educational society dedicated to providing total water solutions to protect public health and assure the effective management of water. Founded in 1881, the association is the largest organization of water professionals in the world.

Our membership includes more than 3,900 utilities that supply roughly 80 percent of the nation's drinking water and treat almost half of the nation’s wastewater. Our 50,000 members represent the full spectrum of the water community: public water and wastewater systems, environmental advocates, scientists, academicians, and others who hold a genuine interest in water, our most important resource. AWWA unites the diverse water community to advance public health, safety, the economy, and the environment.

Jane C. Luxton Testimony:

Testimony of Jane C. Luxton

Protecting Americans at Risk of PFAS Contamination & Exposure

Before the House Subcommittee on the Environment and Climate Change

May 15, 2019

I. Introduction

Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member Shimkus, Chairman Pallone, and Ranking Member Walden, thank you for inviting me to testify today on legislation that has been introduced to address PFAS contamination. My name is Jane Luxton. I am a partner in the Washington, DC, office of the law firm, Lewis Brisbois, and co-chair of the firm’s Environmental and Administrative Law Practice.

I have practiced in the fields of environmental and administrative law for more than thirty years, in both the public and private sectors. My government service includes appointments as a trial attorney and senior trial attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice and as General Counsel of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, where I was responsible for implementing and enforcing numerous environmental and natural resource laws. My work as a private practitioner has covered a broad spectrum of federal environmental statutes. For my service at NOAA and the Department of Justice, I received the highest awards of the Commerce Department (Gold Medal Award, twice) and the Justice Department (Attorney General’s Award). My curriculum vitae lists other professional recognition I have received during my career. I am a graduate of Harvard University, with honors, and Cornell Law School.

I am testifying today on my own behalf, as an environmental and administrative law practitioner who has a strong interest in science policy issues, which has led me to follow developments relating to PFAS compounds. My colleagues and I at Lewis Brisbois have written numerous articles on PFAS science regulatory issues, which are noted in my CV. I am not representing any client on PFAS issues or legislation before the Committee.

Today I would like to speak to the broader issue of the challenges surrounding the regulation of PFAS chemicals and then I will address a few of the specific bills the Committee is considering.

II. Introduction to PFAS

Per- and poly-fluorinated substances, commonly known as “PFAS,” are a large family of chemicals consisting of 3,000 to 5,000 individual chemical compounds, of which perfluorooctanoic acid (“PFOA”) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (“PFOS”) are two of the most widely-known. PFAS have historically been used for a variety of purposes, including in the manufacture of goods such as textiles, paper, packaging materials, cleaning solutions, firefighting foam, and products using water or grease resistant coatings such as pots and pans. 

III. While there has been a significant amount of initial research done on PFAS, much of this research remains incomplete and more needs to be done to adequately understand the potential health effects of PFAS chemicals PFAS compounds have been manufactured since the 1940s and, because of their properties, have been widely used in product manufacturing and subsequently dispersed in the environment.

These chemicals are persistent in the environment, as they do not readily degrade. Some research has raised concerns over health effects caused by PFAS exposure. Scientific studies of PFAS compounds have primarily concentrated on PFOA and PFOS, but much less is known about the thousands of other PFAS chemicals. PFAS compounds vary in terms of specific chemical structure, chain length, and composition, and these differences appear to matter significantly in terms of fate and degradation in the environment, as well as toxicity, uptake, and retention in humans, plants, and animals. Dr. Linda Birnbaum, Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program, testified before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Federal Spending Oversight and Emergency Management last fall that “we do not have strong data on which to base conclusions for the great majority of thousands of PFAS and we have only limited findings that support [particular] adverse health effects.”1

 A great deal of academic and governmental research is currently underway to determine the extent of causal links between exposure to PFOA, PFOS, and the many other PFAS compounds and specific health effects in humans. There appears to be a consensus that more research is needed.

IV. State Responses to PFAS Contamination

Several states have implemented comprehensive sampling programs testing for PFAS contamination in drinking and groundwater. As sampling programs continue to yield positive results for PFOA- or PFOS-contaminated drinking or groundwater, states and communities have begun to take regulation of these chemicals into their own hands. Examples of state approaches include:

- Several states trigger remedial action based on the sum of the concentration of PFOA and PFOS exceeding a 70 part per trillion (“ppt") concentration limit (i.e., the current EPA drinking water advisory).

- Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Vermont are setting limits for the sum of five different PFAS, not just PFOA and PFOS.

- New Jersey and New York use a lower concentration ceiling than EPA and other states (a 10 ppt limit for PFOA and PFOS). New Jersey has issued a statewide Directive seeking information, remediation, and reimbursement of past costs and payment of future costs from PFAS manufacturers.

- Vermont triggers action based on the sum of five PFAS exceeding 20 ppt.

V. Federal Response to PFAS Contamination

As states and communities continue to implement their own regulations, risks increase that the result will be a patchwork of differing requirements around the country.

One way to avoid this outcome is to adopt workable, scientifically-based federal regulations to manage these chemicals. The federal government has several statutory mechanisms it can use to regulate PFAS chemicals, but it must proceed carefully to ensure new regulations are effective in addressing the problem.

A. When the government regulates, it must rely on up-to-date, credible scientific research and legally sound procedures to avoid negative, unintended consequences. As stated above, as many as 5,000 individual chemical compounds make up the PFAS family.

Of these, the three best known are PFOA, PFOS, and GenX. These are the compounds that are most commonly found in drinking water and on which most research has been done. However, even the research on these three chemicals remains largely incomplete.

Imposing blanket regulations on thousands of PFAS chemicals – as some of the proposed legislation seeks to do – when scientists agree we have at best limited information on most, risks losing focus on the highest priority concerns. As the Centers for Disease Control stated in its most recent report, “[f]inding a measurable amount of [PFAS] in blood does not imply that the levels . . . cause an adverse health effect,” and “small amounts [of PFAS] may be of no health consequence.”2

 An across-the-board approach would impose extraordinary burden and cost on federal agencies, states, and local governments, requiring funds that today’s federal and state regulatory agencies simply do not have, while diluting resources that should be on targeted on the highest risk chemicals.

Even chemicals of demonstrably significant concern, such as dioxin, PCBS, and PAHs, have been found, on examination, to differ significantly in terms of potency among individual congeners. In a similar vein, one of the most promising approaches for addressing the large number of PFAS compounds appears to be grouping them into categories with similar properties, as a workable way to assess relative toxicity. The alternative of attempting to impose a one-sizefits-all approach to regulating PFAS chemicals poses a very real risk of doing more harm than good. 

In addition, bills that direct agencies to issue specific federal regulations can present other challenges. For example, in promulgating regulations, agencies must adhere to the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). The APA requires agencies to follow a series of steps, providing for transparency in decisionmaking, a defensible administrative record, analyses of the benefits and costs of the regulatory action and the feasibility of alternatives, and due process in the form of a public notice and comment period, if a regulation is to withstand review by the courts. As recently as the 2016 amendments of the Toxic Substances Control Act, Congress reinforced the need to adhere to these kinds of requirements in order to ensure the adoption of scientifically and legally sound rules.

B. Existing statutes provide authority to regulate PFAS chemicals

EPA’s February 2019 PFAS Action Plan3 includes directed action under both the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or CERCLA, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. CERCLA provides the authority for EPA’s Superfund program and allows EPA to use federal funds to clean up contaminated sites. EPA has initiated the regulatory process to designate PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA hazardous substances, and formal listing would give EPA additional power to require responsible parties to undertake and/or pay for remediation. But expanding this approach to all PFAS compounds, as H.R. 535, the PFAS Action Act of 2019, seeks to do, could lead to wholesale reopening of remediated sites, potentially overwhelming the program and undermining progress on the highest-risk targets.

The Safe Drinking Water Act is another mechanism that EPA may use to regulate PFAS chemicals. EPA has authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act to set standards for drinking water quality and implement federal programs to ensure drinking water safety. Specifically, EPA may set a Maximum Contaminant Level (“MCL”) that is the threshold limit on the amount of any one substance permitted to be found in public drinking water. The MCL process takes time and, understandably, many concerned communities are impatient to see action, but EPA’s Action Plan anticipates releasing a proposed MCL for PFOA and PFOS this year. It makes sense to see EPA’s recommendation and decide at that point if further legislation is needed.

VI. Additional Comments on Other Bills

H.R. 2577 would amend the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act of 1986 to require reporting on releases of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances through the Toxics Release Inventory. The PFAS of greatest concern are no longer being manufactured, and so releases of these compounds from manufacturing are extremely unlikely. Requiring reporting on thousands of other compounds, the toxicity of which is not established, is of uncertain value.

This proposed legislation would greatly expand reporting requirements in a way that is significantly more burdensome for U.S. businesses, including U.S. small businesses that often have limited resources to comply with complex and costly regulations.

VII. Conclusion

While the bills being debated are motivated by good intentions, the reality is that much more research needs to be done on PFAS chemicals in order to generate and act on accurate and reliable information. It is difficult to deregulate once regulations are put in place, even when those regulations may prove to be based on inadequate science. Perhaps the most effective focus for Congressional support at this point is providing additional funding for research and regulatory efforts that target priority concerns. 

That is a large amount of information to digest on one pass (one read).  Although, the report also provides context for the issue at hand.  How does Congress proceed from here?  What are the alternative chemical options?  These are essential questions which remain open.  I will continue to update as I see the issue appear in the news.  The chemical class is an important class which provides essential functions for everyday consumer products.  The time has come to deal with the toxicity issue and environmental clean up caused by the class of chemicals.



Related Blog Posts:


FDA Stance On PFAS: Study Findings and Survey Results

More Congressional Hearings on PFAS, when can Americans expect Action Taken by Regulators?


Update: EPA Throws Journalists Out Of PFAS Conference - Why?


Update: Congress asks Federal Agencies about Dangerous Chemicals -- PFOA and PFOS


Congress Asks Defense Department and Environmental Protection Agency about Dangerous Chemicals